Posts
20 hours ago
Thursday, 12 November 2009
Love of the Land: Iran and Syria Are Up; Egypt and Saudi Arabia Are Down. And this is Israel’s Fault?
Iran and Syria Are Up; Egypt and Saudi Arabia Are Down. And this is Israel’s Fault?
Barry Rubin
The Rubin Report
12 November 09
The Aztecs of Mexico believed that if they didn't sacrifice human victims each day the sun wouldn't come up the next morning. This seems to be the principle governing how Western elites blame Israel for everything that goes on in the Middle East and propose as a remedy even more U.S. concessions.
A remarkable example is how the New York Times tries to explain what is in fact a very important development in the region in an article entitled, “Influence of Egypt and Saudi Arabia Fades.” Wow! I could have told you that back in 2000.
But why has it faded? Could it be because of such long-term problems as these regimes' corruption, incompetence, rejection of reform, and inability to break from radical stances? Could it be that the fact that these regimes keep feeding anti-Americanism, hatred of Israel, militant interpretations of Islam, and extremism generally rebound against them?
And might it be that radical forces—like Iran, Syria, Hamas, and Hizballah—have shown, with help from the United States and Europe, that hardline positions and violence pay?
Could it possibly be, in the shorter term, that the apologies, concessions, and refusal to confront the extremist Islamists have emboldened them and demoralized the relative moderates?
No. Guess who is blamed?
“With Israel having rebuffed American calls to freeze settlement-building, and with the prospects for substantive peace talks fading, Saudi Arabia and Egypt are increasingly viewed in the region as diminished actors whose influence is on the wane, political experts say.”
These experts have obviously not been following the news. Seems to me that Israel did agree to freeze building on settlements (the word “settlement-building” implies Israel is building more settlements and expanding existing ones which isn’t true). Remember that speech Secretary of State Hilary Clinton just made in Jerusalem praising this concession?
A remarkable example is how the New York Times tries to explain what is in fact a very important development in the region in an article entitled, “Influence of Egypt and Saudi Arabia Fades.” Wow! I could have told you that back in 2000.
But why has it faded? Could it be because of such long-term problems as these regimes' corruption, incompetence, rejection of reform, and inability to break from radical stances? Could it be that the fact that these regimes keep feeding anti-Americanism, hatred of Israel, militant interpretations of Islam, and extremism generally rebound against them?
And might it be that radical forces—like Iran, Syria, Hamas, and Hizballah—have shown, with help from the United States and Europe, that hardline positions and violence pay?
Could it possibly be, in the shorter term, that the apologies, concessions, and refusal to confront the extremist Islamists have emboldened them and demoralized the relative moderates?
No. Guess who is blamed?
“With Israel having rebuffed American calls to freeze settlement-building, and with the prospects for substantive peace talks fading, Saudi Arabia and Egypt are increasingly viewed in the region as diminished actors whose influence is on the wane, political experts say.”
These experts have obviously not been following the news. Seems to me that Israel did agree to freeze building on settlements (the word “settlement-building” implies Israel is building more settlements and expanding existing ones which isn’t true). Remember that speech Secretary of State Hilary Clinton just made in Jerusalem praising this concession?
Love of the Land: Iran and Syria Are Up; Egypt and Saudi Arabia Are Down. And this is Israel’s Fault?
Love of the Land: Top BBC presenter hosts eulogy to author who argues that the Jewish people do not exist, as UK anti-Zionist discourse hits another low
Top BBC presenter hosts eulogy to author who argues that the Jewish people do not exist, as UK anti-Zionist discourse hits another low
Robin Shepherd
RobinShepherdonline.com/
12 November 09
Shlomo Sand is a “historian” whose name you are likely to be hearing a lot more of. Following in the footsteps of Ilan Pappe, he is a far-Left, “non-Zionist”, Israeli ideologue who has just published a book –The Invention of the Jewish People — seeking to delegitimise the historical foundations of the State of Israel.
But Sand’s technique is not merely to delegitimise the Israel that was established in 1948, though he refers to that as having been accomplished by the “rape” of the Palestinian people. It is to assert that the notion of the Jewish people as a “nation-race” that was exiled from its historic homeland is pure fabrication. There is no Jewish people in the sense of having a bloodline that can be traced back to Biblical times and, therefore, there is no Jewish homeland for the current imposters to return to.
Needless to say, he has instantly acquired the status in Britain of a hero of the Israel-hating mainstream. This week on BBC Radio Four’s flagship “Start the Week” programme, star presenter Andrew Marr hosted Sand in the most one-sided, uncritical eulogy to an anti-Israeli commentator that I for one have ever heard broadcast on the BBC.
Read the rest of this entry »Love of the Land: Top BBC presenter hosts eulogy to author who argues that the Jewish people do not exist, as UK anti-Zionist discourse hits another low
Love of the Land: Killing Terrorists Saves Lives
Killing Terrorists Saves Lives
Evelyn Gordon
Contentions/Commentary
12 November 09
When four Knesset members proposed legislation last week to institute the death penalty for child murderers, it revived a long-dormant Israeli debate over the pros and cons of this penalty in general. The latest installment, in today’s Jerusalem Post, supports the current de facto ban on executions, arguing that they deter neither murderers nor terrorists.
Regardless of whether that’s true, it misses the point: Israel desperately needs a death penalty for hard-core terrorists — not as a deterrent but to prevent them from being released to kill again. And, equally important, to spare the country wrenching emotional blackmail over kidnapped soldiers.
While ordinary Israeli murderers usually serve their sentences in full, terrorists have an excellent chance of being released early — either in an effort to “bolster Palestinian moderates” or in exchange for Israelis (or their remains, or even a “sign of life”) kidnapped by terrorist organizations. Israel releases hundreds of terrorists for one or both of these reasons almost every year. Most recently, for instance, it freed 20 female terrorists in exchange for a mere videotape of kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit.
There are no official statistics on what percentage of these freed terrorists return to kill again. While one would hope the security services track this data, no government has ever published it, possibly realizing that if the statistics were known, public support for prisoner releases would plummet. Unofficial statistics — leaked to journalists or compiled by private organizations — vary widely, ranging from 25-80 percent. But even the lower figure is hardly negligible.
And the anecdotal evidence is compelling. In 2007, for instance, the Almagor Terror Victims Association compiled a list of 30 attacks committed by freed terrorists in 2000-2005 that together killed 177 Israelis. IDF Col. Herzl Halevy said this September that terrorists freed in a 2004 swap with Hezbollah composed “the entire infrastructure of Islamic Jihad” in subsequent years — during which Islamic Jihad bombings killed at least 37 Israelis. In short, executing terrorists, and hence preventing their release, would save lives.
But beyond that, executions would also end the agonizing debate over whether to trade terrorists for kidnapped Israelis. Most Israelis, for instance, would have no objection to freeing minor offenders in exchange for Shalit; the problem is that Hamas is demanding hundreds of mass murderers — who, if freed, would almost certainly kill again. Had these terrorists been executed, however, they would not be available to trade. Hamas would either have to make do with low-level offenders or get out of the kidnapping business.
Might that not encourage terrorists to kill rather than kidnap? Well, do the math: over the past decade, terrorists have kidnapped exactly two live Israelis (plus five dead ones, for whose remains Israel also paid). During the same period, freed terrorists have killed hundreds. It may sound cold, but that’s a pretty good cost-benefit ratio.
The bottom line is that Israel needs a death penalty for terrorists now. Few things would do more to save Israeli lives.
Love of the Land: Killing Terrorists Saves Lives
Love of the Land: What Prevents Aliyah?
What Prevents Aliyah?
This post is inspired by a poll on Arutz 7.
Poll: What's the biggest obstacle to Aliyah?
1. Finding a good job
2. Leaving family behind
3. Security concerns
4. Not knowing Hebrew
The answer I wanted to give isn't one of the choices. I think that most people fear change. That's the key, and everything else is just an excuse. The next biggest difficulty is conquering Hebrew, the fear of making mistakes, sounding stupid.
With good Hebrew, you can get a good job, not one limited to those for "English speakers." With good Hebrew, you can become part of Israeli society and not restricted to being friends with fellow anglo (English speaking) olim, immigrants.
There is no intellectual linguistic reason to think that learning Hebrew, or any other language, is impossible. Immigrants from all different countries to all different countries manage to learn the new language and function.
And for those Jews who have graduated from a life time of Jewish schooling, it's criminal that they're not totally fluent in Hebrew. Jews were once, until the mid-twentieth century, known as multilingual experts. That's why there were Jews on the ships which sailed to the new land, America. The same students whose parents would tell me that their family is incapable of learning English would later admit that their grandparents were fluent in three or four languages.
What changed was expectations. It used to be that immigrants expected, demanded from themselves a few months to immerse themselves in the new language and culture and then be as fluent as anyone else. Today this is harder. Immigrants come with their old language DVD's, ipods filled with their old music and quickly set up cable or a dish to receive television from the old country.
As I've already written, "...most people fear change." And to make aliyah successfully, you have to change more than your address.
With good Hebrew, you can get a good job, not one limited to those for "English speakers." With good Hebrew, you can become part of Israeli society and not restricted to being friends with fellow anglo (English speaking) olim, immigrants.
There is no intellectual linguistic reason to think that learning Hebrew, or any other language, is impossible. Immigrants from all different countries to all different countries manage to learn the new language and function.
And for those Jews who have graduated from a life time of Jewish schooling, it's criminal that they're not totally fluent in Hebrew. Jews were once, until the mid-twentieth century, known as multilingual experts. That's why there were Jews on the ships which sailed to the new land, America. The same students whose parents would tell me that their family is incapable of learning English would later admit that their grandparents were fluent in three or four languages.
What changed was expectations. It used to be that immigrants expected, demanded from themselves a few months to immerse themselves in the new language and culture and then be as fluent as anyone else. Today this is harder. Immigrants come with their old language DVD's, ipods filled with their old music and quickly set up cable or a dish to receive television from the old country.
As I've already written, "...most people fear change." And to make aliyah successfully, you have to change more than your address.
Love of the Land: What Prevents Aliyah?
Love of the Land: The Testing Ground of Shdema
The Testing Ground of Shdema
Timna Katz
November 09
History: Past and Present
Shdema is an abandoned Israeli army base built in 1967 on the remains of a Jordanian army base. It is five minutes south of Jerusalem’s southern neighborhood of Har Homa and five minutes north of eastern Gush Etzion. Going further back, the Shdema area was densely populated by Jews during the First Temple period and resettled again during the Second Temple period. Despite the scant archeological attention the area has received, remains of Jewish settlement have been identified from the Hellenistic, Roman, Byzantine, and Mameluke periods. The Hasmoneans waged their final victorious battle there.
Shdema’s fate since Oslo is typical: designated as Area C, under full Israeli sovereignty, the IDF nonetheless began to abandon Shdema together with other army camps in Judea and Samaria despite the security disaster brought on by the Oslo Accords. Massive and politically directed illegal Arab building proliferates throughout Judea and Samaria, while Jewish growth is frozen. Recently, the double standard has become even more flagrant. The nearby municipality of Beit Sahur has illegally built a sports and entertainment center on Shdema lands with funding provided by European agencies and the U.S. Agency for International Development.
In April 2008, a group of individuals led by Women In Green halted the total destruction of the base and determined to maintain a Jewish presence there to prevent a complete Arab take-over of the strategic hill overlooking the Jerusalem-Gush Etzion highway. The Committee for a Jewish Shdema was formed, and since then, Shdema has become a vibrant cultural center with weekly events and holiday festivities. The Committee, with the support of Women In Green, has plans to build an educational and cultural campus at the site that will foster Jewish and Zionist values and goals.
The Oslo vs. Shdema Paradigm
The lesson of Oslo is tragic but profound. Oslo turned the “peace process” into the country’s supreme value and goal. To keep this process going, the Israeli leadership was prepared to sacrifice almost every Jewish and Zionist truth. It exchanged the old values and ideals for a realpolitik that served the enemy’s narrative and goals. Even when the results of Oslo proved to be the polar opposites of its intended goals -- war instead of peace, increased Arab rejectionism instead of increased Arab acceptance, international isolation instead of international normalization – Israel continued down the same disastrous path. The one and only justification against total capitulation to Arab demands that Israel mustered was the ‘security’ card: Israel can’t immediately relinquish all of Yesha because she has no choice but to defend herself against ‘terrorism’.
While the damage of the above approach has been great, its bankruptcy has become so evident that even current leaders who continue to dance to the Oslo tune have started to pay lip service to the old values and truths: that the Land of Israel belongs to the Jewish People and Jews cannot be ‘occupiers’ in the Biblical heartland and cradle of their civilization. However, it’s not enough to pay lip service to those truths: if the Jewish People won’t physically live those truths, it is now abundantly clear that we’ll lose our land – all of it.
That is where we stand today and that is the message behind the struggle for Shdema: the current government continues to follow the Oslo paradigm, even while knowing that it is untenable. The Jewish majority are becoming increasingly frustrated by leaders who talk the post-Olso talk but won’t walk the post-Oslo walk. Shdema has become a testing ground of these tensions and the opposing forces rumbling beneath Israel’s surface.
Thus the struggle to keep Shdema Jewish has not only been supported by the local populace, idealistic youth, and right-wing politicians, it has also received support from elements in the army and the political center. Meanwhile, however, the status quo maintains its hold and the Arabs continue to build illegally while a Jewish government ties Jewish hands.
A Tipping Point?
Positive change is occurring, though the evidence of it – whether in the Jewish cultural awakening within secular Israel or in the supporting visit of the Knesset speaker to Shdema – doesn’t yet indicate what its eventual force or impact will be. Unfortunately, destructive counter-forces maintain their momentum and time is running out. We of the Committee for a Jewish Shdema believe that Shdema will be a testing ground for this nascent change and hope that you will help us in making it happen. God willing, if we all act now and act forcefully, we can reverse the fatal Oslo tide and unleash the tremendous positive energies inherent in the Jewish return to Zion.
*Timna Katz, resident of Neve Daniel in Gush Etzion, is a member of the Committee for a Jewish Shdema and Women in Green
Love of the Land: The Testing Ground of Shdema
Love of the Land: HRW New Middle East Board: Reinforcing the Bias
HRW New Middle East Board: Reinforcing the Bias
In the face of intense criticism of its Middle East activities, Human Rights Watch has expanded itsMiddle East and North Africa (MENA) advisory board with the addition of ten members, largely based in the Middle East. While some are human rights activists in their own countries, (Iran, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, etc.), including woman’s rights, many also contribute significantly to targeting Israel through the language of human rights.
In particular, the addition of Ms. Asli Bali, and Aeyal Gross, who is known as an opponent of Israeli policies, will reinforce the political agenda of MENA heads Sara Leah Whitson and Joe Stork, as documented in NGO Monitor’s detailed analysis, “Experts or Ideologues?”. These changes reflect and strengthen what founderRobert Bernstein criticized as HRW’s role in “turning Israel into a pariah state”, as well as HRW’s role in ‘lawfare’, including the intensive promotion of the Goldstone Report. (Goldstone is closely linked to HRW, and was a member of the board until after his appointment to head the UNHRC’s “fact finding mission”.)
Another point of interest is the inclusion of Ahmad Zuaiter, who is a portfolio manager at Soros Fund Management. Soros’ Open Society Institute has become a major source of funding for HRW and for a number of other organizations that promote anti-Israel boycotts.
In terms of anti-Israel bias, the most problematic new members of HRW’s MENA board are:
1) Ms. Asli Bali -- editorial board of MERIP, a radical anti-Israel group (founded by MENA division deputy director Joe Stork in the 1970s); heads Princeton Committee on Palestine, whichparticipated in “ Israeli Apartheid Week”, co-sponsored Norman Finkelstein and ...
Love of the Land: HRW New Middle East Board: Reinforcing the Bias
Love of the Land: Think Tank “U.S. Aids Terror Group At War With Israel”
Think Tank “U.S. Aids Terror Group At War With Israel”
Samuel Sokol
5 Towns Jewish Times
12 November 09
A new report releaed by the Center for Near East Policy Research, a Jerusalem based think-tank, discusses the possible connection between American military aid and Palestinian terrorism. The report, Implications of US Military Training of Palestinian Security Forces, was authored by center chairman David Bedein and deals with the Office of the U.S. Security Coordinator (USSC), run by Lt. Gen. Keith Dayton.
This report is especially relevant following remarks by a senior Fatah official last week, stating that the Palestinian Arabs may revert to “popular warfare.”
According to World Net Daily correspondent Aaron Klein, Palestinian fighters have made use of American training to engage in violent attacks against Israeli civilians.
This report is especially relevant following remarks by a senior Fatah official last week, stating that the Palestinian Arabs may revert to “popular warfare.”
According to World Net Daily correspondent Aaron Klein, Palestinian fighters have made use of American training to engage in violent attacks against Israeli civilians.
Established in 2005, the USSC manages a multi-national team of advisors, whose role is to restructure the PA security forces and train personnel.
American tax dollars pay for advanced military and constabulary training for the Palestinian security forces at bases in Jericho in Israel and Giftlik in Jordan. The cost of training an entire battalion of National Security Forces (NSF) troops in Jordan is $11 million.
Since 2008 approximately 2,100 troops, enough to make four battalions, have been trained by Americans in Jordan. The American government utilizes advisors from the DynCorp International Corporation for training Palestinian forces.
American tax dollars pay for advanced military and constabulary training for the Palestinian security forces at bases in Jericho in Israel and Giftlik in Jordan. The cost of training an entire battalion of National Security Forces (NSF) troops in Jordan is $11 million.
Since 2008 approximately 2,100 troops, enough to make four battalions, have been trained by Americans in Jordan. The American government utilizes advisors from the DynCorp International Corporation for training Palestinian forces.
Love of the Land: Think Tank “U.S. Aids Terror Group At War With Israel”
Love of the Land: Voting Rights for Israeli Expatriates and Diaspora Jews
Voting Rights for Israeli Expatriates and Diaspora Jews
By Moshe Feiglin
25 Marchesvan 5770
The State of Israel is a Jewish State. It is the state of all the Jews. Every Jew in the world should see Israel as his country - even if he does not yet physically live in Israel.
In most democracies, the right to vote is not contingent on actually living in the country in question, but rather on citizenship alone. Many Israelis who are also US citizens - even if they were not born in the US - vote in US elections. Israel's law that makes a citizen's right to vote contingent on his living in Israel deviates from the norm.
On the surface, this would seem like a positive way to strengthen the connection between Israeli citizens and their country. But just the opposite is true. The original Zionist platform called for the establishment of a new nation in Israel - the Israeli nation - to replace the Jewish nation. Azmi Bashara is an Israeli, while a Jew in London who would like to be an Israeli citizen while remaining in the Diaspora in the meantime - is not.
To grant Israeli citizenship to every Jew who requests it turns Judaism into the Israeli nationality. The founding fathers of Zionism wanted to cut the connection between the two. They preferred to leave the Jewish nation to die, either physically or spiritually, in the exile - to relegate Judaism to the status of religion and nothing more - and to establish a new nation here in the Land of Israel.
In the words of pioneer author and Zionist thinker, Chaim Hazaz:
Zionism and Judaism are not one thing, but two things, different from each other, two things that contradict each other. When a person cannot be a Jew, he becomes a Zionist.
Zionism begins at the place where Judaism is destroyed, from the place that the strength of the nation is sapped. Zionism is not a continuation, not a panacea for the blow. That is ridiculous! It is uprooting and destruction, the opposite of what was, the end. I believe that the Land of Israel is no longer Judaism. (The pioneer in Hazaz's book, "Hadrasha")
The generation of Hazaz attempted to turn the gates of the Land of Israel into the gates of the new Israeli nation. That is why today, a Jew cannot be Israeli unless he lives in Israel.
And what about the Israeli expatriates who have "descended" and live in the Diaspora?
While giving voting rights to Jews in the Diaspora is complex and would require intricate legislation and minimal criteria of connection with the Jewish nation and the State of Israel, there is no excuse for not allowing expatriates to vote. The reason why they are excommunicated from Israel is because Israeli citizens who leave Israel are proof that the New Nation Project of Zionism's "founding fathers" was a dismal failure.
Why should a Jew who doesn't live in Israel have voting rights here?
Because Israel is the Jewish State. As such, it is the state of the Jews outside of Israel just as much as it is the state of the commander of the most elite IDF unit.
True, the Jews in the Diaspora have forgotten that Israel is their real home. But when we established a state for Israelis instead of for Jews, we showed the world that we have also forgotten. It is our duty to change this situation. With G-d's help, we will propose legislation that will allow expatriates - and eventually Diaspora Jews - to vote in Israeli embassies throughout the world.
As a Jewish state that is secure in its eternal existence on the basis of G-d's promise to Abraham, we must give the Diaspora Jews the opportunity to connect to Israel, to care about what is transpiring here, to feel that they belong and to vote. It will be an excellent reminder that their homeland is Israel and encourage aliyah. Not only that, but it will be much more effective than all the excommunication methods that we have used until now to try to stop expatriates from leaving our Land.
In most democracies, the right to vote is not contingent on actually living in the country in question, but rather on citizenship alone. Many Israelis who are also US citizens - even if they were not born in the US - vote in US elections. Israel's law that makes a citizen's right to vote contingent on his living in Israel deviates from the norm.
On the surface, this would seem like a positive way to strengthen the connection between Israeli citizens and their country. But just the opposite is true. The original Zionist platform called for the establishment of a new nation in Israel - the Israeli nation - to replace the Jewish nation. Azmi Bashara is an Israeli, while a Jew in London who would like to be an Israeli citizen while remaining in the Diaspora in the meantime - is not.
To grant Israeli citizenship to every Jew who requests it turns Judaism into the Israeli nationality. The founding fathers of Zionism wanted to cut the connection between the two. They preferred to leave the Jewish nation to die, either physically or spiritually, in the exile - to relegate Judaism to the status of religion and nothing more - and to establish a new nation here in the Land of Israel.
In the words of pioneer author and Zionist thinker, Chaim Hazaz:
Zionism and Judaism are not one thing, but two things, different from each other, two things that contradict each other. When a person cannot be a Jew, he becomes a Zionist.
Zionism begins at the place where Judaism is destroyed, from the place that the strength of the nation is sapped. Zionism is not a continuation, not a panacea for the blow. That is ridiculous! It is uprooting and destruction, the opposite of what was, the end. I believe that the Land of Israel is no longer Judaism. (The pioneer in Hazaz's book, "Hadrasha")
The generation of Hazaz attempted to turn the gates of the Land of Israel into the gates of the new Israeli nation. That is why today, a Jew cannot be Israeli unless he lives in Israel.
And what about the Israeli expatriates who have "descended" and live in the Diaspora?
While giving voting rights to Jews in the Diaspora is complex and would require intricate legislation and minimal criteria of connection with the Jewish nation and the State of Israel, there is no excuse for not allowing expatriates to vote. The reason why they are excommunicated from Israel is because Israeli citizens who leave Israel are proof that the New Nation Project of Zionism's "founding fathers" was a dismal failure.
Why should a Jew who doesn't live in Israel have voting rights here?
Because Israel is the Jewish State. As such, it is the state of the Jews outside of Israel just as much as it is the state of the commander of the most elite IDF unit.
True, the Jews in the Diaspora have forgotten that Israel is their real home. But when we established a state for Israelis instead of for Jews, we showed the world that we have also forgotten. It is our duty to change this situation. With G-d's help, we will propose legislation that will allow expatriates - and eventually Diaspora Jews - to vote in Israeli embassies throughout the world.
As a Jewish state that is secure in its eternal existence on the basis of G-d's promise to Abraham, we must give the Diaspora Jews the opportunity to connect to Israel, to care about what is transpiring here, to feel that they belong and to vote. It will be an excellent reminder that their homeland is Israel and encourage aliyah. Not only that, but it will be much more effective than all the excommunication methods that we have used until now to try to stop expatriates from leaving our Land.
Love of the Land: Voting Rights for Israeli Expatriates and Diaspora Jews
Love of the Land: Off the Wall
Off the Wall
Honest Reporting/Backspin
11 November 09
11 November 09
Is there really a moral equivalence between the Berlin Wall and Israel's security fence? Steve Bell of The Guardian certainly thinks so:
Unfortunately, he's not the only one. HonestReporting Canada already addressed similar spin at the CBC. And Jordan's Queen Rania writes at the Huffington Post:
Today, we celebrate the fall of the Berlin Wall; next year, we will celebrate the end of Apartheid in South Africa. These two events taught us that when barriers are removed - whether physical barriers, legal barriers, or the walls people build in their hearts - the ground is laid for progress, peace, and development for both sides. The people of my region yearn as well for justice and reconciliation.
What better way to honour these anniversaries than to tear down another wall?
But Eldad Beck explains why Bell, the CBC and the queen's comparisons are, uh, off the wall:
Apart from certain visual similarities, there is no connection between the Berlin Wall and the security fence.
The Berlin Wall separated members of the same nation who aspired, to some extent or another, to reunite in a joint political framework.Meanwhile, the security fence marks, to some extent or another, a future border between two nations that do not wish to coexist in one state, but rather, to split their shared land into two separate states.
It is surprising that precisely those who for a long time fought for the Palestinian right for their own state now demand to dismantle the security fence. After all, this fence pushed the Palestinians closer to geographical and political division that would constitute a basis for a separate political entity.
Charges regarding the “apartheid fence” reveal the true motives of the Palestinians and their supporters, who are uninterested in dividing the country and co-existing alongside Israel; rather, they are interested in taking over the entire land.
Let's face it, as a protection from terror, the wall works, but don't take my word for it. Islamic Jihad chief Ramadan Shalah gets it.
Beck refers to another barrier, which only the Arab world can tear down:
There is another wall in the Middle East which objectors to the security fence refuse to see, not to mention fight against, even though it is this wall that perpetuates the conflict between Jews and Arabs: The wall of boycotts and isolation imposed by most of the Muslim world against Israel since its establishment . . . .
As long as this wall exists, the sides would not be able to get to know each other and it would be impossible to counter the bias that fans the flames of this conflict. The “Middle Eastern Wall” had been established much before the security fence and it bears absolute responsibility for the security fence’s existence.
I wonder if it means anything to Bell, the CBC and Queen Rania that November 9 isn'ta German national holiday -- the Times of London, to its credit, notes that this it's also the anniversary of Kristallnacht.
Love of the Land: Off the Wall
Lunatics, Murderers and the Mentally Ill
Lunatics, Murderers and the Mentally Ill
There are two cases in the headlines this week of murderers who may have had emotional issues. On the one hand there's Major Hassan, a Muslim who murdered 13 people at Fort Hood. The other one is Jack Teital, indicted this morning for two cases of murder and assorted lesser crimes.
Teital is further along in the legal process: there's already an indictment which spells out what the prosecutors know. The Hassan case probably won't reach that stage for many weeks, so there's more room for uninformed public speculation - on blogs, say.
The responses are interesting. Teital lived in an immediate environment - the Shvut Rachel settlement - which contains animosity towards Arabs. The Rachel in the name of the settlement was a young woman murdered on the nearby road, and the settlement was put there in response. The people there are law-abiding citizens, but, yes, they feel at war. Having said that, however, I have yet to hear a single voice even hinting at any form of exoneration for Teital. See this response from some of his wife's family, this morning:
Teital is further along in the legal process: there's already an indictment which spells out what the prosecutors know. The Hassan case probably won't reach that stage for many weeks, so there's more room for uninformed public speculation - on blogs, say.
The responses are interesting. Teital lived in an immediate environment - the Shvut Rachel settlement - which contains animosity towards Arabs. The Rachel in the name of the settlement was a young woman murdered on the nearby road, and the settlement was put there in response. The people there are law-abiding citizens, but, yes, they feel at war. Having said that, however, I have yet to hear a single voice even hinting at any form of exoneration for Teital. See this response from some of his wife's family, this morning:
Avitan reiterated his stand that the family plans to cut itself off from Teitel. "His response at the courtroom this morning proves that the man is disturbed. In any event, we are completely distancing ourselves from this man. A person who does such terrible things should deal with them alone. We have a lot of work to do, each busy rehabilitating our own lives," he said.
Teitel's sister-in-law, Dasi Kreif, commented on the condition of her sister Rivka, the wife of the "Jewish terrorist".
There was no doubt that an indictment would be filed following these terrible actions. We are trying to go on with our lives, but Rivka will have to deal with a great crisis in her life. It will ruin her life. At this stage she refuses to believe as long as she has not met with him privately, looked him in the eye and asked him. Soon she will begin to understand, and it will be very difficult."
Not a word of support for the man or his actions; and even the statement that he's disturbed is a social description, not a medical one. It's intention is derogatory - that man is a lunatic - not exoneration. No-one's saying Teital is a lunatic so not responsible for his actions or anything of the sort. This is as it should be: the man is a murderer and belongs in jail.
Then there is Hassan. Over here you can see how Richard Silverstein and some of his readers already know he's mentally ill; indeed, his illness blocked him from understanding reality. Now, I recognize that Richard and his followers don't represent much - rather like the lunatic fringes of Israeli society don't represent the mainstream. Still, it's interesting to see the degree of bile they're willing to deploy in their race to prove that Hassan is mentally ill and nothing else.
Mental illness, just for the sake of the science, is a horrible thing. The people it afflicts suffer from it hugely. Some manage to live normal lives most of the time, some never manage at all. There have been geniuses with mental illness, though we don't know if there's a connection between the two; perhaps they'd have been even more creative had they not had the illness to cope with. There's the exceedingly rare case where the mental illness may even contribute to greatness - we talked about Abraham Lincoln in this context a few months ago. Rarely, there are people whose illness drives them to violence. But that's very rare, it's not easy to prove, and in any case, no serious person would ever base themselves on some media reports to determine the condition.
Just saying.
Originally posted by Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations
Israel Matzav: Burns on Iran
Burns on Iran
Earlier I published Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs William J. Burns' comments on the Israel - 'Palestinian' situation. If it's at all possible, his comments on Iran were even worse. President Obama has made clear that the United States, for our part, wants to look ahead. We seek a relationship with the Islamic Republic of Iran based upon mutual interest and mutual respect. We do not seek regime change. We have condemned terrorist attacks against Iran. We have recognized Iran’s international right to peaceful nuclear power. With our partners in the international community, we have demonstrated our willingness to take creative confidence-building steps, including our support for the IAEA’s offer of fuel for the Tehran research reactor. With our partners in the international community, we are ready for a serious dialogue with Iran about how it can resolve longstanding doubts about the exclusively peaceful nature of its nuclear ambitions, doubts only reinforced by the recent revelation of a clandestine enrichment facility near Qom. With our partners in the international community, we are ready to move with Iran along a pathway of cooperation, not confrontation, of integration, not animosity. But that depends squarely on the choices that Iran makes, on its willingness to meet its international obligations and responsibilities.
We have heard for thirty years what Iran is against; the question now is what kind of future it is for. Most Iranians today are too young to remember the hostage crisis. They seem eager to build a better future, to invest in their country’s education system and infrastructure, to connect with the rest of the world in ways that benefit us all, and to open the door to the opportunity, prosperity and justice that they deserve. We in the United States, along with the rest of the international community, continue to bear witness to their courageous pursuit of universal rights, in the face of appalling brutality, and the sad spectacle of show trials and mass arrests that dishonor Iran’s rich history and traditions. While we remain ready to engage the Iranian government on the urgent matter of its nuclear program, and on other matters of common concern, that does not mean that we will turn a blind eye to abuse, or compromise our principles. In Iran, as in any other country in the world, we will always be with those who seek peacefully to protect basic human rights.
We have before us an historic opportunity, but it won’t last forever. The talks that took place in Geneva last month were a constructive beginning. The tactics of recent weeks, however, have been far less encouraging, and we and our international partners are not interested in talking simply for the sake of talking. Too much is at stake, not only for Iran itself, but for a region hardly in need of more tensions or more arms races; for the credibility of the United Nations Security Council; and for the future of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the nuclear non-proliferation regime. It is time for Iran to decide whether it wants to focus on the past, or to move beyond it; whether it wants to dwell on familiar suspicions and imaginary external enemies, or make a positive choice about the role that it seeks to play in the world.
What could go wrong?
Israel Matzav: Burns on Iran
Israel Matzav: Missing George W. Bush
Missing George W. Bush
I think this article is awesome, as is the story it tells. A couple of days ago I heard the news that George and Laura Bush paid a private visit to the wounded soldiers at Fort Hood. They specifically requested that the base commander not inform the media of their visit. They came. They comforted the wounded soldiers and the Fort Hood community for a couple of hours. And then they left. And they never had their pictures taken saluting the troops or holding their hands.
When I heard the news, I felt this pain that hasn't gone away. It's a pain that I have been feeling fairly often since last November.
It hurts to hear about an American President who cares deeply and sincerely about wounded soldiers and soldiers murdered in a terrorist attack and know that he is not the American President. It isn't so much that I miss Bush personally. I had a lot of criticism about his policies - particularly in his last two years in office after he effectively abdicated his leadership of global affairs to Condoleezza Rice and the permanent bureaucracy in Washington.
But at least you always knew that Bush loved America and that he loved Americans. You knew that he valued America's allies even if he didn't always do right by them. You knew that his values were American values.
You can't say any of that about his successor. And it hurts.
Read the whole thing. Please. It's a real-life lesson in leadership and love of country.
Israel Matzav: Missing George W. Bush
Israel Matzav: Is Obama this dumb?
Is Obama this dumb?
Quoting the Wall Street Journal, Haaretz reports that President Obama is 'disappointed' that Prime Minister Netanyahu just doesn't seem gung ho on a 'Palestinian' state. The White House expressed disappointment in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's recent visit to Washington, with officials saying that they had hoped that the prime minister would present a concrete plan to scale back Israeli construction in West Bank settlements, the Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday.
Speaking at the General Assembly of the Jewish Federations of North America in Washington on Monday, Netanyahu urged the Palestinians to resume peace talks with Israel, but failed to offer any new commitment regarding the settlements, which the Palestinians have demanded be halted as a precondition for talks, nor did he present any new terms for the talks.
"We had an idea that he might bring something out to push the process forward," one U.S. official told the Wall Street Journal. "But he's kept it in his pocket."
In his address, Netanyahu also appeared to resist U.S. pressure to promote the two-state solution. He said he was committed to two states living side by side, but stressed that the central issues - the right of Palestinian refugees to return to the homes from which they were expelled and certain territorial claims - would not be on the table. "They must abandon the fantasy of flooding Israel with refugees, give up irredentist claims to the Negev and Galilee, and declare unequivocally that the conflict is finally over," Netanyahu said in his address.
U.S. officials said the White House had held off until Netanyahu was on a plane to Washington before confirming a meeting between the prime minister and U.S. President Barack Obama in efforts to pressure the Israeli leader to take a more conciliatory line.
Which part of "no" does the White House not understand?
Israel Matzav: Is Obama this dumb?
Israel Matzav: Overnight music video
Overnight music video
Here's Michoel Schnitzler singing Rabbos Machshovos - "Many are the thoughts in a man's heart, but God's plan will be carried out." (He sings the same words in both Hebrew and Yiddish).
Let's go to the videotape.
Israel Matzav: Overnight music video
Let's go to the videotape.
Israel Matzav: Overnight music video
Israel Matzav: Al-Guardian's Marc Garlasco wannabee
Al-Guardian's Marc Garlasco wannabee
Remember Marc Garlasco (pictured), the Human Rights Watch military investigator whose hobby is collecting Nazi regalia?If you do, you may also recall that one of Garlasco's favorite hangouts on the web was Stormfront, a Nazi site that I will not link.
Well, al-Guardian has a cartoonist named Steve Bell who just might be hanging out on Stormfront too.
Here's the disgusting Steve Bell cartoon that al-Guardian published on Wednesday to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall.
On Monday, Stormfront posted a link to a thread at another blog called Incogman (which I won't link). Here's a screen shot from that thread:
When you go here, you will find out that there are more similarities between Bell's cartoon and the Incogman thread. Does Bell read Incogman? Does Bell read Stormfront? Is Bell a good friend of Garlasco?Read the whole thing.
Israel Matzav: Al-Guardian's Marc Garlasco wannabee
Israel Matzav: Obama's weakness and Lebanon's new government
Obama's weakness and Lebanon's new government
In an earlier post, I discussed how the Saudis are going to sacrifice Lebanon for the sake of 'Arab unity.' Time Magazine explains that the blame for the Saudi action can be laid at the doorstep of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC: The White House. Saad Hariri, son of the murdered former Prime Minister and leader of the ruling coalition, initially balked at Hizballah's terms, but eventually had no choice but to give in. Lebanon's longstanding deadly rivalries and the ever present threat of violence have made Lebanese politicians wary of acting unilaterally, which is why Hariri invited Hizballah and its allies into the Cabinet in the first place. And Hariri is increasingly isolated, with none of his allies being prepared to confront Hizballah head-on given the experience of the May 2008 mini–civil war.
While the Bush Administration regarded the withdrawal of Syria from Lebanon in 2005 — as a result of international pressure and Lebanese street protests — as one of its biggest successes in the Middle East, the new Obama Administration has been less aggressive in its backing for the pro-U.S. Lebanese government. Lebanese media also suggest that Saudi Arabia was dismayed that Hariri's Future movement, which had been building a militia with Saudi money, was so easily routed by Hizballah in the May 2008 street fights. Last month, Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah traveled to Damascus for a state visit with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, in part to bury the hatchet over Lebanon. Even Hariri's coalition is breaking apart. Walid Jumblatt, the leader of Lebanon's Druze community and one of the architects of the anti-Syrian movement (he once told a Washington audience that America should send car bombs to Damascus), has seen which way the wind is blowing and transformed himself into an ardent Syria-phile.
But the government's caving in to Hizballah and Syria will have its consequences: most importantly it's a message to those in Lebanon — and the wider Middle East — who put their trust in the U.S. and political reform that guns are still more powerful than votes. Watching the Syrian-backed opposition hamstring the investigation into his father's murder will have been a bitter pill for Hariri and his followers to swallow. When the time comes to settle scores, they may be more likely to choose bullets rather than ballots to do the job.
What could go wrong?
Israel Matzav: Obama's weakness and Lebanon's new government
Israel Matzav: Al-Qaeda chief: Iran and Shiites more dangerous than Jews, Christians
Al-Qaeda chief: Iran and Shiites more dangerous than Jews, Christians
The only problem with this is that this guy would probably be as dangerous as Iran but for the fact that he is not a state actor.
The leader of Al-Qaida in the Arabian Penninsula warned Tuesday that Shi'ite Muslims, particularly Iran, posed more danger to the world than either Jews or Christians.
"They [Shiites] are being driven by a greed to take over Muslim countries and they are full of a wish to annihilate Sunnis," Mohammed bin Abdul Rahman al-Rashid said in an audio recording carried by the U.S. monitoring group SITE Intelligence.
"Their threat to Islam and its people is much bigger than that from Jews and Christians," he added. The majority of the world's Muslims are Sunni, but Iran and the Lebanon-based group Hezbollah are both Shi'ite.
What could go wrong?
Israel Matzav: Al-Qaeda chief: Iran and Shiites more dangerous than Jews, Christians
Israel Matzav: 'He would have died for Jerusalem'
'He would have died for Jerusalem'
Tuesday night was the 15th yahrtzeit of Rav Shlomo Goren z"l (of blessed memory). Rav Goren was the Chief Rabbi of the IDF during the Six Day War and later became the Chief Rabbi of Israel.Arutz Sheva went to the commemoration event last night and interviewed Rabbi Goren's son Rami, a former work colleague of mine whom I have not seen since his father's shiva. Here are some highlights:
Concerning Jerusalem, which the United States wants divided between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, the late Rabbi Goren’s son stated that his father told him a month before he died, "I am prepared to die for Jerusalem."
"From his standpoint, there is a basis in Jewish law that if necessary, one must sacrifice his life for the Land of Israel," Rami Goren explained. "He fought for Jerusalem all his life.” He said that his father’s efforts succeeded in keeping Hevron's Cave of the Patriarchs in Jewish hands, although he failed to keep the Temple Mount under Jewish sovereignty.
Tuesday night’s event in memory of Rabbi Goren featured a discussion of the aspects of Jewish law concerning the release of terrorists in exchange for Jewish kidnap victims. The younger Goren offered his opinion that “the question does not concern the specific issue of kidnapped [IDF] soldier Gilad Shalit, but rather the principle of the government’s determining it needs to enter into negotiations” to bring back victims.
"My father’s answer on the issue clearly was ‘no,'” he added. “A large part of the reasoning is to prevent encouraging terrorists to kidnap again and again."
Israel Matzav: 'He would have died for Jerusalem'
Israel Matzav: Did Netanyahu prostrate himself before Obama?
Did Netanyahu prostrate himself before Obama?
Did Prime Minister Netanyahu prostrate himself before President Obama (and Abu Bluff) on Monday night? That's how Haaretz makes it sound. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu proposed additional Israeli gestures to the Palestinian Authority during his White House meeting with U.S. President Barack Obama Monday night, in an effort to persuade PA President Mahmoud Abbas to agree to resume talks with Israel.
...
The road to arranging the meeting was rocky and humiliating for Netanyahu, and it seems the Americans tried to give it the lowest possible diplomatic and media profile even after agreeing to hold it. Afterward, the White House issued a laconic statement that did not even describe the meeting as "positive" or "good."
It merely said the two leaders had discussed bilateral issues, and continued: "The President reaffirmed our strong commitment to Israel's security, and discussed security cooperation on a range of issues. The President and the Prime Minister also discussed Iran and how to move forward on Middle East peace."
Moreover, no photographs of the two men together have been released. The video photographer for the Israel Government Press Office was not allowed to enter the meeting room, and the stills photographer was allowed to enter but not publish the pictures he took.
In addition, the meeting took place late at night, and Netanyahu arrived in an ordinary van rather than the state limousine in which guests are usually brought to the White House for meetings with the president.
It is almost certainly the case that the extent to which this meeting was downplayed was meant to avoid further infuriating the 'Palestinians' over Obama's backtracking on a 'settlement freeze.' And any 'gestures' (if any were offered) were probably a quid pro quo for some form of US cooperation on Iran. I remain convinced that the real purpose of the meeting was to discuss joint action on Iran and that what we will see in the future is how that joint action plays out.
But it's a shame to have to give Haaretz an opportunity to gloat like that.
But it's a shame to have to give Haaretz an opportunity to gloat like that.
Israel Matzav: Did Netanyahu prostrate himself before Obama?
Israel Matzav: Burns: Make Judea and Samaria Judenrein
Burns: Make Judea and Samaria Judenrein
US Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs William Burns spoke to the Middle East Institute in Washington on Tuesday. Here's what he had to say about Israel and the 'Palestinians.' If there’s one issue that should keep us humble, it is the elusive quest for Arab-Israeli peace. While not a magic solution to all the many ills of the region, no other issue cuts closer to the core of what drives emotions throughout much of the Middle East. It is a truism that the parties themselves must make the difficult decisions for peace, and it is an historical fact that most of the biggest breakthroughs, from Sadat in Jerusalem to the secret negotiations in Oslo, have come from the parties themselves. But persistent, hard-headed, day-in-and-day-out, high-level American engagement has also been a critical ingredient for success, from Henry Kissinger’s shuttle diplomacy, to Jimmy Carter at Camp David, to Jim Baker on the road to Madrid.
It is exactly that realization that has animated the efforts of President Obama, Secretary Clinton and Senator Mitchell, appointed as the President’s Special Envoy on the second day of the new Administration. Our goal is clear: two states living side by side in peace and security; a Jewish state of Israel, with which America retains unbreakable bonds, and with true security for all Israelis; and a viable, independent Palestinian state with contiguous territory that ends the occupation that began in 1967, that ends the daily humiliations of Palestinians under occupation, and that realizes the full and remarkable potential of the Palestinian people.
Toward that end, as Secretary Clinton emphasized last week in the region, we seek to re-launch direct negotiations, without preconditions. That emphatically does not mean starting from scratch; it means building on previous agreements, resolving the core issues of the conflict, and settling it once and for all. At every step of this process, the United States will be an active and creative partner.
We seek to create the best possible circumstances for negotiations, working with the parties, working with key regional partners like Egypt, and the Quartet. We do not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements; we consider the Israeli offer to restrain settlement activity to be a potentially important step, but it obviously falls short of the continuing Roadmap obligation for a full settlement freeze. We seek to deepen international support for the Palestinian Authority’s impressive plan to build over the next couple years the institutions that a responsible Palestinian state requires. And we also seek progress toward peace between Israel and Syria, and Israel and Lebanon, as part of a broader peace among Israel and all of its neighbors.
I wish I could stand before you today and point to substantial progress toward those goals. I cannot. But what I can say is that the Administration’s commitment and determination are undiminished, and that we will continue to work hard to bring about the early resumption of negotiations, which is the only path to the two state solution on which so much depends, not only for the future of Israelis and Palestinians, but for the entire Middle East. Setbacks and complications are the common thread that runs through every effort at Middle East peace. We need to learn from them, but not be deterred by them. We have made limited headway – a shared understanding between the parties about a two state objective; a shared interest in moving back to the negotiating table; wide international backing for this process; steady progress, in the face of very difficult odds, toward shaping reliable Palestinian security organizations and governmental institutions in the West Bank. Now we need to bear down, move ahead, fulfill our responsibilities for leadership, and challenge every other party to fulfill theirs.
Note that there are no requirements on the 'Palestinians.' Nothing about ending terror (which is a precondition to ANY 'settlement freeze' under the 'road map'). Nothing about recognizing Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state. And note the elephant in the room: If the 'Palestinian' state is contiguous, then by definition, the Jewish state is not. And if the 'Palestinian' state is viable and contiguous then almost by definition the Jewish state is neither viable nor secure.
Note also that Burns says that the US seeks to deepen 'international support' for Fayyad's plan to build the institutions that a 'responsible' state needs to function. Does the US also support Fayyad's plan to declare a 'state' unilaterally at the end of that period?
What could go wrong?
Note also that Burns says that the US seeks to deepen 'international support' for Fayyad's plan to build the institutions that a 'responsible' state needs to function. Does the US also support Fayyad's plan to declare a 'state' unilaterally at the end of that period?
What could go wrong?
Israel Matzav: Burns: Make Judea and Samaria Judenrein
Israel Matzav: US and UK raise Iranian arms shipments in Security Council
US and UK raise Iranian arms shipments in Security Council
At a closed session of the United Nations Security Council on Tuesday night, the United States accused Iran of violating an arms embargo by sending weapons to Syria on the Francop, the ship pictured at top left. The United Kingdom expressed 'serious concern' over the arms that Iran shipped to Syria and Hezbullah. U.S. deputy ambassador Alejandro Wolff and British deputy ambassador Philip Parham raised Israel's seizure of the cargo vessel Francop on Nov. 4 off Cyprus during a closed-door council debate on implementation of the 2006 cease-fire between Israel and Hezbollah militants in Lebanon that ended their 34-day war, council diplomats said.
Israel has not provided documentary evidence to back its claims that 36 containers of weapons hidden among hundreds of containers of civilian cargo on the Francop came from Iran and were headed for Lebanon's Hezbollah fighters via Syria. But its contention about the Iranian origin was bolstered by Iranian markings on the side of containers filled with rockets, missiles, mortars, anti-tank weapons and munitions shown to reporters in Israel.
The United States told the council that the concealed arms shipment, "clearly manifested from Iran to Syria" in violation of a March 2007 arms embargo, provides "unambiguous evidence of the destabilizing proliferation of arms in the region," the U.S. official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because the council meeting was private.
The United States also called on Syria and Iran to end their "material support" for Hezbollah and other militias in Lebanon, which violates the 2006 cease-fire resolution, the U.S. official said.
Syria's U.N. Ambassador Bashar Ja'afari countered by accusing Israel of committing "an act of piracy on the high seas," and saying it should be held legally accountable, with the issue followed by the Security Council.
"All these rumors circulated by the Israelis are ... the usual Israeli outrageous concoction of lies," he said.
Britain's Parham told reporters after the council meeting that the Francop appears to be the third case of illegal Iranian arms exports this year.
"We hope that Iran will play a part in achieving a secure, peaceful and prosperous Middle East, but its current behavior appears to point in a different direction," Parham said.
Meanwhile, that 'act of piracy on the high seas' has produced conclusive proof that Iran is shipping weapons to Syria and Hezbullah.
The Foreign Ministry disclosed Wednesday that examinations of weapons found on the ship stopped by Israel on the high seas two weeks ago prove that Iran is the source. “An examination of the munitions seized proves conclusively that the source of the arms was Iran. This is clear both from the shipping documents and the markings on the munitions themselves,” it stated.
You can see those markings here. Here's the list of what was on the ship - by the way, the crew had no idea what it was carrying:
--Approximately 9,000 mortar shells;
--3,000 Katyusha rockets;
--3,000 recoilless gun shells;
--20,000 grenades;
-more than half a million rounds of small arms ammunition
If George W. Bush were still President, 'engagement' with Iran would be over. It was Israel's January 2002 seizure of the Karine A weapons ship headed from Iran to the 'Palestinians' (with 10% of the weaponry that was on the Francop) that convinced Bush that Yasser Arafat would never again visit the United States or be a 'peace partner.' But we have a different President now, and he's still waiting for Iran to change its stripes. So, apparently, is the British deputy ambassador to the United Nations.
What could go wrong?
What could go wrong?
Israel Matzav: US and UK raise Iranian arms shipments in Security Council
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
