Friday, 12 February 2010

Israel Matzav: Sabbath music video

Sabbath music video

Okay, this is a little different than usual.

Here's the Sabbath prayer from Fiddler on the Roof.

Let's go to the videotape.

Shabbat Shalom everyone!

Israel Matzav: Sabbath music video

Israel Matzav: Roger Cohen's Mideast falsehoods

Roger Cohen's Mideast falsehoods

He's back again.

Roger Cohen is back with half truths and lies about Israel and our relationships with the United States and with the 'Palestinians.'

Centuries of persecution culminating in the Holocaust created a moral imperative for a Jewish homeland, Israel, and demand of America that it safeguard that nation in the breach.

But contrary to the Obama-Cohen lies, Israel did not come into existence because of the Holocaust.

[T]he truth is almost the exact opposite. The extermination by the Germans of six million Jews during World War II came close to putting an end to the dream of establishing a Jewish state in Palestine. The reservoir of Jewish immigrants to Palestine was decimated. Vladimir Jabotinsky, in his testimony before the Peel Commission in London on February 11, 1937, spoke of the aim of Zionism as the establishment of a Jewish state on both sides of the Jordan River in which there would be room for "the Arab population and their progeny and many millions of Jews." At that time, the Jewish population of Palestine was no more than 400,000.

By the time the war had ended, millions of Jews had been exterminated in Auschwitz, Treblinka, Majdanek, Sobibor and the killing fields of Russia. To Zionist leaders, it became clear that not only were there not enough Jews to constitute a solid Jewish majority, which was the condition for establishing a Jewish state, on both sides of the Jordan River, but that Jewish immigration would not even suffice to establish such a majority in the entire area west of the Jordan.

It was the mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, who grasped the full potential of the destruction of European Jewry for ending Zionist aspirations, and therefore allied himself with Hitler. Arab leaders in Egypt and Iraq similarly found good reason to hope for Hitler's victory. Yet after the war, the Yishuv (the Jewish community in pre-Palestine) and the remnants of European Jewry, who overcame British efforts to block their way to Palestine, had enough vitality and strength to bring about the establishment of the State of Israel in part of the territory that the League of Nations had originally mandated to Britain for the establishment of a Jewish state on both sides of the Jordan River.


The U.S. objective is a two-state peace. But day by day, square meter by square meter, the physical space for the second state, Palestine, is disappearing.

Not a single 'settlement' has been expanded since Netanyahu took office or for many years before. All population growth takes place within the boundaries of the existing 'settlements.'


Through violence, anti-Semitic incitation, and annihilationist threats, Palestinian factions have contributed mightily to the absence of peace and made it harder for America to adopt the balance required. But the impressive recent work of Prime Minister Salam Fayyad in the West Bank shows that Palestinian responsibility is no oxymoron and demands of Israel a response less abject than creeping annexation.

First of all, that's an understatement. Cohen pretends that the 'Palestinians' were not offered a state in 1939, 1947, 2000 and 2008 (among other times). If what the 'Palestinians' wanted was a state, they would have had it a long time ago. But they don't want a state. They want to destroy the State of Israel, and useful idiots like Roger Cohen are helping them to keep that dream alive.

As to Fayyad and his 'Palestinian responsibility,' go here, here, here, here, here, here and here. And that's just the last month and a half.


And this: the “existential threat” to Israel is overplayed. It is no feeble David facing an Arab (or Arab-Persian) Goliath. Armed with a formidable nuclear deterrent, Israel is by far the strongest state in the region. Room exists for America to step back and apply pressure without compromising Israeli security.

Does this mean Cohen is willing to let us use that power and bomb the stuffing out of Iran? Of course not.....


And this: Obama needs to work harder on overcoming Palestinian division, a prerequisite for peace, rather than playing the no-credible-interlocutor Israeli game. The Hamas charter is vile. But the breakthrough Oslo accords were negotiated in 1993, three years before the Palestine Liberation Organization revoked the annihilationist clauses in its charter. When Arafat and Rabin shook hands on the White House lawn, that destroy-Israel charter was intact. Things change through negotiation, not otherwise. If there are Taliban elements worth engaging, are there really no such elements in the broad movements that are Hamas and Hezbollah?

I agree that Fatah is no better than Hamas. The Fatah charter has never been revoked. The Oslo Accords were a bad mistake. Why should we compound it by entering into 'negotiations' with another terror organization? Especially when nothing about Fatah has changed since 1993. They differ with Hamas on methodology - not on goals.


If there are not two states there will be one state between the river and the sea and very soon there will be more Palestinian Arabs in it than Jews. What then will become of the Zionist dream?

Sorry, Roger, but there won't be more 'Palestinian' Arabs in it than Jews. Go here and here.

Roger Cohen has already been shown to be a fool in his assessments of Iran last year. He's not any better when it comes to Israel and the 'Palestinians.'

Israel Matzav: Roger Cohen's Mideast falsehoods

Love of the Land: Iranian Israeli gets conviction for travelling to Iran

Iranian Israeli gets conviction for travelling to Iran

Point of No Return
11 February '10
Posted before Shabbat

An Iranian Israeli is convicted in an Israeli court for going back to Iran. But his defence, that he wanted to help his brother sell his assets, cuts little ice with the leader of Iranian immigrants in Israel, the Jerusalem Post reports.

The conviction of an Ashdod man who traveled to Iran was justified, said David Motai, spokesman for the Central Organization of Iranian Immigrants in Israel, on Wednesday.

Jayad Soulemani, 48, from Ashdod, said he traveled to Iran to sell assets in order to help his brother, who lives there. During his stay he was questioned by Iranian intelligence officers, and was asked questions about Israel and the IDF, according to the charge sheet. Soulemani has expressed regret over his actions, attributing them to poor judgment.

The Beersheba Magistrate’s Court sentenced the Iranian-born Soulemani to four months community service and fined him NIS 2,000 for visiting the Islamic Republic two years ago. He was found guilty of traveling to an enemy state without obtaining special permission, after he purchased forged Iranian documents in Turkey. Soulemani was also sentenced to a 10-month suspended prison sentence.

Some 250,000 Iranian-Israelis reside in Israel, while around 25,000 Jews live in Iran.

“The question is very simple,” said Motai said. “If there is a law prohibiting travel to any country, then all citizens must know that violating the law has consequences. It doesn’t matter whether that country is Iran or Morocco, and there are no clauses in the law saying that helping one’s brother can constitute an exception,” Motai told The Jerusalem Post on Thursday.

(Read full story)

Love of the Land: Iranian Israeli gets conviction for travelling to Iran

Love of the Land: History as Propaganda

History as Propaganda

Brendan Goldman
11 February '10

“This is not an Israeli-Palestinian debate,” Stanley Cohen, the director of the Scone Foundation, said. “It is [a conference] to honor the archivist profession.”

Cohen’s statement was half true: the event was not a “debate,” but only because there were no dissenting opinions to challenge keynote speaker Rashid Khalidi’s monologue portraying the Palestinians as powerless victims of an Israeli foe intent on destroying their historical records.

Cohen was speaking to an audience of approximately 150 people, mostly members of the general public and scholars of the Middle East, at the Scone Foundation’s “Archivist of the Year” award ceremony, held January 25 at the CUNY Graduate Center’s expansive auditorium in the heart of New York City.

The event was billed as an opportunity to honor the joint recipients of the seventh Archivist of the Year award, Yehoshua Freundlich of the Israeli Archives and Khader Salameh of the Al-Aqsa Mosque Library. Khalidi, Edward Said Professor of Arab Studies at Columbia University and a former spokesman for the PLO, and Professor David Myers, the director of the Center for Jewish Studies at the University of California, Los Angeles, were the event’s keynote speakers.

Cohen made clear from the start that he subscribed to the political biases of academia. He claimed that a previous recipient of the Archivist of the Year Award had been “shelved by the Defense Department” for opposing Operation Iraqi Freedom. “Archivists cannot oppose faith-based policies,” Cohen joked with his seemingly sympathetic audience.

(Read full article)

Love of the Land: History as Propaganda

Love of the Land: Fundamentally Freund: Hyphenated Israelis

Fundamentally Freund: Hyphenated Israelis

Giving those living abroad the right to vote here is a good place to start in strengthening their bond to this country.

Michael Freund
Fundamentally Freund/JPost
10 February '10

Nearly a century ago, US president Theodore Roosevelt ascended the stage of Carnegie Hall in New York and created a stir. Thundering passionately as only he could, Roosevelt launched a memorable assault on the idea of multiple national loyalties, making a forceful case against diluting the concept of American identity.

“There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism,” he famously declared in his 1915 speech. “Americanism is a matter of the spirit and of the soul. Our allegiance must be purely to the United States. We must unsparingly condemn any man who holds any other allegiance.”

I couldn’t help but think back to Roosevelt’s words this week after the proposal put forward by Israel Beiteinu to grant Israelis living abroad the right to vote.

At first glance, the plan does elicit a reflexive distaste. Our heart tells us there is something inherently wrong with the idea of people who do not live here being able to shape our government.

On the surface, it smacks of democracy by remote control. If a person is not invested in the outcome beyond an emotional attachment, and does not directly bear the consequences of his choices, giving him the vote seems like an affront to the rest of us who do live here. In that respect, it also seems to contradict the spirit of Zionism by extending Israeli political rights to those who have chosen to go elsewhere.

THAT, AS I said, is the heart speaking. But I think the head tells a very different story. To begin with, the world of 2010 is not the same as that of 1915. Indeed, increased global mobility and cross-border technologies have weakened the bonds of national identity, all but making Roosevelt’s pronouncements obsolete.

Consequently, an increasing number of countries around the world have been extending the right to vote to their citizens living abroad, recognizing the inherent value in strengthening ties with expatriates.

(Read full article)

Related article: Manhigut Yehudit's Ideas Going Mainstream also The Great Absentee-Ballot Debate

Love of the Land: Fundamentally Freund: Hyphenated Israelis

Love of the Land: The message in Palestinian condemnation of terror on grounds of efficacy

The message in Palestinian condemnation of terror on grounds of efficacy

Dr. Aaron Lerner
Weekly Commentary
11 February '10

Compare and contrast:

"A loathsome, criminal act of murder was committed today at a site holy to both Jews and Arabs in Hebron.The Prime Minister and Defense Minister, government ministers and citizens of the State of Israel severely condemn this terrible murder of innocent people, which occurred during Ramadan prayer services."
Statement by Prime Minister Rabin on the Murders in Hebron, 25 February 1994.

'This incident condemned by us, which is incompatible with the Palestinian national interests, and with the efforts of the Palestinian National Authority, as well as with the commitments they have undertaken.. violence that has been proven to cause damage to the higher interests of our people."
Palestinian Prime Minister Dr. Salam Fayyad 10 February 2010

The differences are hardly subtle.

When an Israeli prime minister condemns an attack by a Jew against Palestinians he condemns it because it is in and of itself a "loathsome, criminal act."

When a Palestinian prime minister condemns an attack by a Palestinian against an Israeli, he condemns it because it is "incompatible with the Palestinian national interests."

And this isn't the first time.

In point of fact, official Palestinian condemnations of terror against Israelis consistently condemn it on the basis of its efficacy (does not serve interests) rather than because it is simply wrong.

Look back at the details of the charges that PA prosecutors have filed against the few Palestinian terrorists that they jailed (mostly in order to protect them from Israeli justice) and - that's right - they weren't sentenced for murdering Israelis but instead for acting "against Palestinian interests".

This isn't just a technical matter.

It goes to the very heart of the nature of how the Palestinian leadership relates to Israel.

And it should serve as an important warning for policy makers.

If the reason it is wrong to murder Israelis today is that it doesn't serve Palestinian interests and not that it is simply wrong to murder Israelis then what happens if circumstances are such that it does serve Palestinian interests to murder Israelis?

And given that this is the case, what restrictions are necessary for the arming, training, etc. of Palestinian security forces?

Love of the Land: The message in Palestinian condemnation of terror on grounds of efficacy

Love of the Land: No, Goldstone Is Not a Threat to the Democracies

No, Goldstone Is Not a Threat to the Democracies

Noah Pollak
11 February '10

Peter Berkowitz, a commentator I admire greatly, has a piece at NRO that criticizes the “astonishing attempt to shift power from sovereign states to international institutions” being undertaken by the NGO/international-law community. It’s an excellent analysis, and Berkowitz has been doing important work on the subject, but I have one quibble:

It would be a mistake to think that Israel’s lawyerly self-defense is of purely legal interest. This battle reflects a continuation of war and politics by other means. Indeed, the battle is fraught with weighty implications for all liberal democracies struggling against transnational terrorists.

This point has been made by many people, including the Israeli government itself, and it is a form of the old adage that “first they came for Israel, and I did not speak out because I am not an Israeli.” But I don’t think it’s true in this case. If “lawfare,” as it’s known, were truly a danger to powerful democratic nations, there would be more done to push back against it. Instead, what we see today is democratic nations that pay lip service to its tenets, safe in the knowledge that, while carrying few downsides, endorsing the abstract concepts of international law wins approval from the self-appointed arbiters of international virtue.

This is a war that probably will never spread to the great powers or even to the medium powers. For lawfare to work, several conditions have to be met. The target of lawfare must be: 1) a small and diplomatically weak nation; 2) a democracy whose citizens desire international acceptance; 3) a country surrounded by enemies that force it to fight frequent and indecisive wars, providing a constant supply of fresh “evidence” of criminality.

(Read full post)

Love of the Land: No, Goldstone Is Not a Threat to the Democracies

Love of the Land: The chronologically-challenged Stephen Walt

The chronologically-challenged Stephen Walt

Martin Kramer
Inside the Middle East/JPost
11 February '10

In the past, I've demolished Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer's claim that Israel and its friends drove the United States to war with Iraq. I did it when they published their article, and did it again when they published their book, The Israel Lobby. It's a conspiracy theory, pure and simple. And because Walt is a conspiracy theorist, he does what they all do: he rips evidence out of context.

Here's his latest grasp at a straw: his claim that Tony Blair has "revealed" that "Israel officials were involved in those discussions" on Iraq held between Blair and George Bush in Crawford, Texas in April 2002. Walt brings as evidence this quote from Blair's testimony to the UK commission investigating the Iraq war:

As I recall that discussion, it was less to do with specifics about what we were going to do on Iraq or, indeed, the Middle East, because the Israel issue was a big, big issue at the time. I think, in fact, I remember, actually, there may have been conversations that we had even with Israelis, the two of us, whilst we were there. So that was a major part of all this."

Walt's conclusion: "Blair is acknowledging that concerns about Israel were part of the equation, and that the Israeli government was being actively consulted in the planning for the war." Walt goes on to declare that "more evidence of their influence [of Israel and the Israel lobby] on the decision for war will leak out," and that "Blair's testimony is evidence of that process at work."

When people who don't know much about the Middle East, like Stephen Walt, pose as experts, they make basic mistakes of chronology. So let me remind him of exactly what coincided with the Crawford meeting of April 6-7, 2002.

(Read full article)

Love of the Land: The chronologically-challenged Stephen Walt

Elder of Ziyon: Saudi religious police ban red items ahead of Valentine's Day

Saudi religious police ban red items ahead of Valentine's Day

From AP:

The Saudi religious police are cracking down on stores selling items that are red or in any other way allude to banned celebrations of Valentine's Day.

A Saudi official says policemen are inspecting shops for red roses, heart-shaped products or gifts wrapped in red, and ordering storeowners to get rid of them.

Such items are legal at other times of the year, but as February 14 nears they become contraband.

Saudi Arabia bans celebration of Western holidays such as Valentine's Day, named after a Christian saint said to have been martyred by the Romans in the 3rd Century.

Most shops in Riyadh's upscale neighborhoods have removed all red items from their shelves.

Red wrapping paper is also forbidden.

The many Filipino workers in Saudi Arabia were warned not to do anything valentine-y in public on February 14th, including blowing kisses.

AP is watering down the reasons that the Saudis are against Valentine's Day. It is not strictly because it is a Christian holiday, but because (as I mentioned in a Saudi Vice episode two years ago)

As Muslims we shouldn't celebrate a non-Muslim celebration especially this one that encourages immoral relations between unmarried men and women.

Here's the perfect gift for Saudi Valentine's Day!

Elder of Ziyon: Saudi religious police ban red items ahead of Valentine's Day

Elder of Ziyon: PalArab press and politics personified

Elder of Ziyon: PalArab press and politics personified

Elder of Ziyon: Ancient Jerusalem street unearthed, PalArabs skeptical

Elder of Ziyon: Ancient Jerusalem street unearthed, PalArabs skeptical

Elder of Ziyon: A Saudi problem, and a potential solution

Elder of Ziyon: A Saudi problem, and a potential solution

DoubleTapper: Godspeed Charlie Wilson

Godspeed Charlie Wilson

Charlie Wilson, the former congressman from Texas died Wednesday at 76.

Zvi Rafiah, who was the Israeli embassy's liaison with Congress from 1973 to 1979, called Wilson "one of Congress' greatest Israel supporters."

"I think that there were no Jews in his constituency, but he was a true friend. His support for Israel was based on his belief that we are a brave people, a sort of David to Goliath," Rafiah added.

"We're not used to having the Congress come to us, but he was the only Congressman to show up at the embassy on the second day of the [Yom Kippur] War to ask for an update on the situation at the front," said Rafiah. "Motta Gur, who was the military attaché at the time, briefed him."

"At the moment a ceasefire was declared, he immediately came to visit Israel and he came many times afterward. Israel owes him a great deal. His friendship with Egypt and Pakistan never came at Israel's expense," Rafiah concluded.

DoubleTapper: Godspeed Charlie Wilson

Sefer Chabibi Deepest Torah: MISHPATIM: from six to eternity

MISHPATIM: from six to eternity

by Rabbi Baruch Binyamin Hakohen Melman

This week's parsha Mishpatim follows on the heels of the Decalogue and immediately we read about the Eved Ivri (Hebrew slave/servant). The plain meaning, of course, is that it refers to the Hebrew slave who refuses manumission in the seventh year. Why it follows the Aseret HaDibrot, the Ten Commandments? A seemingly pedestrian legal ruling appears in the Torah immediately after the most awesome, literally earth shaking event in human history!

But the deepest understanding of the Hebrew Slave (eved ivri), is that he really is each and every one of us who chooses to remain with his ultimate Master, Hashem, and more poignantly, that Hashem reciprocates by choosing to remain with us. We are each one of us an eved (servant) of Hashem, and Hashem therefore will never abandon us as we vow not to abandon Him.

Sinai was the pledging of eternal love. Now we see that love being tested! Upon insisting he remain with his Master, the eved (servant/slave) makes a declaration saying, AHAVTI ET ADONI VE'ET ISHTI VE'ET BANAI LO ETZEI CHOFSHI. (Ex 21:5) This is usually translated as "I LOVE my master and my wife and My children - I will not go out free." But it is not "I love" in the present. It reads Ahavti "I loveD"- PAST TENSE! "In the PAST I loved ..." This is not to say that he doesn't love them in the present. Of course he does.

What's important to understand is that the Torah recognizes that the intensity of romantic love necessarily fades over time. The heady impact of standing at Sinai fades over time. The certainty of keeping the Torah that was so clear at the smoking mountain becomes less clear down the long road of time's journeys. Hashem is saying, "You can go free if you really want to. You can be free of your obligations to me, and vice versa." But the eved says "NO." "And although the intensity of the romantic love may have faded, I still want to stay with you forever." He says, "my wife and children are connected to me so deeply. How could I dare live apart from them?"

Hashem was Israel's spouse under the Sinai Chuppah as the mountain was held over their heads. But it was not to crush them if they didn't accept the Torah, rather it was to be the biggest chuppah (wedding canopy) the world had ever seen!

Hashem, You say, You shall LOVE the L*rd your G*D..." And what if, CV"S, I have lost that loving feeling? Maybe the outer shell has faded, but the inner love core is still there. The Pintele Yid remains forever. Because the root of love in Hebrew Is HAV, which means to give, know that all we have given to each other counts for something.

The six years of servitude represent the six days of Creation. And the six days of the week count for a lot because they lead up to Shabbos. Even if we didn't FEEL the love of Shabbos every day of the week, we wouldn't HAVE Shabbos without those six days leading up to Shabbos! At least in this world. Zachor is the yearning for Shabbos as Shamor is keeping Shabbos.

So Hashem, even as you are my master, you are also my partner, my spouse. I will be loyal to you and to your Torah even after a thousand generations have passed. Even if my/our love for you may have faded over time, know that I pledge to you my eternal fidelity for the sake of all the good we have given each other over the years. We have been together for six good years. I won't allow a seventh year itch! I would never leave you. I would rather bore my ear and be yours forever for all time.

And so the Master takes his eved's OZEN, his ear, and marks it with a RETZUAH, a strip. when we don our Tefillin's RETZUOT/straps, we are to remember this eternal fidelity. No matter how onerous and burdensome it seems to get up early to phylacterate, we are to be reminded of our love for our true Master when we don the straps. Because we refused to leave Hashem, Hashem refuses to leave us. And why the ear? Because it says OZNO, which really means "I will give him my sustenance" -MAZON. "You stay with me and you will never lack for anything."

"Because Israel did not abandon me in the sixth year when he could have, even as the door was left open, I will be there for Israel for all eternity - and beyond."

Good Shabbos!

Shabbat Shalom.© 2000 - 2010 by Rabbi Baruch Binyamin Hakohen Melman

Sefer Chabibi Deepest Torah: MISHPATIM: from six to eternity

Al Qaeda Planned Karni Crossing Attack - Defense/Middle East - Israel News - Israel National News

Al Qaeda Planned Karni Crossing Attack - Defense/Middle East - Israel News - Israel National News

Nabbed Hamas Cell Tried to Abduct Soldier During Shalit Talks - Defense/Middle East - Israel News - Israel National News

Nabbed Hamas Cell Tried to Abduct Soldier During Shalit Talks - Defense/Middle East - Israel News - Israel National News

Almond Branch: Poem to a Slain Grandson - A7 Exclusive Features - Israel News - Israel National News

Almond Branch: Poem to a Slain Grandson - A7 Exclusive Features - Israel News - Israel National News

Ahmedinajad: We%u2019ve Upgraded Our Enriched Uranium - Defense/Middle East - Israel News - Israel National News

Ahmedinajad: We%u2019ve Upgraded Our Enriched Uranium - Defense/Middle East - Israel News - Israel National News

Terrorists Set Off Bomb Near IDF Patrol; No Soldiers Hurt - Defense/Middle East - Israel News - Israel National News

Terrorists Set Off Bomb Near IDF Patrol; No Soldiers Hurt - Defense/Middle East - Israel News - Israel National News

"My Son's Natural Place was Where He Ended His life" - Inside Israel - Israel News - Israel National News

"My Son's Natural Place was Where He Ended His life" - Inside Israel - Israel News - Israel National News

Kenya Wants Israel's Help Against Jihadists - Defense/Middle East - Israel News - Israel National News

Kenya Wants Israel's Help Against Jihadists - Defense/Middle East - Israel News - Israel National News

Israel Matzav: Bruce Bawer interviews Geert Wilders

Bruce Bawer interviews Geert Wilders

From Bruce Bawer's introduction to the interview:

[Geert] Wilders, a member of the Tweede Kamer and head of the Freedom Party, is a target for countless individuals in the Netherlands who would murder him in the name of Islam, and is obliged to spend his life behind ... layers of protection in order to avoid the unthinkable. In the last decade, after all, there have already been two assassinations of famous Dutch critics of Islam, Pim Fortuyn in 2002 and Theo van Gogh in 2004. And yet Wilders’s opponents in parliament, whose lives are shaped by the impact of the high-level security procedures that have become an everyday routine at their workplace, act as if the very threat that makes these procedures vitally necessary is a chimera. Indeed, to listen to them, and to the media, and to the great majority of the professors and commentators and business leaders who make up the Dutch establishment, is to acquire the distinct impression that it is Wilders himself, and not his Islamic would-be murderers, who represents a danger to Dutch society. In the interview that follows, I cite an opinion piece that appeared on Thursday in Trouw, a major Dutch newspaper (I mistakenly refer to it as having been in De Volkskrant), in which Thomas Mertens, a law professor at universities in Nijmegen and Leiden, argues that Wilders, by seeking so urgently to clarify for the general public the truth about Islam, is actually undermining the central precept that underlies the Dutch social contract which has been in place for centuries: namely, the agreement among members of different faith traditions to tolerate their theological differences – to close their eyes, as it were, to one another’s truth claims. What Mertens and others like him refuse to acknowledge is that the willingness of sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Catholics, Calvinists, Lutherans, and others to agree to disagree about theological abstractions has no relevance whatsoever to the present situation, in which the Netherlands, and the West generally, are confronting a faith tradition for whose most committed adherents theological abstractions have calamitous real-world consequences – not only terrorist attacks but such appalling practices as polygamy, forced marriage, honor killing, and the execution of apostates, gays, and adulteresses. Indeed, what we are speaking of when we speak about Islam is a religion whose holy book calls for the conquest of infidel-run territories in the name of Allah – a religion, that is, whose guiding beliefs leave no room for the kind of live-and-let-live mentality that Mertens and his ilk think, or pretend to think, can still be relevant in a country whose largest cities will soon have Muslim majorities. In a nation whose guiding philosophy for centuries has been “don’t rock the boat,” Wilders has dared to challenge this traditional attitude and address these terrible realities, and it is for having done so that he is now on trial for speaking his mind – and speaking the truth.

In this video, Bruce Bawer, the author of While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam is Destroying the West from Within, talks to Wilder about his trial on charges of 'Islamophobia.' The interview took place Friday, February 5 in The Hague.

You can watch the videotape here (Hat Tip: Michael F).

Israel Matzav: Bruce Bawer interviews Geert Wilders

Israel Matzav: Iran to get a seat on the 'Human Rights Council'?

Iran to get a seat on the 'Human Rights Council'?

Claudia Rosett reports that Iran is running for a seat on the 'Human Rights Council.'

While Iran's regime bloodies its dissidents, the nuclear weapons-loving mullahs are seeking a treat for themselves at the United Nations: Iran is running for a seat on the U.N. Human Rights Council.

Utterly perverse though it would be, Iran might snag that prize. The 47 seats on the Geneva-based Human Rights Council are parceled out among regional groups of U.N. member states. This year the Asian bloc has four seats opening up. Five contenders have stepped forward: Malaysia, Maldives, Qatar, Thailand--and Iran. The winners will be chosen in May, by secret ballot of the 192-member U.N. General Assembly--a notoriously thug-friendly body, run this year by a former foreign minister of Libya.

Wouldn't that be a great reward for the way Iran has treated its people! Jennifer Rubin adds:

This development — indeed the potential of this ever coming to pass — should remind us how inept and foolhardy has been Obama’s engagement policy as well as his decision to rejoin the UN Human Rights Council. Rossett notes that on February 15, a report detailing Iran’s atrocities will come before the Council along with the mullahs’ own “Orwellian” report “claiming metiulous respect for human rights, as redefined by Tehran’s lights — arguing that because ‘the system of government in Iran is based on principles of Islam, it is necessary that Islamic standards and criteria prevail in society.’” It is a preview of things to come.

And from the Obami, can we expect robust opposition to Iran’s membership, a principled walk-out should Iran secure its seat, and a re-statement of our determination to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapon? No, no! That would only send the democracy protesters rushing into the arms of the regime and fritter away all the goodwill we have racked up (doing nothing to aid them), don’t you see? Welcome to the Alice-in-Wonderland diplomacy of the Obami. Feel safer yet?

will recall that President Obumbler went into the 'Human Rights Council' after President Bush refused to do so, because Obama felt he could bring about change by 'working from within.' He's bringing about change alright - a change for the worse.

What could go wrong?

By the way, the goose-steppers up top are from the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps.

Israel Matzav: Iran to get a seat on the 'Human Rights Council'?

Israel Matzav: Roger Simon's interview with Michael Oren, Part 2

Roger Simon's interview with Michael Oren, Part 2

Roger Simon interviews Israeli ambassador to the United States Michael Oren, Part 2. Watch it here (Hat Tip: Instapundit).

Israel Matzav: Sarah Palin and Israel

Sarah Palin and Israel

On Monday, I took Sarah Palin to task for endorsing Rand Paul and for her gushing enthusiasm for his father, the isolationist Ron Paul. I have since been taken to task by my friend Michael Fenenbock, who is far more politically savvy than I am (Google his name to see why), who told me "The Paul family. Who cares? If you're looking for purity, go to shul. You won't find it in politics." So with that in mind....

Writing in National Review on Thursday, Jay Nordlinger had this to say about Palin and Israel:

Speaking of Palin: I think I commented once that, while governor, she had an Israeli flag in her office. What does Israel have to do with Palin, and vice versa? Well, nothing. But I imagine she feels solidarity with the country: because it is under siege, defamed, plucky, admirable — often heroic. (Although it would rather not be heroic, believe me. It would rather have a quiet life.) I feel the same solidarity — the same solidarity I’m guessing Palin does. If Israel had no enemies, or the normal quotient of enemies, I imagine I would go months and months without ever thinking of the country, the way I do, say, Uruguay.

I noticed that, at the tea-party convention the other day, Palin wore a “small pin with two flags,” as one account put it: “for Israel and the United States.” This is a little . . . unusual. Some might even find it creepy. But, again, I understand, or think I do. And I thought of something that Charles Krauthammer and I discussed, when I interviewed him for a National Review profile last fall. Hang on, let me just excerpt that profile, if I may:

Many Jews, particularly American ones, are nervous or scornful about the support that American evangelicals have shown for Israel. They say that this support is double-edged, or bad news, or embarrassing. Krauthammer will have none of it. “I embrace their support unequivocally and with gratitude. And when I speak to Jewish groups, whether it’s on the agenda or not, I make a point of scolding them. I say, ‘You may not want to hear this, and you may not have me back, but I’m going to tell you something: It is disgraceful, un-American, un-Jewish, ungrateful, the way you treat people who are so good to the Jewish people. We are almost alone in the world. And here we have 50 million Americans who willingly and enthusiastically support us. You’re going to throw them away, for what? Because of your prejudice.’ Oh, I give ’em hell.”

I bet he does.

Jeff Jacoby, whom I have thus far only eyed from a distance in synagogue in Boston, and to whom I have yet to introduce myself, sent Nordlinger an email in response to that column. With Jeff's permission, Nordlinger shared the email with his readers in The Corner. For those of you who have been critical of Palin, I think the email and Nordlinger's entry are worth reading.

Read it all.

Dear Jay,

Apropos Sarah Palin’s visible support for Israel: It goes deeper than mere support. I was struck, during her debate with Joe Biden in the ’08 campaign, by the way she spoke so unapologetically and matter-of-factly about feeling “love” for Israel. I just looked up the transcript of that debate, and there is a point when she says, “I’m so encouraged to know that we both love Israel, and I think that is a good thing to get to agree on, Senator Biden. I respect your position on that.” She didn’t say it with any pointed emphasis — it came out as if it were the most natural sentiment in the world.


Have you ever heard any other American politician speak on a national stage about “loving” Israel? I never have. But such ardor is common among great numbers of Christian Zionists. Like Krauthammer, I am appalled by the hostility or suspicion so many (liberal) American Jews harbor toward evangelical Christians who embrace Israel. When I speak to Jewish audiences, I often tell them about the woman who called me one day from deep in bayou country after reading a column of mine on the Middle East. In her thick Louisiana accent she told me how she prays daily for Israel, and how in her front yard she has two flagpoles: one flying the Star-Spangled Banner and one flying the Israeli flag. And then I ask my audience how many of them fly an Israeli flag in their yard. Of course none of them would ever do such a thing — it would be too awkward, too parochial, too embarrassing. But this Louisiana Christian lady doesn’t worry about such things — she loves Israel and wants the world to know it.

Sarah Palin is like that too, and so are many, many Christian Zionists I have had the honor of meeting. I bless such people. I wish more of my fellow American Jews did likewise.

For the record, Jacoby is Orthodox (as you may have figured out from my saying that I have seen him in synagogue) and Krauthammer grew up Orthodox but is no longer. Maybe that's why they're secure enough in their Jewish identities not to fear that all those Christians who support Israel are not seeking our demise.

Yes, I know, there are Christian missionaries out there who want to convert us. Sarah Palin isn't one of them. Whatever else you may say about Sarah Palin, I want all you Israelis to feel secure - and appreciate - that she LOVES us. Who else in this world loves us other than our families? Maybe it's time we started requiting some of that love.

Israel Matzav: Sarah Palin and Israel

Israel Matzav: Netanyahu just says no

Netanyahu just says no

Prime Minister Netanyahu has decided that there will be no 'independent' Israeli inquiry into the charges arising from the Goldstone Report in connection with Operation Cast Lead.

“Israel feels the report it gave was a serious, comprehensive, credible and complete answer to the UN secretary-general,” one senior official in the Prime Minister’s Office said.

“We believe that we conduct credible investigations and that we have procedures in place to investigate these types of matters that are as good as exist in any country in the world,” he said, adding that the IDF’s investigations were under the oversight of the attorney-general, and subject ultimately to Supreme Court review.

Former legal adviser to the foreign ministry Alan Baker warns that the failure to set up an 'independent' inquiry could mean endless 'lawfare' suits in European countries.

The UN General Assembly, which endorsed the Goldstone Commission report, does not have the authority to kick the issue over to the International Criminal Court in The Hague, and it is unlikely that it will be sent to the Security Council – which does have such authority – because of the likelihood that the US would cast a veto.

The problem, therefore, said Alan Baker, a former legal adviser to the Foreign Ministry, lies not necessarily with the UN or a threat to send the issue to the ICC, but with individual states – such as Britain or Spain – that could potentially initiate proceedings against Israeli officials and officers on the basis of what was written in the Goldstone Report.

Baker said that without the establishment of a commission, “we will have a non-ending series of issues with countries like Britain.”


Baker said that while Israel may have dodged the bullet at the UN, the issue would not likely disappear unless some type of commission – an official commission of inquiry or a committee set up by the government – looked at the policy-making process to dispel charges in the Goldstone Report that Israel deliberately targeted civilians.

Britain still has not changed its law since trying to arrest Tzipi Livni in December.

But Baker is wrong. An 'independent inquiry' that does not provide the uncivilized nations of the world with some Israeli blood will change nothing in the court of world opinion. Even with a number of high-ranking officers sent to prison, it is doubtful that an 'independent inquiry' would have any effect. As I noted in a post at the beginning of the week:

The world doesn't want a commission of inquiry - it wants IDF soldiers court-martialed, kicked out of the army and put in jail so that the next time the IDF won't fight a war against terrorists because its officers won't want to risk their careers and their freedom to fight war that will result in their spending the rest of their natural lives in jail. The world wants a commission of inquiry so that the IDF will no longer be in the terror-fighting business, and therefore there will soon no longer be a Jewish state (God forbid). That's the real reason behind the calls for a commission of inquiry, led by a self-hating Jew who is willing to sacrifice his people for his own boundless personal ambition.

A commission of inquiry that confirms that IDF soldiers are innocent of war crimes will solve nothing.

The government made the right decision.

Israel Matzav: Netanyahu just says no

Israel Matzav: Sanctioning Iran's human rights abusers: Another 'feel good' exercise

Sanctioning Iran's human rights abusers: Another 'feel good' exercise

A bipartisan group of US Senators planned on Thursday to introduce a bill that would force President Obumbler to levy sanctions against Iran's human rights abusers.

The legislation is authored by Sen. Joseph Lieberman, a Connecticut independent who usually sides with Democrats, and by Sen. John McCain, an Arizona Republican. A bipartisan group of Senators will co-sponsor the legislation.

The bill reflects a growing movement, in the U.S. and abroad, to put the Iranian government's treatment of internal dissidents at the top of the list of grievances against Tehran, alongside its nuclear program. The growing international unhappiness over Iran's human-rights practices was reflected over the weekend at an international security conference in Munich, where Iran's foreign minister tried, without much success, to downplay the regime's arrests and harassment of anti-government protesters.


The legislation will require that the president, within 90 days, produce a list of Iranians who have committed human rights abuses or acts of violence against Iranian citizens engaging in "peaceful political activity," said one Senate aide involved in drafting the legislation. Those on the list then would be hit with a variety of sanctions, including a ban on visas to the U.S. and a freeze on assets abroad.

But without a credible military option to back them up, the sanctions are unlikely to do anything other than make Americans feel righteous that they are 'doing something' to stop Iran. As former US ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton points out,

“Ahmadinejad’s declaration, combined with the regime’s forceful actions against the opposition, show that the regime is determined to fight through its present domestic and international difficulties.”

“This is not a regime that fears being ‘isolated’ by Barack Obama, nor does it seem to fear the threat of additional sanctions,” Bolton says. “Iran remains on the path to nuclear weapons and entrenching its domestic power.”

And why should Iran fear isolation asks David Sanger in the New York Times:

“The history of sanctions suggests it is nearly impossible to craft them to compel a government to change on an issue it sees as vital to national security,” said Richard N. Haass, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations. “They can affect a government’s calculations, but it’s no solution.”

That was certainly the Bush administration’s experience. Starting in 2006, the United States led the drive at the United Nations Security Council to pass ever escalating economic sanctions.

The list of sanctions is now six pages long. But none have accomplished the central goal: forcing compliance with the Security Council’s demand that Iran halt uranium enrichment. Mr. Obama’s team acknowledges the potential political liability of passing a fourth round that proves equally ineffective. Some are scaling back expectations for what they once called “crippling sanctions.”

“This is about driving them back to negotiations,” said one senior official, “because the real goal here is to avoid war.”

And that, dear readers, is exactly the problem. So long as the real goal is to avoid war and not to stop Iran's nuclear program, all of the sanctions are 'feel good' measures that salve our conscience and aren't going to impress Ahmadinejad or change his behavior at all.

What could go wrong?

Israel Matzav: Sanctioning Iran's human rights abusers: Another 'feel good' exercise

Israel Matzav: Iran encountering 'technical setbacks' in push to enrich uranium

Iran encountering 'technical setbacks' in push to enrich uranium

The Washington Post reports that despite Thursday's claims to have 20% enriched uranium, Iran is encountering 'technical setbacks' in its enrichment push.

Beneath this rhetoric, U.N. reports over the last year have shown a drop in production at Iran's main uranium enrichment plant, near the city of Natanz. Now a new assessment, based on three years of internal data from U.N. nuclear inspections, suggests that Iran's mechanical woes are deeper than previously known. At least through the end of 2009, the Natanz plant appears to have performed so poorly that sabotage cannot be ruled out as an explanation, according to a draft study by David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS). A copy of the report was provided to The Washington Post.

The ISIS study showed that more than half of the Natanz plant's 8,700 uranium-enriching machines, called centrifuges, were idle at the end of last year and that the number of working machines had steadily dropped -- from 5,000 in May to just over 3,900 in November. Moreover, output from the nominally functioning machines was about half of what was expected, said the report, drawing from data gathered by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog.

A separate, forthcoming analysis by the Federation of American Scientists also describes Iran's flagging performance and suggests that continued failures may increase Iran's appetite for a deal with the West. Ivan Oelrich, vice president of the federation's Strategic Security Program, said Iranian leaders appear to have raced into large-scale uranium production for political reasons.

"They are really struggling to reproduce what is literally half-century-old European technology and doing a really bad job of it," Oelrich said.

The findings are in line with assessments by numerous former U.S. and European officials and weapons analysts who say that Iran's centrifuges appear to be breaking down at a faster rate than expected, even after factoring in the notoriously unreliable, 1970s-vintage model the Iranians are using. According to several of the officials, the problems have prompted new thinking about the urgency of the Iranian nuclear threat, although the country has demonstrated a growing technical prowess, such as its expanding missile program.

"Whether Iran has deliberately slowed down or been forced to, either way that stretches out the time," said Patrick Clawson, deputy director for research at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a nonpartisan think tank.


"The IAEA measurements at Natanz are very crude and easily subject to intentional manipulation," said a former U.S. official who has closely monitored Iran's nuclear progress. He predicted that the watchdog agency eventually "will see that Iran is hiding production and is underreporting their success."


As the ISIS study notes, the Natanz plant initially exceeded expectations, producing steadily higher amounts of low-enriched fuel. But sometime in late 2008 or early 2009, the output dropped from about 90 to 70 kilograms per month. Overall production improved slightly after that but struggled to return to 2008 levels, even as Iranian scientists installed more centrifuges, the report said. In late 2009, the 3,900 machines listed as functional were generating half the amount of enriched uranium expected, it said.

Neither Iran nor the U.N. watchdog have officially accounted for the slumping output, and U.S. officials have declined to speculate publicly about the reasons. The ISIS report identifies the likely cause as a combination of poor design and Iran's rush to put complex assemblages of centrifuges into production before working out the bugs. The report cites "daily attrition through breakage," as well as a failure to anticipate the difficulty of operating large numbers of machines simultaneously.


Also, while there is no hard evidence pointing to sabotage, ISIS acknowledges the possibility that Natanz's problems were caused by outside sources. "It is well known that the United States and European intelligence agencies seek to place defective or bugged equipment into Iran's smuggling networks," it said.

Israel Matzav: Iran encountering 'technical setbacks' in push to enrich uranium

Israel Matzav: Iran is Bush's failure too

Iran is Bush's failure too

In the middle of ripping President Obumbler some new body parts for his handling of Iran over the past year, Jonathan Tobin lets fly some justified criticism of former President Bush.

The defense for Obama’s feckless diplomacy put forward in the Times article is that Obama had to spend at least a year trying diplomacy so as to convince the world that he tried engagement after the confrontational Bush years. Blaming Bush is Obama’s all-purpose political tactic on all issues, but it won’t wash here. Bush not only failed to confront Iran; he also outsourced our diplomatic efforts on the nuclear issue to France and Germany in his second term. The utter failure of his engagement effort was clear by Bush’s last year in office, but rather than face the issue and take action, he decided to pass it off on his successor. This James Buchanan–like approach to a critical issue was one of Bush’s genuine failures, and the fact that he spent 2008 similarly vetoing any Israel action on Iran only makes Obama’s dedication to the same cause both ironic and scary. But however badly Bush blundered on Iran, the idea that we needed an additional year of diplomatic failure to justify subsequent action is a joke.

Tobin's right on all counts. Granted, Bush was confronted with the false and misleading 2007 National Intelligence Estimate on Iran, but one had the sense throughout 2008 that the NIE was false (and Israel repeatedly presented evidence that it was false) and that the Bush administration was using it as an excuse to avoid dealing with a difficult problem.

I expect that 30-50 years from now, it will come out that the NIE was invented by forces in the intelligence agencies who did not want to see Bush act. Still, that's no excuse.

But whatever Bush did or did not do, Obama has only made things worse.

Israel Matzav: Iran is Bush's failure too

Israel Matzav: Obama's excuses on Iran

Obama's excuses on Iran

Jennifer Rubin sums up the Obama administration's policy goals in Iran.

You see the goal is not to prevent Iran from going nuclear but rather to avoid war. So the Obami’s main obsession is now to deter Israel (which cannot tolerate a nuclear-armed Iran) from acting. (”Top officials — from the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, to the national security adviser, Gen. James L. Jones — have visited Israel to argue that they should give sanctions time.”) But of course, we know that the chances of sanctions working are virtually nonexistent. So we are merely giving the mullahs, not sanctions, just more time.

The picture is becoming regrettably clear. International sanctions are a faint hope. Obama has come up with a rationalization to downsize U.S. sanctions. Our administration has already declared that conflict avoidance, not the dismantling of the Iranian nuclear threat, is the goal. And our real energies are devoted to stopping Israel while our sanctions pantomime plays out. This will not end well. At some point, the Obami’s “no war” will conflict with Israel’s fundamental commitment to protecting itself from an existential threat.

Meanwhile, where is the American Jewish community? Have they not noticed the retreat by the Obami on serious sanctions — and can they not anticipate the moment at which the Obami will declare Iran’s nuclear status a fait accompli? You would think they would be sounding the alarm and registering disapproval of the administration’s sleep-walking-toward-containment gambit. But it seems that they, too, are slumbering. Meanwhile, the mullahs inch forward with their nuclear program as Obama dreams up reasons to do nothing.

Sadly, for much of the American Jewish community, maintaining Democratic control of Congress and getting President Obumbler re-elected are higher priorities than preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

What could go wrong?

Israel Matzav: Obama's excuses on Iran

Love of the Land: 'I'm Unconvinced By Every Term I Draw On In My Reporting'

'I'm Unconvinced By Every Term I Draw On In My Reporting'

Honest Reporting/Backspin
10 February '10

The problem: You and your Hamas colleagues are de facto rulers of Gaza after seizing the strip in a bloody coup more than two years ago.

But you feel delegitimized by news services which continue to describe Hamas as "the deposed government" because Mahmoud Abbas dismissed the national unity government and appointed Salam Fayyad to replace Ismail Haniyeh as Prime Minister.

The solution: Formally ban media references to the Hamas as Gaza's "deposed government."

Well, Hamas did just that, leaving Palestinian journalists stuck in the middle. Fares Akram of Xinhua describes the situation in a remarkably frank dispatch:

Fed up with the description, the deposed Hamas Information Ministry last month issued a statement aimed at "defining the accurate idioms and explaining the confusion in some of the terms in use."

(Read full post)

Love of the Land: 'I'm Unconvinced By Every Term I Draw On In My Reporting'

Israel Matzav: J Street violated its agreement with Penn Hillel

J Street violated its agreement with Penn Hillel

At the Weekly Standard, Lori Lowenthal Marcus writes that J Street broke a written agreement with Penn Hillel to give the impression that Hillel supports J Street (Hat Tip: Jennifer Rubin).

The event involved a deception by J Street leadership on the local Hillel and the surrounding Jewish community. When it was discovered that J Street planned to have its new division roll-out from the Penn Hillel, many Israel supporters were concerned that the outside world would assume that Hillel had endorsed J Street, especially because J Street would be webcasting live from there to cities across the country. Not to worry, said J Street to the local Hillel leadership: We promise not to mention that we’re using your facility, and to make clear in our written and oral statements that Hillel does not endorse us. That condition was agreed upon—it was "not just a promise, it was an agreement"—according to Rabbi Howard Alpert, the executive director of all the Philadelphia area Hillels. On the strength of that essential agreement, Hillel went ahead and rented J Street its space.

And then? J Street’s Ben-Ami said exactly what he’d promised not to say—that he was speaking "here at Penn Hillel"—and failed to say a word about what he’d promised solemnly to make clear: that Hillel does not endorse J Street or its message.

In short, J Street manipulated the Hillel of Greater Philadelphia (of which I am a board member) into leasing to them space in the Hillel building for their J Street Local launch by entering into a firm agreement, and then ignoring that agreement to Hillel’s detriment. J Street’s deception made Hillel’s carefully planned and extensive pre-event efforts to soothe concerned donors, students, and others that there was no—and that it would be made very clear that there was no—connection between Hillel and J Street.

Read the whole thing.

Hillel should never have rented space to J Street in the first place. This story should be publicized as widely as possible so that no other Jewish organization makes the same mistake (I'm betting that Columbia's Earl Hall will be next).

Israel Matzav: J Street violated its agreement with Penn Hillel

Israel Matzav: 'Activists' arrested in Belgium for impersonating El Al stewardesses

'Activists' arrested in Belgium for impersonating El Al stewardesses

Six 'activists' were arrested at a trade show in Belgium this week after they impersonated El Al stewardesses and handed out materials claiming that El Al transports weapons for the IDF (note - that's a REAL stewardess in the picture and NOT an 'activist').

Six activists were arrested at a tourism expo in Brussels, Belgium on Monday, after they impersonated El Al stewardesses and handed out pamphlets smearing the Israeli airline.

The activists’ uniforms were exact down to the Hebrew name tags, and a number of expo attendees were reportedly fooled by the ruse.

The activists, who police say are members of an anti-war group called “Peace Action,” offered passers-by “vouchers” for a free flight to Israel and invited them to head over to the El Al and Israel Tourism Ministry booths for their free flight.

The “vouchers” were actually pamphlets written in Flemish, detailing what the group claimed was El Al’s role in transporting weapons for the Israel Defense Forces.

Security guards at the event contacted police, who held the activists for questioning for several hours before releasing them. The activists could face charges of disturbing the peace. An El Al spokesperson said the company did not know where the activists obtained the uniforms, or whether they were homemade.

Well, I sure hope no one has stolen El Al uniforms. I can think of a lot of bad things for which they could be used.

Israel Matzav: 'Activists' arrested in Belgium for impersonating El Al stewardesses

Love of the Land: NGO Monitor Calls on New Israel Fund to Draw “Red Lines”

NGO Monitor Calls on New Israel Fund to Draw “Red Lines”

NGO Monitor
11 February '10

JERUSALEM – The research and watchdog group NGO Monitor today called on the New Israel Fund (NIF) to implement clear “red lines” regarding the activities and rhetoric of the non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that it funds. NIF has been widely criticized for supporting advocacy groups that contribute centrally to demonization through allegations of “war crimes” and intense lobbying on behalf of the Goldstone Report.

“Instead of using its relationship with NGOs to advance constructive agendas, NIF has been supporting and defending campaigns that demonize and delegitimize Israel,” charged Prof. Gerald Steinberg, president of NGO Monitor. “In many cases, it appears that NIF donors are unaware of the activities of these groups and their damaging impact. It is essential that powerful organizations like NIF establish clear guidelines and implement them in a unequivocal and transparent manner.”NGO Monitor proposes that NIF adopt “red lines” that prevent funding for organizations that support activities designed to promote the NGO “Durban strategy” to isolate Israel:

(Read full article)

Love of the Land: NGO Monitor Calls on New Israel Fund to Draw “Red Lines”

Israel Matzav: Overnight music video

Overnight music video

The words of this song mean "As the deer pants for streams of water, so my soul pants for you, O God, My soul thirsts for you O Lord, when will I come and see God's face"

Let's go to the videotape.

Israel Matzav: Overnight music video

DoubleTapper: IDF Women

IDF Women

تنسيق-الكليات-لعام سكس نيك كس

DoubleTapper: IDF Women
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...