Thursday 1 October 2009

Love of the Land: Look to Gaza for Cheaper Lulavim

Look to Gaza for Cheaper Lulavim


Matthew Wagner
JPost
30 September 09

(Don't bet on Gilad getting a set of Arba Minim)

Religion is often blamed as an obstacle to peace between Muslims and Jews. However, the demand for lulavim (palm fronds) ahead of Succot may now foster trade with the Gaza Strip.

Gazans will be permitted to export lulavim to Israel after Religious Services Minister Ya'acov Margi received special permission to do so from Defense Minister Ehud Barak.

Margi was approached by importers of lulavim to intervene after suppliers in Egypt, Israel's main source, tripled their prices.

Israeli importers told The Jerusalem Post that Egyptian suppliers in El-Arish and other locations who provide the bulk of lulavim formed a price cartel this year and demanded $1.50 per lulav, about three times the price demanded in previous years.

"If you add shipping and packing costs, customs and value-added tax, the wholesale price of a lulav is at least NIS 8, as opposed to about NIS 3.5 usually," said one importer who preferred to remain anonymous because he was discussing wholesale prices.

"I expect lulav prices to rise between 10 percent and 15% compared to last year as a result," he said.

Importers said that while Margi's attempt to open the Gaza lulav market was commendable, it was "too little, too late."

"The expensive lulavim are already in the market," and part of the demand was being met by growers in the Jordan Valley, said another importer. "So new merchandise from Gaza won't have much of an impact, even if it arrives tomorrow."

Margi's spokesman Alon Nuriel said in a statement that Barak agreed to open up Gaza's lulav exports in coordination with the Agriculture Ministry and the IDF's coordinator of government activities in the territories.

Nuriel also provided the letter signed by Barak's aide, attorney Ruth Bar, authorizing the export.

Love of the Land: Look to Gaza for Cheaper Lulavim

Love of the Land: Sukkot (1994)

Sukkot (1994)


(1994) Dry Bones cartoon: Sukkot.
Today's Golden Oldie is a Dry Bones cartoon done 15 years ago for Sukkot in 1994. It's the last Golden Oldie I'm posting until I get back from my "Latest News and Other Jokes" U.S. Speaking Tour at



Love of the Land: Sukkot (1994)

Israel Matzav: Go to war or live with a nuclear Iran

Go to war or live with a nuclear Iran

Eliot Cohen sets out the stark choices facing the West on Iran in a blunt article in Wednesday's Wall Street Journal.

Pressure, be it gentle or severe, will not erase that nuclear program. The choices are now what they ever were: an American or an Israeli strike, which would probably cause a substantial war, or living in a world with Iranian nuclear weapons, which may also result in war, perhaps nuclear, over a longer period of time.

Understandably, the U.S. government has hoped for a middle course of sanctions, negotiations and bargaining that would remove the problem without the ugly consequences. This is self-delusion. Yes, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French President Nicolas Sarkozy stood side by side with President Barack Obama in Pittsburgh and talked sternly about lines in the sand; and yes, Russian President Dimitry Medvedev hinted that some kind of sanctions might, conceivably, be needed. They said the same things to, and with, President George W. Bush.

Though you would not know it to listen to Sunday talk shows, a large sanctions effort against Iran has been underway for some time. It has not worked to curb Tehran's nuclear appetite, and it will not. Sooner or later the administration, whose main diplomatic initiatives thus far have been a program of apologies and a few sharp kicks to small allies' shins, will have to recognize that fact.

The Iranian regime wants nuclear weapons and has invested vast sums to get both the devices and the means to deliver them. The Russians and Chinese have made soothing murmurs of disapproval but have repeatedly made it clear that they will not go along with measures that would cripple the Iranian economy (and deprive them of markets). German and Swiss businessmen will happily sell Iran whatever goods their not very exacting governments will permit, and our terrified Arab allies have nothing like the military capability to match their own understandable fears. So let's be serious about the choice, because we have less than a year to make it.

Read the whole thing.

The best choice would probably be an American strike with Israeli backup, but with this administration in power, it will never happen.


Israel Matzav: Go to war or live with a nuclear Iran

DoubleTapper: Iran is ready for war, are you?

Iran is ready for war, are you?

تنسيق-الكليات-لعام سكس نيك كس
Iran is ready for war. They have ICBM's capable of reaching New York, Johannesburg and Rio de Janero. That's a range of over 11,000 km.

Iran has plenty of missiles and is waiting for the opportunity to use them.

A reader, Jacqueline, asked what are Iran's missile capabilities?

Iran has ICBM, BM-25, KH-55, Shahab (Comet) 3 and Shahab 3-ER missiles.


MESI's interactive map shows Iran's missile arsenal and the range to reach New York and London.



Iran thumbed their nose at the world and ran a missile test last week of two surface-to-surface missiles, the Shehab 3 and Sejil on Monday, September 28.

In addition, Iran is close to its goal of nuclear weapons capability as well.

But what can you do?

Here's how you can help stop Iran.

DoubleTapper: Iran is ready for war, are you?

Love of the Land: Understanding the Middle East: Me, You, The Scorpion, The Frog, and Barack Obama

Understanding the Middle East: Me, You, The Scorpion, The Frog, and Barack Obama


Barry Rubin
The Rubin Report
30 September 09

There’s a little fable that’s often used to explain the Middle East. You’ve probably heard it but for those of you who haven’t I’ll tell it briefly and then analyze it in detail to explain better about this most perplexing yet highly important part of the world.

First, the story:

One day, a frog and a scorpion are standing by the river bank. They both want to get across to the other side. The frog can swim; the scorpion can’t. So the scorpion asks the frog to carry him across.

“But,” protests the frog, “if I let you on my back you’ll sting me!”

“Don’t worry,” answers the scorpion. “Why would I do that since if I sting you I’ll drown?”

This makes sense to the frog. He lets the scorpion climb aboard, jumps into the water, and starts swimming. In the middle of the river the scorpion does indeed sting the frog, paralyzing him. And as they sink down into the depth, the frog speaks his last words: “Why did you do that! Now we’ll both die!”

The scorpion shrugs his carapace and says, “Oh well, after all this is the Middle East. Glub. Glub. Gl….”

What I’ve never liked about this story is that the scorpion’s action seems to be irrational and is clearly suicidal. But what if the scorpion has good reason for acting as he does and isn’t just committing suicide? I’ll come back to this point in a few sentences.

Before that, though, let’s consider some scenarios.

Scenario One: The nice, pragmatic scorpion.

Assume a rational Western policymaker who thinks that everyone in the world thinks and acts pretty much the same because they have the same goals. In his other experiences handling domestic issues or with friendly foreign powers, he knows that if you make concessions to reach a deal, the other side will do so as well. Everybody seeks to arrive at a mutually beneficial solution.

Or, in Obama’s words: "I'm not interested in victory. I'm interested in resolving the problem."
So in that sense, the frog is dealing with a ”scorpion” he can trust—say Canada, Britain, Israel, Colombia, Botswana, or Japan.

Scorpion and frog want to get to other side, scorpion and frog cooperate (the scorpion will even put his claws into the water and paddle since he’s interested in success), problem solved.
Scenario Two: The nasty but rational scorpion.

But the policymaker isn’t so naïve. He knows there are some real differences, but he chalks these down to misunderstandings. Perhaps previous frogs haven’t treated the scorpion properly. If he apologizes and shows he’s a different kind of frog than the scorpion won’t sting him but will be one over by his charm and willingness to compromise.

So he makes a speech: Scorpions have a long and proud history. Frogs have often been arrogant in their treatment of scorpions. Let’s be friends.

You don’t have to assume blindly good will on the scorpion’s side. You will give more than the scorpion in terms of concessions but in the end the scorpion will give something because it has an interest in making the arrangement work.

So the frog jumps in with the scorpion on its back, the scorpion lets the frog do all the work, demands refreshments, and doesn’t say “thank you” at the end. But at least it doesn’t sting the scorpion. The other bank is reached; peace and quiet is achieved.

Perhaps this can be said to characterize places like Egypt, Pakistan, Russia and Saudi Arabia. They put a higher value on getting along but will give the absolute minimum in exchange no matter how much they get from America and Europe.

Scenario Three: The Radical Frog-Hating Scorpion That Wants to Rule the Habitat

Here is where our problem is today. Briefly, the radical scorpions of the world—which include in alphabetical order: Cuba, Hamas, Hizballah, Iran, North Korea, the Palestinian Authority, Sudan, Syria, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, and some others that could be mentioned don’t want to compromise and be friends.

Unlike the pragmatic scorpion, they won’t give a lot; unlike the nasty but pragmatic scorpion, they won’t give a little. They will take everything they can get and give nothing in return.

Does this make them irrational? No, because if they believe they can win by this strategy then it is quite a rational one to follow. And if you give them reason to think you are weak, stupid, naïve, or sympathetic enough to give them everything in exchange for nothing then you have persuaded them of that fact.

But now I have to redeem my promise about explaining why the scorpion isn’t committing suicide. In effect, answering this question has been one of my main efforts for 30 years now.
Briefly, the scorpion has good reason to think he is more likely to die if he doesn’t sting the frog.

Let’s put it this way: the scorpion stings the frog, the frog dies but becomes like a boat that the scorpion can use to stay afloat and to paddle wherever he wants. By using his stinger, the scorpion improves his situation.

Or to elucidate:
--Radical regimes use anti-American, anti-Western, and anti-Israel doctrine and conflicts as rationales for their many failures. Support your dictator; don’t complain about low living standards or lack of freedom because I’m saving you from the imperialist-Zionist-infidel plots against you.

--By stinging, radical regimes show how tough they are, thus pleasing and intimidating their own people and outdoing their rivals at home and competitors abroad.

--Not stinging is more dangerous than stinging. After all, if radical dictators had good relations with the Western democracies they could more easily influence the dictatorship’s society by opening up its economy and society more. The dictator will forego benefits in order to sustain his rule.

--They believe in their ideology. The scorpion must sting or he isn’t a scorpion. Iran’s leaders really believe what they say, as did Saddam Hussein or Yasir Arafat or Fidel Castro. Down with the frogs! Long live the scorpions!

--Finally, these regimes are ambitious. They want to rule their region and know that the West truly is an adversary. It isn’t a friend to be hugged or a limited rival with which you make a deal after tough bargaining, but rather an enemy to be defeated.

So it doesn’t matter whether Obama wears an “I love Scorpions” T-shirt, or speaks at the Scorpions’ Club (I mean the UN), or apologizes for previous frogs croaking too loud.

To the scorpions of the world, though, he's making America look like a plate of frogs’ legs.


Love of the Land: Understanding the Middle East: Me, You, The Scorpion, The Frog, and Barack Obama

Shir Ha-Ma'alot #25

Shir Ha-Ma'alot #25


30
Sep
2009

Magdil, Migdol
The same verse appears twice in the Tanach with a minor change. In the Book of Tehillim (18:51), it is written "Magdil" (meaning "He is magnifying [magdil] the salvation of His King [David]"), while in the Book of Shmuel (2 22:51) it says "Migdol" (meaning "He is a tower [migdol] of salvation to His King"). The Book of Shmuel is part of the "Prophets," which were said through prophecy. The Book of Tehillim is part of the "Writings," which were said through the Divine Spirit. Our Sages teach that there is a difference between "To David, a Psalm" and "A Psalm of David": "‘To David, a Psalm’ teaches that first the Divine Presence rested on him and then he recited that song; ‘A Psalm of David’ teaches that he first recited the Psalm and only then the Divine Presence rested on him" (Pesachim 117a). At times he began to sing and the Divine Presence rested on his song. This is the Divine Spirit. At other times, the Divine Presence rested on him, and, on account of this, we began to sing. This is prophecy. Our Rabbi, Rav Tzvi Yehudah Kook, therefore explained that on the days of holiness like Shabbat and holidays, we use the more exalted version, "Migdol," and on weekdays the simpler version, "Magdil." The meaning of "Magdil" is that the Master of the Universe is the One who brings about the process of the magnification of the Salvation. "Migdol," is that He, may He be blessed, is the Infinite Essence of greatness.
Originally posted by Torat HaRav Aviner

HAPPY BIRTHDAY RITA ROCHA

HAPPY BIRTHDAY RITA !!!

With all my love on your birthday,

your father:

José Rocha