Wednesday 2 September 2009

Intimacy

Intimacy


02
Sep
2009

Dear couple, as you know, Adam and Chava were alone in the Garden of Eden, therefore please learn from them and make sure that every day or, at least, every few days take time to be just the two of you. In this way, you will have the Garden of Eden. You can simply talk, not for any purpose but because it is nice to be together. Even if you are older and have 10 children, 100 grandchildren and 1000 great-grandchildren – nonetheless! At least, on Shabbat. Please don't accept invitations every Shabbat and do not invite guests every Shabbat. At least talk before going to bed. What a wonderful delight!
Do you remember the Third Decree? It appears that you do not. At the beginning of the Kibbutz movement, there was incredible self-sacrifice. There were not enough places to sleep. There was some room in the chicken coop and barn. But this also was not enough, so they divided each tent in half with the help of a cloth. But this also was not enough, so each couple took in a single man or woman. What self-sacrifice! What damage to a couple's intimacy. "You expel the women of My Nation from their pleasant houses" (Michah 2:9) - "This is one who sleeps in a room where a couple dwells" (Eruvin 63b). I assume that you do not have a guest in your bedroom, so take advantage of the opportunity and exchange a few loving words before going to sleep
Originally posted by Torat HaRav Aviner

Sick

Sick

In the previous post I quoted a comment left by one anamolousNYC at Modoweiss. So then I went to look at who this guy is. He doesn't have a blog, he's got a Fliker set of photos, but he argues with some of his commenters.

I'm not going to argue with him, that would be totally purposeless. The man (if he's a man: how are you supposed to know with these annonymous folks?) is stark raving mad. He's got a set of beliefs, and there isn't even the tiniest crack through which reality might penetrate. Where I to argue with him, the only thing I'd ask him would be what theoritical set of facts could change his mind. As long as there is such a set of facts, it's still possible that we're having a discussion about empiric findings. If there are no such facts, then we're in the realm of mystics. This fellow is deep in the sick end of the mystic cesspool.

And yet: when you read him it becomes obvious he's intelligent, rather well read, and he writes cogently. I'll bet if you ran into him on the street (in NYC, I suppose) he'd look as normal as the next fellow. Hatred-filled souls needn't look crazy or frothing at the mouth. They don't even have to be victims of great injustice, real or percieved. Some of them are regular people, who lead regular lives, and melt into the regular background until you notice their particular deformity. It's not some objective curcumstance that makes them what they are. It's a decision of theirs to be that.
taken from Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations

Uri Avnery and the Boycott

Uri Avnery and the Boycott

Victor asks my opinion about this article, in which Uri Avnery talks with Desmond Tutu about boycotts and what they can achieve.

Avnery starts by asking Tutu how effective the boycott was in bringing down the Apartheid regime, and Tutu tells that it was crucial. Which would be fine if we were still in 1993, asking for journalistic impressions. But we're not. By now, given the passage of time, the question needs to be answered not by asking a protagonist but by looking for hard evidence. I don't know the rules of South African archives, but if one could look at the deliberations of the decision makers of the time, for example, that would be helpful. Tutu wasn't one of them.

Mostly, however, Avnery explains that Israeli isn't South Africa, and a boycott won't work; he eventually says, in so many words, that it oughtn't be tried:

Neve Gordon and his partners in this effort have despaired of the Israelis. They have reached the conclusion that there is no chance of changing Israeli public opinion. According to them, no salvation will come from within. One must ignore the Israeli public and concentrate on mobilizing the world against the State of Israel. (Some of them believe anyhow that the State of Israel should be dismantled and replaced by a bi-national state.)I do not share either view - neither the despair of the Israeli people, to which I belong, nor the hope that the world will stand up and compel Israel to change its ways against its will. For this to happen, the boycott must gather worldwide momentum, the US must join it, the Israeli economy must collapse and the morale of the Israeli public must break.How long will this take? Twenty Years? Fifty years? Forever?


This is an essential part of the Avnery story: for all his (long) life-long contrarianism and insistence that the Palestinians will fall in our arms if only we'd be nice to them, still he remains an Israeli. He remembers escaping Nazi Germany as a child, and fighting for the newborn country as a young man. (Did you know he's the author of the anthem of the Samson's Jackals anthem, which is still played from time to time? Shuala-a-av shel Shimshon.... One of our first commando units, for those who don't recognize the name). I don't know if he can still be called a Zionist in any meaningful use of the term, but he's in no way an antisemite. He wishes the best for Israel, at least according to his rather unusual lights.

Don't belittle this. As any visit to the Guardian will demonstrate, many of Israel's critics blur the line, cross it regularly, or even hate Israel because it's Jewish, irrespective of its actions. Here, see how Mondoweiss responded to Avnery's article. Of course they were disappointed, but some of them consoled themselves with the thought that maybe it was inevitable:

I’m always perplexed by this attitude people have about Avnery. He’s a venerable
force, truly an inspiration. But he’s still a zionist, and zionism is racism. So
OF COURSE he doesn’t support sanctions. Of course he doesn’t support the idea
that Israel should abide by international law. Of course he believes that jews
are special, that Israel is special, that Israel should be permitted to act
outside the law in whatever way it likes, provided that it declares to be in the
racial interests of Jews. Of course he rejects the right of return. His entire
life of incredibly courageous political advocacy was dedicated not to human
rights, but to Jewish rights, and to zionism. He’s a racist in the way that
every advocate of zionism is a de facto racist, and he speaks to and for
racists, which is why people like Richard Witty declare “Avnery makes sense.”
I’m not saying that in a shallow, flaming way. We have to be able to make these
distinctions which allow us to see the whole spectrum of Jewish racism, which
includes the Israeli “left” and much of what passes for the “extreme left”, and
not just the hideous mess on the far right, which is so patently, horrifically
racist that it boggles the mind. Jewish exceptionalism is the problem. I am a
great fan of Avnery and think of him as something of a hero, but the fact
remains that Avnery, and Avnery’s zionism, are part of the problem. Zionism is
not going to produce the solutions and answers to Zionism – they are just going
to perpetuate zionism by iterating a superifically prettier version of this ugly
ideology: Something like “ethnic cleansing Lite.” (Comment 14, posted by
anamalous NYC, whoever that may be).



Interesting, isn't it. The vestiges of patriotism Avnery still has are what make me grudgingly accept that he's part of our discussion. The same vestiges are what make this fellow condemn him, in spite of admiring many of the things he's said over the years. I'd be fascinated to know which of us Avnery himself prefers. Yaacov the Zionist who disagrees with much of his positions, or Anamolous and his hatred. We already know the answer when posed to the Mondoweiss gang. They prefer the antisemites.
taken from Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations

Love of the Land: Krauthammer's Take

Krauthammer's Take


On a prospective re-opening of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations by the end of September:

NRO: The Corner
National Review Online
1 September 09

The whole delay in the peace process is a self-inflicted wound of the Obama administration. Let's remember that for over a year, the previous prime minister of Israel, Ehud Olmert, had been negotiating with the head of the Palestinians and made an astonishingly generous offer in December of '08, which the Palestinians refused, as they always refuse.

So Obama comes in and instead of picking up and trying to get the Palestinians to moderate, what does he do? He attacks Netanyahu. He tries to make an issue of settlements, which had been in consensus — the U.S. and Israelis had agreed: no new settlements, no new expansion of territory in [existing] settlements and dismantling of illegal settlements.

And the Palestinians had accepted that, had never refused negotiations [under these conditions]... But then Obama adds a condition of no thickening of settlements, i.e., you don't construct a kindergarten if children are born, which the Israelis have rejected.

And all of a sudden the Palestinians and Arabs have said: No negotiations until Israel jumps through this higher hoop.

So the Arabs and Palestinians have said: We are not going to move. We're going to let Obama extract unilateral concessions out of the Israelis, and that is why the process has stopped.


Love of the Land: Krauthammer's Take

Love of the Land: Gilad Shalit

Gilad Shalit


Gilad Shalit : Dry Bones cartoon.


Today's cartoon was done in anger and born out of frustration.

Israel's handling of the kidnapping and the "negotiations" has been, and continues to be a disaster. Here in Israel we are bombarded with constant "coverage" of the kidnapped soldier story. Constant debate about how many convicted terrorists we'll have to release. Israel's government seems unable to deal with the situation with any strength or intelligence. The truth is that there is simply no proof that Gilad is still alive. And no reason to believe that, after handing over the terrorists, we will receive anything other than a corpse ...as we have in the past.

Meanwhile the captivity of Jonathan Pollard continues, shockingly, to be ignored by our "leadership".


Love of the Land: Gilad Shalit

Israel Matzav: A Leftist comes out against boycotting Israel

A Leftist comes out against boycotting Israel

Uri Avnery (pictured with a friend) is about as hard Left as they come in this country. In this opinion piece written for the 'Palestinian' Ma'an website, Avnery discusses and rejects Neve Gordon's call for a boycott of Israel.

The South African struggle was between a large majority and a small minority. Among a general population of almost 50 million, the whites amounted to less than 10 percent. That means that more than 90 percent of the country's inhabitants supported the boycott, in spite of the argument that it hurt them, too.

In Israel, the situation is the very opposite. The Jews amount to more than 80 percent of Israel's citizens, and constitute a majority of some 60 percent throughout the country between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River. 99.9 percent of the Jews oppose a boycott on Israel.

Read All at :

Israel Matzav: A Leftist comes out against boycotting Israel

Israel Matzav: Abu Mazen's new friend

Abu Mazen's new friend

Maybe this is why Abu Mazen loves the General so much.

Israel Matzav: Abu Mazen's new friend

Israel Matzav: 'A great religion and its commitment to justice and progress'

'A great religion and its commitment to justice and progress'

At a White House dinner to break the Ramadan fast, President Obama paid tribute on Tuesday night to "a great religion and its commitment to justice and progress." That would have been bad enough without the presence there of Israel's ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren, and representatives of terror organizations.

At the very end of the Guest list for Obama's White House Ramadan dinner (LA Times, September 1, with thanks to Trazar) comes up again the name "Dr. Ingrid Mattson, president, Islamic Society of North America."

Federal prosecutors last summer rejected claims that ISNA was unfairly named an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation Hamas terror funding case.

Read All at :

Israel Matzav: 'A great religion and its commitment to justice and progress'

Israel Matzav: US to use Israeli shell with GPS guidance in Afghanistan

US to use Israeli shell with GPS guidance in Afghanistan

Yet another reason to let Iran blow Israel off the face of the earth and yet another thing to add to that Boycott Israel video. The United States military in Afghanistan is going to be using a new Israeli mortar shell that includes a GPS guidance system.

In the last few weeks, a new mortar shell was successfully tested by the Raytheon Company. The mortar shell is part of the Guided Accuracy system, which is produced by the Israel Military Industries (IMI). The system is directed by GPS and has new abilities considered very accurate. The modern technology allows soldiers to navigate the course of the mortar shell to the target through a GPS system, up to a distance of ten meters from the launching point.

Read All at :

Israel Matzav: US to use Israeli shell with GPS guidance in Afghanistan

Israel Matzav: What was in the IAEA report on Iran

What was in the IAEA report on Iran

At Contentions, Emanuele Ottolenghi does some reading between the lines of what may be Mohamed ElBaradei's last report on Iran as head of the IAEA.

ElBaradei’s swan song is thus typical — diffuse, noncommittal, and befogging to the end. It praises Iran for token gestures and delicately refuses to compromise its evenhandedness by taking on the mullahs’ more serious stonewalling or countering their claims that evidence about their nuclear program is fabricated. Nevertheless, four important points emerge:

Read All at :

Israel Matzav: What was in the IAEA report on Iran

Israel Matzav: The undiplomatic Carl Bildt

The undiplomatic Carl Bildt

On Monday, I reported that Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini was working on a face-saving measure by which the European Union would condemn the Aftonbladet blood libel and Sweden would go along with that condemnation. On Tuesday, Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt threw cold water on the entire idea.

However, in a further twist to this diplomatic crisis that swings from the bad to the farcical, Bildt – in Kabul for talks with international representatives and Afghan officials – has flatly denied that he and Frattini even discussed Sweden’s standoff with Israel, according to the Swedish news agency TT.

Read All at :

Israel Matzav: The undiplomatic Carl Bildt

Israel Matzav: Krauthammer on the prospects of opening 'peace talks' with the 'Palestinians' by the end of September

Krauthammer on the prospects of opening 'peace talks' with the 'Palestinians' by the end of September

From the inimitable Charles Krauthammer:

The whole delay in the peace process is a self-inflicted wound of the Obama administration. Let's remember that for over a year, the previous prime minister of Israel, Ehud Olmert, had been negotiating with the head of the Palestinians and made an astonishingly generous offer in December of '08, which the Palestinians refused, as they always refuse.

Read All at :

Israel Matzav: Krauthammer on the prospects of opening 'peace talks' with the 'Palestinians' by the end of September

Israel Matzav: ElBaradei leaps into action: Calls Iran threat 'hyped'

ElBaradei leaps into action: Calls Iran threat 'hyped'

If Barack Obama lasts long enough in the White House, Mohamed ElBaradei may be a candidate for a medal of freedom. He wouldn't be a much worse choice than Mary Robinson or Desmond Tutu, and he has the same callous disregard for the United States and its true allies. Tonight, ElBaradei called the threat of Iran developing nuclear weapons 'hyped.'
Read All at :

Israel Matzav: ElBaradei leaps into action: Calls Iran threat 'hyped'

Israel Matzav: White House claims Obama postponed trip to Israel because of Obamacare

White House claims Obama postponed trip to Israel because of Obamacare

Sources in the White House have told YNet that President Obama has postponed a trip to Israel that Leftist American Jews and a few Israelis have urged him to take, because of the battle to socialize American medicine.

According to the officials, Obama planned on visiting Israel in the coming months due to the drop in Israeli public support for the American leader. The officials said the president is considering giving an interview to an Israeli television station ahead of or during the next UN General Assembly session in September.

Read All at :

Israel Matzav: White House claims Obama postponed trip to Israel because of Obamacare

Israel Matzav: Yawn: Egypt kills another African trying to escape to Israel

Yawn: Egypt kills another African trying to escape to Israel

What might be the biggest proof of the beacon of hope that Israel provides for people for thousands of miles around this country is the number of Africans who are killed by Egyptian border guards for trying to escape into Israel. Are the Egyptians embarrassed by the fact that Israel - a country with whom they are nominally at peace - is so attractive to so many people in Africa? While Israel does not allow all those who seek to steal across our borders to stay here, we certainly do not treat them the way the Egyptians do.

But the world is silent. It's not Jews who are killing these Africans, so no one cares.
Read All at :

Israel Matzav: Yawn: Egypt kills another African trying to escape to Israel

Israel Matzav: Dore Gold on Iran

Dore Gold on Iran

At a dinner with journalists on Monday, former Israeli ambassador to the UN Dore Gold (rumored to have been a college classmate of mine), who has just written a book on a nuclear Iran, talks about dealing with a nuclear Iran:

Engagement with Iran is not working," he said. "What's Plan B for the West?" He warns that relying on deterrent power, as if this were the Cold War, "is a disaster for the world." He does not believe that an Iranian nuclear attack on Israel is imminent: "The most likely scenario is that Iran provides a nuclear umbrella to global Islamic terrorism. Can NATO retaliate against a nuclear Iran the way it did against the Taliban in Afghanistan?" He criticized American liberals for not taking the threat of Iran seriously, and said that conservatives aren't taking it seriously enough either. "You can watch Fox News all day and never see a discussion of Iran," he said. As for the mood of Israeli's today: "We're feeling very much alone."

For now, an Iranian nuclear attack on Israel may not be imminent. But Hamas and Hezbullah with a nuclear umbrella is not exactly a picnic either. I don't believe Israel can let things get to that stage and continue to live a normal life. I believe that our government will go after Iran before that happens.

Will the United States support us? From a planning perspective, it doesn't matter. Israel has to do whatever is necessary to protect itself.

Read All at :

Israel Matzav: Dore Gold on Iran

Israel Matzav: Bolton: Too late for sanctions

Bolton: Too late for sanctions

I feel vindicated when a guy who is as savvy as John Bolton writes essentially the same things I have been writing all along. Bolton writes in the Wall Street Journal that the time for sanctions was six years ago. Now, it's too late.

First, the U.N. Security Council is no more likely now to approve strict sanctions against Iran than in the past. The prospects for Russian and Chinese support are between slim and none, since endorsing sanctions would harm their own economic and political interests in Iran. The most to expect from the council is a fourth sanctions resolution, as weak and ineffective as its predecessors, and only after weeks or months of agonizing negotiations.

Read All at :

Israel Matzav: Bolton: Too late for sanctions

Israel Matzav: Right on schedule: Ahmadinejad wants to talk

Right on schedule: Ahmadinejad wants to talk

Right on schedule, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's 'nuclear negotiator' says that his country would like to buy some more time talk to President Obumbler.

Iran has prepared a new proposal and is ready to resume talks on its nuclear program, Israel Radio reported Tuesday afternoon.

The Islamic Republic's chief nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili, was quoted by local television as saying the country is ready to resume negotiations over its contested program.

Tougher UN sanctions against Iran are high on the agenda of a meeting of world powers on Wednesday.

Iran is under pressure to halt nuclear enrichment, with the threat of sanctions, but until now it has repeatedly rejected the request.

Iran says the new package will be directed at the five permanent members of the UN Security Council - the UK, China, France, Russia and the United States - plus Germany, according to reports.

The six nations are meeting near Frankfurt amid mounting international pressure for further measures against Iran.

Ahmadinejad will also be heading to the United Nations where he will address that body's General Assembly on September 23 or 24.

When he spoke at the UN last year, Ahmadinejad railed against 'Zionist murderers' and vowed to resist 'American bullying' and to defend Iran's 'right' to nuclear power. I guess this year he won't have to speak about 'American bullying.'

Anyone want to bet on how long it takes before Obama calls this 'progress'?

What could go wrong?


Israel Matzav: Right on schedule: Ahmadinejad wants to talk

Israel Matzav: Obama blackmails Israel

Obama blackmails Israel

Last Wednesday, I reported that Prime Minister Netanyahu was on the verge of making a deal with President Obama: In exchange for Israel adopting a 'settlement freeze,' the United States would take a 'tougher line' on Iran. It was a deal that I criticized for many reasons.

Writing at YNet, Michael Fenenbock calls the deal 'political blackmail' and 'Chicago-style hardball.' Michael argues that if the American people knew what the President is doing, they would strongly oppose it. He cites the results of a May 2009 Rasmussen poll:
Read All at :
Israel Matzav: Obama blackmails Israel

Israel Matzav: 'Arctic Sea' was carrying missiles to Iran?

'Arctic Sea' was carrying missiles to Iran?

Remember the Arctic Sea, the Russian ship that was 'hijacked' last month with a rather interesting cargo of 'timber'? At the time, there was a lot of speculation that the ship had been 'hijacked' by Israeli intelligence and not by pirates. Now, there is more evidence that the ship was stopped by Israeli intelligence and that the Israelis are now trying to allow the Russians to save face (Hat Tip: Eliyahu P).

The highest-ranking official to put forward this version of events is the European Union's rapporteur on piracy and a former commander of the Estonian armed forces, Admiral Tarmo Kouts. In an interview with TIME, he says only a shipment of missiles could account for Russia's bizarre behavior throughout the monthlong saga. "There is the idea that there were missiles aboard, and one can't explain this situation in any other way," he says. "As a sailor with years of experience, I can tell you that the official versions are not realistic."

Kouts says an Israeli interception of the cargo is the most likely explanation. But this theory, which some Russian analysts put forward in the days after the Arctic Sea was rescued and which Kouts agreed with in his interview with TIME, has been vehemently denied by Russia's envoy to NATO, Dmitri Rogozin, who says Kouts should stop "running his mouth."

...

But as details of the hijacking emerged, the tale got murkier, and Moscow's explanation does little to clear things up. Why, with so many other ships carrying much more valuable cargo, would the hijackers target the Arctic Sea and its small load of timber? Why didn't the ship send out a distress signal? Why did Israeli President Shimon Peres pay a surprise visit to Russia a day after the ship was rescued? Why did Russia wait so long to send its navy to find the ship? And what did the brother of one of the alleged hijackers, Dmitri Bartenev, mean when he told Estonian TV on Aug. 24 that his brother and the other suspected pirates had been "set up ... They went to find work and ended up in a political conflict. Now they are hostage to some kind of political game"? Bartenev's lawyer tells TIME that his client was "in the wrong place at the wrong time."

There are also questions surrounding the Arctic Sea's rescue. On orders from the Kremlin, Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov sent a completely disproportionate force, including destroyers and submarines, to look for the vessel. It took five days for them to find it, the Defense Ministry said, even though the Foreign Ministry later announced that it was fully aware of the Arctic Sea's coordinates the entire time. To fly the alleged pirates and the crew back to Moscow - a group of only 19 men - Russia dispatched two enormous military-cargo planes. And then on their arrival, the ship's crew was detained along with the alleged hijackers for days of questioning, with no access to their families or the media.

"Even from the basic facts, without assumptions, it is clear that this was not just piracy," says Mikhail Voitenko, editor of the Russian maritime journal Sovfrakht, which has been tracking unusual incidents on the high seas for decades. "I've never seen anything like this. These are some of the most heavily policed waters in the world. You cannot just hide a ship there for weeks without government involvement."

Read All at :

Israel Matzav: 'Arctic Sea' was carrying missiles to Iran?

Israel Matzav: No difference between Hamas and Fatah on the Holocaust

No difference between Hamas and Fatah on the Holocaust

Lefty blogger Matthew Yglesias notes that Hamas is embracing Holocaust denial. According to Yglesias, 'Israeli officials' are using Hamas' Holocaust denial as a pretext for why western governments shouldn’t reconsider their attitudes to dealings with Hamas.

But if Israel were really using Holocaust denial as a 'pretext' for not talking to Hamas, it wouldn't be talking to Fatah either. 'Moderate' 'Palestinian' President Mahmoud Abbas Abu Mazen is a Holocaust denier. He even earned his doctorate at the Institute for Oriental Studies in Moscow in 1982 by writing a thesis that denied the Holocaust.

The institute was headed by Yevgeny Primakov, a Jew, an Arabist, an avowed friend of Saddam Hussein and other Arab rulers, and eventually the prime minister of Russia. Of all these qualities, Abu Mazen emphasized mainly Primakov's Jewish origin.

The heading of his doctoral thesis was: "Zionist leadership and the Nazis." The introduction dealt, among other topics, with a loaded issue: How many Jews perished in the Holocaust. In the Soviet period, especially in the anti-Israel institute that Abu Mazen attended, they often dealt with such questions. The Soviet Union, more than any other country, was addicted to Holocaust denial. The victims were not recognized by their origin, but rather by their nationality. And this is what the diligent researcher Mahmoud Abbas wrote:

Read All at :

Israel Matzav: No difference between Hamas and Fatah on the Holocaust

Israel Matzav: Hamas desperate to have embargo lifted

Hamas desperate to have embargo lifted

DEBKA is claiming that all the back and forth between the Egyptians and Hamas has nothing to do with Gilad Shalit (which fits in nicely with Prime Minister Netanyahu's denial of the weekend report that a deal for Shalit is in the works). According to DEBKA, Hamas is trying to get the Egyptians to open their side of the border (yes, they have one, although you would never know it from the way Israel is being blamed for all the 'starving' Gazans) to allow more supplies into Gaza.

Hamas leader Mahmoud a-Zahar and its military chief Muhammad al-Jabari were ready to reciprocate by guaranteeing the stoppage of arms smuggling through Egyptian Sinai.

Read All at :

Israel Matzav: Hamas desperate to have embargo lifted

Israel Matzav: The Israelis aren't bluffing: War preparations continue

The Israelis aren't bluffing: War preparations continue

A Wall Street Journal editorial points out on Monday, for those who still need to be reminded, that a nuclear Iran is an existential issue for Israel. This country will not let Iran go nuclear without trying to stop it militarily. Ironically, the unwillingness of the United Nations and the Western powers to take serious action against Iran is making it more likely that Israel will attack. Iran recognizes this, and therefore it is seeking to ban all attacks against nuclear facilities. Meanwhile, the Obumbler fiddles.
Read All at :
Israel Matzav: The Israelis aren't bluffing: War preparations continue

Love of the Land: A Day in the Life of the Middle East

A Day in the Life of the Middle East


Barry Rubin
The Rubin Report
1 September 09

I’ve never been so discouraged, a courageous Arab intellectual writes to me. Understandably so. There are three fronts really in the battle of the Middle East, and none of them are going so well.

What are these three fronts? First and most important are the actions of the countries, leaders, and forces in the region themselves.

Second, is the understanding of these actions and developments as conveyed to the minds of participants and observers both in the region and internationally. Here, the role of the media, academia, and other conveyer belts of information are critical in shaping policymaker and public opinion.

Third, there is the response of governments outside the region, which means primarily in the West.

If we take one day in the region, we can see the interaction of these factors. Briefly, dangerous and outrageous developments happen in the region; they are misinterpreted—important things ignored, marginal ones obsessed about; enemies made to seem moderate and threats defused only in theory. Western responses are also misconceived and inadequate.

Eventually the pressure builds up to the point of crises. But what’s worse, an outbreak of crisis or a slow erosion of interests and a deepening of tyranny? Clearly, from the Western government standpoint, the latter is preferable. With no violent major crisis in play it is easy to do little or nothing, to avoid risks, to portray policies as successful.

In this framework, the region’s countries and societies have three main states of existence when it comes to degree of freedom and quality of life for the people: to advance (which only happens in rare places), to stand still (which is a prevalent condition), or actually to move backward.

I will leave it to you to categorize different places in this regard. Right now, I think Iran, Lebanon, the Gaza Strip, and Turkey are moving backward. Generally, I’ll leave the categorization to you.

Ironically, the one country that is clearly moving forward is Israel. It is stable within and relatively secure (whatever prospects for the future may seem worrisome). The economy is doing well despite the international slump, and feelings of well-being are remarkably high. This is a point that should always be kept in mind. And yes this does relate to having a democratic system and a largely free enterprise but regulated economy.

But enough background, let’s go to the headlines:
Read All at :

Love of the Land: A Day in the Life of the Middle East

Originally posted by The Rubin Report (http://rubinreports.blogspot.com)

Love of the Land: Naqba Is As Naqba Does

Naqba Is As Naqba Does


Posted by Rachel Abrams
The Weekly Standard
1 September 09

Israel’s education minister, Gideon Sa’ar, yesterday announced that when third-graders file into their classrooms for the first day of school tomorrow and open their Arabic-language textbooks, they will no longer find “al-naqba” in their pages. The phrase, which roughly translates as “devastation on a par with the Holocaust,” and is invoked by Arabs throughout the Middle East to describe the establishment in 1948 of the “Zionist entity,” was inexplicably approved for use in the textbooks a couple of years ago (another Israeli government, another education minister) but has now been un-approved. “The creation of the State of Israel cannot be taught about as a catastrophe inside the country's schools,” said a ministry spokeswoman.

Israeli Arabs are “dismayed and outraged.” Atef Moaddi, head of the Follow-up Committee on Arab Education in Israel, told the Jerusalem Post: “For Israeli Arabs, who consider themselves a part of the Palestinian people, the Nakba is not up for debate, it is a historical fact.” Added Sawsan Zaher, of the Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel,

Prohibiting Arab students from studying about the Nakba is illegal and violates international law, which obliges states to enable national minorities to learn and study about their own history, culture and tradition.

Of course, no one -- not even the “naqba”-averse Netanyahu government -- is advocating excising the story of what happened at the founding of the State of Israel, which was disastrous indeed for the Arabs expelled from their homes and forced into exile in the aftermath of a war launched by their leaders against the Jews. On the contrary, “What Israeli Arabs experienced during the [1948 War of Independence] was certainly a tragedy,” Sa’ar said. “But the word ‘Nakba,’ whose meaning is similar to ‘Holocaust’ in this context, will no longer be used.”

Read All at :


Love of the Land: Naqba Is As Naqba Does

Love of the Land: The Wrath of Ken Roth: Human Rights Watch, Goldstone and Israel

The Wrath of Ken Roth: Human Rights Watch, Goldstone and Israel


by Gerald M. Steinberg
Executive Director, NGO Monitor
1 September 09

At a conference in Europe, Sa’ad Eddin Ibrahim, the respected Egyptian human rights activist, stopped abruptly in the middle of his presentation to embrace Prof. Irwin Cotler, who had just arrived. Prof. Cotler had been active in the fight to secure Ibrahim’s freedom from jail on trumped-up charges -- one of many such battles that the former Canadian Justice Minister has led, including in behalf of Natan Sharansky, Nelson Mandela, and Ethiopian Jews.

For this and many other reasons, readers should add more than the usual grain of salt in reading Kenneth Roth’s diatribe (Jerusalem Post, August 26). As head of Human Rights Watch (HRW) since 1993, Roth’s accomplishments do not come close to Prof. Cotler’s. Instead, Roth has led the politicization and erosion of universal human rights as a moral force.

The main focus of Roth’s attack is to defend the legitimacy of Judge Richard Goldstone, the head of the United Nations “fact finding mission” whose report on the Gaza war is expected to be released soon. But in his tirade, Roth forgot to disclose his relationship with Goldstone - a long-time member of HRW’s board. And in many ways, the attempts to malign and disparage Goldstone’s critics are also part of efforts by Roth to defend himself and HRW.

Indeed, as Goldstone is discredited, Roth has good reason to worry. The appointment of Goldstone was another step in the strategy adopted by the 2001 Durban NGO Forum, with the goal of isolating Israelthrough the language of human rights. NGO Monitor’s detailed research shows that HRW has promoted this strategy by issuing at least 68 calls for “independent investigations” of Israel -- including Jenin (2002), Rafah (2004), the Gaza Beach incident, and the Lebanon war (2006). Roth lamely sought to avoid the evidence of targeting Israel, rather than doing more on human rights in Iran, Africa, or Libya: “we’ve got to pick and choose—we’ve got finite resources.”

The Gaza war gave Roth the opportunity to expand these efforts, and HRW worked closely with the UN Human Rights Council, dominated by Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Cuba, Russia, China, and Egypt, in creating the “independent inquiry” headed by one of its own - Judge Goldstone. Since then, HRW has provided the investigators and the accompanying media campaign with three more tendentious “reports” accusing Israeli forces of “war crimes” during the war. (To claim “balance”, HRW also published a belated report on Hamas, omitting Iran’s role in supplying weapons and training. This follows HRW’s standard pattern, as seen during the suicide bombing campaign, and the 2006 Lebanon war.)

Read All at :

Love of the Land: The Wrath of Ken Roth: Human Rights Watch, Goldstone and Israel

Love of the Land: A Very Tough Last Question

A Very Tough Last Question


Rick Richman
Contentions/Commentary
31 September 09


The State Department, which has yet to post the promised answer to the question of whether the Obama administration considers itself bound by the letter given to Israel in exchange for the Gaza disengagement, faced another puzzler today. Here is the colloquy with spokesman Ian Kelly:

Read All at :

Love of the Land: A Very Tough Last Question

Boycott With A Twist

Boycott With A Twist

Filmmaker Ken Loach and some others have an article at CiF justifying their boycott of Israel. It doesn't look like a very compelling case to me, and I'm mostly linking for future use.

And also because of the cute coincidence that on the same day they published their screed, Haaretz tells of an Israeli research team which seems to have found an innovative new way to discover lung cancer cheaply and effortlessly at an earlier stage than heretofore possible. (Actually, the news item comes from Reuters, not Haaretz, which means The Guardian also had access to it. Heh). The discovery may yet save thousands of lives, and also reduce some costs of the healthcare system. Not the kind of claim one might make about, say, an artistic film.

So far, so banal. If you don't like Israel, you'll never let the facts confuse you. The funny part about the item is the name of the head of the Israeli research team. One Hossam Haik. I don't know the man, but it doesn't sound like a typical name from the shtetl to me. Hossam: now doesn't that have the ring of an.... Arab name?

Life can be so confusing. What's a poor filmmaker to do?
taken from Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations

DoubleTapper: IDF Weapon X-Hawk

IDF Weapon X-Hawk

تنسيق-الكليات-لعام سكس نيك كس

A Blogger friend of mine attended a special presentation and demonstration of the IDF Medical Corps.

He is on a Community Counter Terror Team (IDF Reserve) and a volunteer paramedic with Magen David Adom and United Hatzala so he is well suited for this presentation.

They previewed an unmanned medical evacuation (medivac) transporter for wounded soldiers.


This transporter is already past the planning stages, and is being developed by an Israeli-based company in Yavneh, "Urban Aeronautics." Dubbed, the "X-Hawk", this unmanned, next generation emergency transport vehicle will be able to arrive at a battle scene to evacuate wounded soldiers -- while being remotely piloted from a safer zone, away from the battlefield.

Foxnews reported on the X-hawk a year and a half ago, and the IDF insists that the prototypes are not far away (as close enough as 2010)
Like a similarly sized helicopter, X-Hawk will be able to take off vertically, fly up to 155 miles an hour and as high as 12,000 feet and remain aloft about two hours, Urban Aeronautics says.

But encased fans will replace the exposed rotors that keep helicopters from maneuvering effectively in urban areas or dense natural terrain because they have to stay clear of walls, power lines and mountain ridges. And a patented system of vanes is designed to afford the vehicle greater stability.

Urban Aeronautics says vehicles will be able to sidle right up to a building. (Fox)


What wasn't mentioned in the presentation are the non medical configurations that the X-Hawk is being developed for. The X-Hawk can seat 10 with full combat gear, can be manned or unmanned, and can carry 2500 lbs of gear or weaponry.


Read All at :

DoubleTapper: IDF Weapon X-Hawk

RubinReports: Obama's "Certain Defeat"? The No-Violence Administration Fights the Afghan War

Obama's "Certain Defeat"? The No-Violence Administration Fights the Afghan War

By Barry Rubin

If Iraq became Bush’s war, the Obama Administration is making Afghanistan its war. Except for the size and visibility of the conflict—which are huge factors—Bush got the better of the deal.

Iraq has been easier than Afghanistan in two very significant ways: it is more strategically important and it has been conceivably winnable. The mission in Iraq was to buy enough time so that a viable government could come to power, stabilize the situation at least to a minimum, and then defend itself. The U.S. presence could be reduced. This has happened.

In contrast, Afghanistan is unwinnable. There will never be a viable government that can exist without major foreign military presence (or, at least, it wouldn’t be a government governing anything), and the strategic value of the real estate is pretty low. On the military level, the terrain is extremely difficult and, if anything, the local population is less supportive of a U.S. presence.

Now the administration and the military are discussing whether to send more troops to roll back the Taliban’s recent advances, which belied the U.S. generals’ optimism from earlier in this year. The.number of U.S. soldiers is set to rise from 63,000 to 68,000 by the end of 2009, when there will be a total of 110,000 NATO troops in Afghanistan. As units withdraw from Iraq, some may be sent to Afghanistan.

Public support for the mission is falling and members of Congress from the president’s Democratic party are pushing for a timetable to pull out.

Tony Cordesman of Georgetown CSIS, who is about the most serious military analyst you’re ever going to meet and is usually a pretty cautious guy, wrote in the Washington Post that if Obama doesn’t send more troops he “will be as much a failed wartime president as George W. Bush," condemning the United States to "certain defeat."

Those are pretty tough words. How can the Obama administration, which seems so pacifistically inclined, gird its loins for a war that may be objectively tougher than Iraq or Vietnam? And what will happen if it doesn’t?

Perhaps the defeat can be kept relatively invisible. The Taliban and warlords might control the countryside and regional towns but in Kabul the central government would still function. With a supportive media and an extremely remote country possibly everything could be made to seem ok. Casualties would continue to be low compared to Iraq.

Meanwhile, though, the Obama Administration faces all the classic traps which entangled predecessors. There was apparently significant fraud in the recent elections so the United States is supporting a regime which has dictatorial aspects. Civilians are regularly killed unintentionally in military operations so U.S. forces can be accused of brutality and war crimes, even if this is done unfairly and for propagandistic purposes.

The president has a clear political-strategic plan for dealing with the war but like most of his other foreign policy plans it makes no sense in terms of the actual issue, as soothing as it might sound to American listeners.
Read All at :
RubinReports: Obama's "Certain Defeat"? The No-Violence Administration Fights the Afghan War

RubinReports: Blood for Oil: Yes, Britain Did Release a Mass-Murdering Terrorist in Exchange for an Oil Deal

Blood for Oil: Yes, Britain Did Release a Mass-Murdering Terrorist in Exchange for an Oil Deal

By Barry Rubin

On the face of it, growing evidence that the British government released a terrorist who murdered 270 people in exchange for an oil deal is shockingly loathsome.

But that’s not the worst of it.

Here’s the worst of it: Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi was not a free-lance terrorist but a Libyan intelligence officer. And the bombing of the Lockerbie plane was a large-scale operation, ordered and organized by the Libyan government and, first and foremost, its madcap dictator Muammar Qadhafi.

So Britain didn’t just release a murderer in exchange for a good oil deal, it released a murderer who had shielded his Mafia kingpin—Qadhafi—so that London could make a deal with the chief terrorist himself, who is soon to arrive at the UN as an honored speaker. Moreover, Megrahi, far from deserving any compassion, had refused to cooperate with the investigation all along. He “took the rap” but then helped make it impossible to catch and punish those most responsible.

Or to put it another way, Britain released a foot soldier who was a cog in the terrorist implementation team in order to make a deal with the man directly responsible for ordering the murders of 270 passengers and many other acts of terrorism, too.

True, it can be pointed out that lots of countries deal with Libya and that Qadhafi's decision to abandon his secret nuclear weapons' program was an element in ending the sanctions against Libya. But part of the price for Libya's escape from isolation was the turning over of Megrahi. So the message is consistent with other Western actions: In the end, we will give you what you want without your having to give up anything (or much).

(My scenario: Tell Megrahi he will never get out and will die in prison unless he spills the beans on the involvement of Qadhafi and other Libyan leaders in the attack. Even then, though, he probably wouldn't say anything. Why, ideological loyalty? No, probably the fact that his family back in Libya would face a pretty grim fate if he told the truth.)
Read All at :
RubinReports: Blood for Oil: Yes, Britain Did Release a Mass-Murdering Terrorist in Exchange for an Oil Deal

RubinReports: The Palestinian Movement, Iran, Hizballah, and arms smuggling

The Palestinian Movement, Iran, Hizballah, and arms smuggling

By Barry Rubin

It is because the Middle East’s history—even most recent history—is continually ignored does Western policy tend to go in a cycle, the same mistakes are repeated, and disasters occur predictably.

Consider, for example, the Palestinian Authority's Iran connection and lust for war rather than peace.

Fuad Shubaki, one of Arafat’s closest aides, has been sentenced to 20 years in prison by an Israeli military court for weapons’ smuggling. This is not a new issue and the details are what’s interesting. Shubaki, whose office was practically next to that of the PLO, Fatah and Palestinian Authority (PA) leader, financed the shipment of arms on the Karine-A cargo ship—including 50 tons of Katyusha rockets, ammunition, and explosives--which Israeli forces seized in 2002. Shubaki testified he was only carryout out (Arafat’s) orders.

Lessons of the Shubaki case:

--Arafat had forged close relations with the Islamist regime in Iran which was to supply the weapons, showing the cooperation between the Palestinian movement and the Iranians.

--The middle man in the deal was Hizballah special operations’ chief Imad Mugniyah, since assassinated. So Hizballah was brokering Iran-PA relations and the PA was working closely with a terrorist responsible for attacks on Americans and the deaths of U.S. soldiers.
Read All at :
RubinReports: The Palestinian Movement, Iran, Hizballah, and arms smuggling