Thursday, 18 February 2010

Love of the Land: Joyce Kaufman. The 7 Reasons to Support Israel

Joyce Kaufman. The 7 Reasons to Support Israel

Channel 1 Images
18 February '10

(Wow! What a speaker!)

At an event commemorating the first full year of weekly rallies in support of Israel held at Broward Boulevard and Northeast Third Avenue in Fort Lauderdale Florida keynote speaker Joyce Kaufman a WFTL 850 talk show host details "The 7 Reasons to Support Israel."

Love of the Land: Joyce Kaufman. The 7 Reasons to Support Israel#links#links#links#links

Israel Matzav: The new US ambassador to Syria

The new US ambassador to Syria

After commenting that he's not sure the US should be sending an ambassador to Syria at all (I believe that they should not be), Max Boot has this to say about new American ambassador designate Robert Ford.

That said, if we are going to send an ambassador to Damascus, it is hard to think of a better choice than Robert Ford. He is currently deputy chief of mission in Iraq, and it was in that capacity that I met with him on my visit to Baghdad last fall. I came away extremely impressed by this career diplomat, who speaks fluent Arabic and has previously served as the U.S. ambassador in Algeria. I realize that State Department Arabists have a checkered reputation — see Robert Kaplan’s fine book on that subject, which makes it clear that too often the Arabists have adopted a “see-no-evil attitude” toward the Arabs while displaying unremitting hostility to the Israelis. Bob Ford isn’t like that at all. I found him to be a singularly shrewd, insightful, and clear-eyed analyst of Iraqi politics. In fact, I left his office wondering why he wasn’t appointed ambassador in place of Chris Hill, who has no background in the Middle East.

Ford will be the best possible American representative in Damascus. I just hope he will not be forced to front for an Obama-esque policy of appeasement. It is possible that after the failure of engagement in Iran, the administration will now redouble its efforts to reach some kind of accommodation with Syria that will enhance rather than diminish the troublemaking capacity of the Alawite clique at the center of Syrian politics.

I know nothing about Ford. But I am almost positive that he will be asked to front for a policy of appeasement in Damascus. And I question whether any State Department Arabist can or will give Israel a fair shake.

What could go wrong?

Israel Matzav: The new US ambassador to Syria

Israel Matzav: The West covers for the 'Palestinian Authority'

The West covers for the 'Palestinian Authority'

I have discussed the 'Palestinian' corruption scandal exposed by whistleblower Fahmi Shabaneh (pictured), including its related sex scandal, several times over the last few weeks.

The last six and a half minutes of this video interview with Caroline Glick discuss the 'Palestinian' scandal. I urge you to watch the video, but here are some highlights you may not have heard (and have not read) in my posts linked above.

First, surprise, surprise, the woman that Rafiq Husseini was trying to force to have sex with him was a Christian. It's doubtful whether a Muslim woman would have been treated with such contempt (maybe they would have, but they would have been murdered afterward for 'honor').

Second, your tax money is funding prostitution rings and palatial villas for inciters of anti-Semitism who run the 'Palestinian Authority.'

Third, the American and European media weren't interested in the story, and would not publish it, because they would have lost their access to the 'Palestinian Authority.' So the story was exposed in the Israeli media instead.

Khaled Abu Toameh, who broke the story, notes that the 'Palestinians' are blaming Israel for trying to undermine Abu Bluff by exposing the scandal.

Blaming Israel and the Jews for everything that goes wrong has long been the accepted norm in the Arab and Islamic world. This is how Arab dictators divert attention from the real problems at home. If the economy in an Arab country is bad, then it’s because of Israel and the Jews. If there is no democracy and stability, then its Israel’s and the Jews’ fault, too.

Rafik Husseini was caught with his pants down in the bedroom of an Arab woman and, of course, it’s the Jews’ fault. Never mind that he was caught red-handed soliciting sex from the woman by members of his own security forces, who also filmed him while he was bad-mouthing Abbas and his predecessor, Yasser Arafat. Instead of responding to the charges made by Shabaneh, the Palestinian Authority rushed to accuse him of “collaboration” with Israel. The official Palestinian version is that the Israeli government had recruited the whistle-blower to incriminate Abbas because of his refusal to return to the negotiating table with Israel.

So what if Shabaneh has all the evidence to prove that he was acting on direct instructions from his boss, Tawfik Tirawi, former head of the Palestinian General Intelligence Service. And so what if Abbas knew about the sex scandal more than a year ago, when Shabaneh presented him with all the material he had collected during his work as head of the anti-corruption unit in the Palestinian security forces? If anything, the “Fatahgate” scandal shows that the Palestinian leadership is not different from the rest of the Arab world’s dictatorships. Under these regimes, the authorities often seek to discredit critics and political opponents by accusing them of working for the Israeli enemy.

Instead of coping with charges of corruption, Arab rulers and governments find it easier to direct a blaming finger at Israel. This anti-Israel incitement has resulted in the emergence of an entire generation or two of Arabs and Muslims who are convinced that Jews are behind all evils and should therefore be fought against or even eliminated.

And Obama thinks he's going to have a 'peace process' with these people? You've got to be kidding.

Israel Matzav: The West covers for the 'Palestinian Authority'

Chester Chronicles - An American Muslim Hero: Dr. Ali Alyami

Chester Chronicles - An American Muslim Hero: Dr. Ali Alyami

DoubleTapper: IDF Women

IDF Women

DoubleTapper: IDF Women

Israel Matzav: Regime change the only answer in Iran?

Regime change the only answer in Iran?

Davis Lewin argues that regime change is the only answer in Iran and has been for the last 30 years.

To call for regime change is neither simplistic nor imperial. For those of us blessed with freedom, it is a mere resignation to hard truth in the face of oppressive evil. For those Iranians with their throats under the boot of the Basij - the mothers, fathers and children choking on Khomeini's self-serving fantasies - it is bravery beyond what we could know.

No deal must be struck with the Mullahs. The Islamic regime's hegemonic desires will not be allayed by treaty, and the West must never betray the people of Iran by legitimising the very leaders they are - in too many cases literally - dying to shake off.

A question remains only over the means, not the necessity. Regime change is the only option to deliver the change the Iranian people both desire and deserve.

Iran needs America's help to achieve change its sons and daughters can believe in.

I'm all in favor of regime change in Iran. And as between Ahmadinejad and Khomeni on the one hand and anyone else on the other hand, I agree that the Iranian people are likely better off with anyone else. I'm just not convinced that regime change is going to end Iran's nuclear weapons program. So I'm not banging down any doors to accomplish it.

Israel Matzav: Regime change the only answer in Iran?

Israel Matzav: Napolitano goes into partnership with Islamic terrorists

Napolitano goes into partnership with Islamic terrorists

In the early days of Oslo, when Yasser Arafat wanted to convince everyone that he was fighting terror without fighting terror, he claimed that the best way to stop the terrorists was to turn them into terror fighters. So he made them all 'Palestinian policemen' and put them on the 'Palestinian Authority' payroll. We all saw what a disaster that was when the 'intifadeh' - led by 'Palestinian police' - started in earnest in 2000. Worse, the Israeli security forces cooperated with the 'Palestinians' in joint patrols and information exchanges that blew up in our faces when the 'intifadeh' started. It took four years of terror bombings before the Israeli security forces recovered.

US Homeland Security Chief Janet Napolitano has been suckered (I hope and not that she's doing it on purpose) into trying something similar. Napolitano met last month with some of the leaders of Islamist terror organizations to try to convince them to 'partner' with the US government. Unfortunately, no, I'm not kidding.

Although there is no evidence of an exchange of classified information, this meeting was the beginning of an Obama administration program aimed at devising a new information-sharing framework with the Muslim organizations — some of them regarded as extremist because of their ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. The group is to meet regularly with DHS senior aides and with Napolitano. This program was imported from the United Kingdom. The Obama administration has decided to replicate the UK program to win over Muslims and to get them to collaborate with the federal government.

Although Matthew Chandler, deputy press secretary and spokesman for Secretary Napolitano, refused to comment on the meetings or identify the groups that attended the two-day session, Pajamas Media has learned the identities of a number of the participants and interviewed them — including those linked to the Muslim Brotherhood.

The program requires bringing in Muslim groups as “partners” in a two-way information sharing program.

It gets worse.

Read the whole thing.

What could go wrong?

Israel Matzav: Napolitano goes into partnership with Islamic terrorists

Israel Matzav: Would the Mossad use Israelis' foreign passports?

Would the Mossad use Israelis' foreign passports?

If the Mossad wanted to liquidate Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, would it have given its agents foreign passports with the names and details of Israeli citizens? Many Israelis who were once part of the security establishment say no, and believe that the fact that those passports were used is a reason to be cautious about blaming the Mossad for Mabhouh's liquidation.

Like Lieberman, Israeli security analyst Ephraim Kam said the use of Israeli identities did not prove the Mossad killed Mabhouh.

"I cannot see a reason why the Mossad would use the names of Israelis here or citizens who live here," Kam said.

Rafi Eitan, a former Cabinet minister and Mossad agent who took part in the capture of Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann, thought Israel's foes were trying to frame it by using the identities of Israelis.

"It means some foreign service, an enemy of Israel, wanted to taint Israel. It took the names of Israeli citizens, doctored the passports ... and thus tainted us," Eitan said.

Lawmaker Yisrael Hasson, a former deputy commander of Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency), said he would ask to convene a meeting of the Israeli parliament's powerful foreign affairs and defense committee to discuss the matter.

"No one should use someone's identity without his permission or without his understanding in some way what it is being used for," Hasson told Israel Radio.


Kam, the security analyst, said the people whose identities were released could be in danger from Hamas.

"I think they should be careful," he said.

There are an awful lot of people in this country who carry two passports. Including yours truly. Hmmm.

Israel Matzav: Would the Mossad use Israelis' foreign passports?

Israel Matzav: El Al's loss leader

El Al's loss leader

A loss leader is a product sold at a low price (at cost or below cost)[2] to stimulate other, profitable sales. It is a kind of sales promotion, in other words marketing concentrating on a pricing strategy. The price can even be so low that the product is sold at a loss. A loss leader is often a popular article. Sometimes leader is now used as a synonym for loss leader and means any popular article, in other words one sold at a normal price.[3]. Here's El Al's loss leader. Sorry, not New York, LA, London or Paris.

Israel Matzav: El Al's loss leade

Israel Matzav: Iran's Emily Latella moment

Iran's Emily Latella moment

On Wednesday, I reported that Iran had invited UN 'Human Rights Commissioner' Navi Pillay to visit - the first time since 2005 that Iran had expressed a willingness to allow anyone from the 'Human Rights Council' to visit their country. But Pillay said that she is 'too busy' and would not have time to visit before 2011.

At the time, Iran had also invited a torture investigator to visit, but now... never mind....

Iran has backtracked on a pledge to invite a UN torture investigator to visit the country. Iranian officials in Geneva say they rescinded the invitation because Western countries used "poisonous language" at a UN debate Monday on the Islamic Republic's human-rights record.

Iran on Wednesday rejected 43 other recommendations made during the Human Rights Council's first review of its rights record. They included ending discrimination against women, releasing political prisoners and stopping harassment of journalists and bloggers.

Prediction: The 'Human Rights Council' will drop Iran from the agenda and go back to Israel. And Iran will be elected a member of the Council in a few months. Trust me on this.

Israel Matzav: Iran's Emily Latella moment

Israel Matzav: Iran: Clinton takes the military option off the table

Iran: Clinton takes the military option off the table

Remember how Hillary Clinton was the one who was supposed to be tougher on Iran? The New York Times even reported on Tuesday that the Obama administration's 'tougher' line on Iran was more in line with Clinton's views than with those of Obama who favored 'engagement.'

Well, consider this from Clinton's interview on Monday with al-Jazeera:

MR. FOUKARA: So, Madam Secretary, now you are saying there is no plan on the part of the United States to launch an attack? Not in the immediate future, not in the middle term, not in the long term?

SECRETARY CLINTON: We are interested in changing Iran’s behavior and — now, we will always defend ourselves, and we will always defend our friends and allies. And we will certainly defend countries here in the Gulf who face the greatest immediate nearby threat from Iran. But we have pursued a dual track, not a triple track, but a dual-track approach of engagement and potential pressure, and that is what we’re focused on.

More from Abe Greenwald here.

Some of you will look at this and say, "wow, Clinton's softened on Iran too." But the truth is that she has not, and that what she's saying is entirely consistent with what she said during her debate with Obama in April 2008 - if only anyone had been listening.

Take, for example, the different responses from Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama on whether they would view an attack by Iran on Israel as an attack on the United States. (Mrs. Clinton said such an attack would result in “massive retaliation from the United States,” while Mr. Obama said such an attack would be “unacceptable” and would lead him to take “appropriate action.”)

For Clinton, while there always was (and probably still is) a military option on the table, it was retaliatory. For Obama, there was never a military option on the table at all. But neither of them ever supported a pre-emptive attack on Iran that could actually stop the development of an Iranian nuclear weapon.

And 78% of American Jewry voted for the Obama - Clinton ticket anyway. With their eyes and ears closed so that they would not have to even consider voting for a Republican.

What could go wrong?

Israel Matzav: Iran: Clinton takes the military option off the table

Israel Matzav: Brits threaten Israel over passports

Brits threaten Israel over passports

London's Daily Telegraph reports that Britain has threatened to suspend intelligence cooperation with Israel if it turns out that the Mossad stole the identities of British passport holders.

All of the British passport holders whose identities were stolen live in Israel, meaning Mossad would have had ready access to copies of their travel documents.

A senior Foreign Office source told The Daily Telegraph: “If the Israelis were responsible for the assassination in Dubai, they are seriously jeopardising the important intelligence-sharing arrangement that currently exists between Britain and Israel.

“If it transpires that Israel has been using British passports to assassinate its opponents, the British government will need to give serious consideration to any future cooperation.

“Britain has cut ties with Mossad in the past, and will do so again if the Israelis are found to be acting against British interests.”

Britain’s relationship with the Israeli security service reached an all-time low in 1986, when the then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher closed down Mossad’s UK operation in response to a series of incidents including the discovery of a bag of forged British passports which had been lost by a Mossad agent.

Mossad was only allowed to re-establish its presence in the UK after it promised not to abuse British passports in the future.

Its intelligence-sharing relationship with the security services over such sensitive issues as Iran is now more important than ever, but the Foreign Office source said: “In the past Israel has had a reputation for making life difficult for its friends. It is sincerely to be hoped that this is not the case in this instance.”

If the Mossad is behind this, I don't understand why they didn't take dead people's identities. Unless the whole point was for people to look at what happened and say that the Mossad would never do something so 'stupid' as to endanger Israelis this way.

Of course, there's one small catch to this: To prove that it was the Mossad that stole the passports, they would also have to prove that the Mossad carried out the assassination. And so far, it seems unlikely that anyone will be able to do that.


Israel Matzav: Brits threaten Israel over passports

Israel Matzav: Sweeter: Shahar Pe'er reaches Dubai semifinals

Sweeter: Shahar Pe'er reaches Dubai semifinals

Sweet - er.

Israeli tennis player Shahar Peer reached the semifinals of the Dubai Open after her Chinese rival Li Na quit in the middle of the second set. Peer was leading 7:5, 3:0.

Recall that last year, they wouldn't grant her a visa to play.

Think Hitler and Jesse Owens. Okay - this isn't being played in Iran, and Pe'er is an Israeli and not a black American, but it's about as close as you're going to get. Well, maybe.

Israel Matzav: Sweeter: Shahar Pe'er reaches Dubai semifinals

Israel Matzav: Change?


I don't know about the rest of you but I could have (and did) predict this.

Several weeks ago, the chairman of the House Foreign Relations Committee, discussing his pending legislation for broad-based sanctions, noted that there are “no sanctions strong enough to dissuade the Iranian regime from its nuclear course that would not impinge on the quality of life of average Iranians.” The administration does not even purport that its targeted sanctions would be “crippling” — a word that has disappeared from its vocabulary.

President Obama has yet to deliver the “tough, direct message to Iran” that one of the presidential candidates in the October 7, 2008, debate proposed: “If you don’t change your behavior, then there will be dire consequences,” starting with crippling sanctions – “never taking military options off the table” or providing “veto power to the United Nations or anyone else in acting in our interests”:

… if we can impose the kinds of sanctions that, say, for example, Iran right now imports gasoline, even though it’s an oil-producer, because its oil infrastructure has broken down, if we can prevent them from importing the gasoline that they need and the refined petroleum products, that starts changing their cost-benefit analysis. That starts putting the squeeze on them.

The candidate who promised that approach was Barack Obama, less than a month before he was elected. Sixteen months later, he can no longer muster even the rhetoric, much less the reality, of what he promised. He does not appear to be the person the country thought it knew.

There's no change here. The country was duped. Why didn't you listen when we warned you?

Israel Matzav: Change?

Israel Matzav: Your government radio station at work

Your government radio station at work

It's no secret that Israel's government-funded public radio station is sharply biased to the Left. Still, it's at least somewhat surprising that something as blatant as this happened.

Public radio host Keren Noibach, who hosts the Voice of Israel's main news program, said on air that Israel kills Arabs for no reason.

After the remark caused an uproar, the station demanded Noibach publicly apologize, which she did.

Noibach hosts a program called Seder Yom (agenda) between 8:00 - 10:00 am Sunday, Monday, Wednesday and Thursday. I used to listen to it on the way back from driving the kids to school back in the days when our car radio worked. Note - no other action taken by the government-owned radio station.

What could go wrong?

Israel Matzav: Your government radio station at work

Israel Matzav: Hussain's cover-up

Hussain's cover-up

In an earlier post, I reported on the connection between Rashad Hussain, President Obama's appointment to be his representative to the OIC, the Organization of Islamic Countries, and Sami al-Arian, the former Florida professor who pleaded guilty to being a fundraiser for the Palestinian Islamic Jihad terror organization.

Robert Spencer reports that before the story came out, there was a rather clumsy attempt by someone to cover it up (Hat Tip: Pamela Geller).

In 2004, Rashad Hussain, then a Yale law student, declared that the investigation and prosecution of University of South Florida professor Sami al-Arian, who ultimately pled guilty to charges involving his activities as a leader of the terror group Palestinian Islamic Jihad, was a “politically motivated persecution” designed “to squash dissent.”

Journalist Patrick Goodenough of Cybercast News Service reports that Hussain’s remarks in support of Al-Arian were published in the jihad-enabling Washington Report on Middle East Affairs in November 2004. But now all that has gone down the memory hole. The Washington Report’s archived version of this November 2004 article lacks two paragraphs that were included in the original version: the ones quoting Rashad Hussain. Otherwise the article is unchanged.

The Washington Report editors, caught red-handed, decided to brazen it out, and blame their accusers – a tried-and-true tactic that is also frequently employed by jihadists in the West. They insist that there was no cover-up, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a venomous Islamophobe: according to Goodenough, “WRMEA news editor and executive director Delinda Hanley denied there was a ‘cover-up,’ and implied that anti-Muslim discrimination was behind the fact this was now being raised.”

Sure. It’s just “anti-Muslim discrimination” to be concerned about Rashad Hussain’s support for Al-Arian, a vicious suicide-bombing supporter who chanted “Death to America” and “Death to Israel,” and clearly meant it. When two Islamic Jihad suicide bombers killed eighteen people in Israel in 1995, Al-Arian called them “two mujahidin martyred for the sake of God.”

But there was no cover-up! It was all a mistake, you see: according to the Washington Report now, Sami Al-Arian’s daughter, Laila Al-Arian, actually said the words that were attributed to Rashad Hussain.

But this explanation doesn’t make sense, since the article was altered just to remove the quotes, not to change the name of the person quoted. Also, the author of the original story, Shereen Kandil, contradicts the Washington Report’s explanation, telling Goodenough:

“When I worked as a reporter at WRMEA, I understood how important it was to quote the right person, and accurately. I have never mixed my sources and wouldn’t have quoted Rashad Hussain if it came from Laila al-Arian. If the editors from WRMEA felt they wanted to remove Rashad Hussain from the article, my assumption is that they did it for reasons other than what you’re saying. They never once contacted me about an ‘error’ they claim I made.’”

Was the Washington Report covering for Rashad Hussain at its own discretion, or at the behest of someone else? Did Barack Obama himself know about this cover-up? Did someone in the White House or the State Department find out about Hussain’s defense of Al-Arian, and act to cover for the bright young special envoy before this defense was discovered and he became known as a terror apologist?

Read the whole thing. Pamela has some video too.

Scott Johnson notes that Hussain has not denied making the comments (Hat Tip: Instapundit).

What does Hussain say? Hussain does not deny the remarks. A White House official who talked with Hussain on Tuesday said he acknowledged attending the event to discuss civil rights in a post-9/11 world but has "no recollection" when it comes to the comments attributed to him. He has not (yet) sought to explain away the remarks away as a youthful indiscretion. What does Hussain think of Sami al-Arian today? The White House doesn't say.

Scott's co-blogger, Paul Mirengoff, adds:

The striking thing for me is that President Obama made Hussain his deputy associate counsel at a time when, as best I can tell, he had maybe a year of experience as a lawyer (plus some time as a House Judiciary Committee staffer). And now, a year later, he has given Hussain what appears to be a reasonably significant diplomatic-type job.

I guess there's a fast track for Muslim-American lawyers, at least those with connections to Paul Soros [note: also a prominent liberal, Paul is the brother of George; I'm only speculating that Hussain's connection with him is relevant] and sympathy for Palestinian jihadists.

It sounds like Washington has discovered what's known here as Vitamin P (for 'protectzia'). Either that or there's a new affirmative action program for Muslims and they are having trouble filling positions.

Read the whole thing.

Israel Matzav: Hussain's cover-up

Israel Matzav: Israel could learn from Dubai's hasbara

Israel could learn from Dubai's hasbara

Noah Pollak makes an important point about Dubai's handling of the aftermath of the liquidation of Hamas terrorist and arms dealer Mahmoud al-Mabhouh.

Now imagine if the Israeli government had shown the same speed, efficiency, and common sense in getting information out to the world about, say, a headline-making Arab claim that the IDF had committed an atrocity (pick one among dozens: the Al-Dura affair, the Gaza beach explosion, the “Jenin massacre,” or any number of incidents from the Lebanon and Gaza wars).

The relevant officials would start by not reflexively apologizing; then they would quickly determine what happened; put together a short video presentation, with English narration; complete said presentation while the story was still in the headlines — in days, not weeks, months, or years later; and get it online and sent to journalists and bloggers around the world.

The Dubai authorities did this on the fly in a one-off crisis. The Israeli authorities have been dealing with crises on a constant basis for decades, and they still can’t put something like this together, even when they have months to prepare. Has anyone seen the slightest effort by the Israelis to discredit, say, the Goldstone Report in a way that is accessible and relevant to ordinary people? (Ordinary people don’t read 1,000-page documents.) I sure haven’t, and they’ve had a year to work on it.

To sum up, good hasbara (yes, that's what he's describing) is timely, positive, readable and catchy. Maybe someone can pass this on to the 'mavens' in the Israeli government who still can't figure it out on their own.

Read it all.

Israel Matzav: Israel could learn from Dubai's hasbara

Israel Matzav: When being accused of anti-Semitism is a badge of pride

When being accused of anti-Semitism is a badge of pride

I stayed out of the battle between Leon Wieseltier and Andrew Sullivan earlier this month, in which Wieseltier published a lengthy post that much of the blogosphere saw as accusing Sullivan of anti-Semitism. I didn't comment on it because I haven't been reading Sullivan long enough or often enough to back up anything I would say, but you all know I have done a couple of posts ripping individual things Sullivan has written, and on one occasion even called him an anti-Semite myself (that last post even drew an email from Jeffrey Goldberg).

After reading this post by the Fingerman (Hat Tip: Shmuel Rosner), I may avoid using the words "anti-Semite" in reference to people whose writings are on the Internet, in order to deny them the satisfaction that they apparently seek.

In fact, the whole Wieseltier-Sullivan episode has served to illustrate an emerging trend among critics of Israel: Their eagerness to allege that they've been accused of being an anti-Semite. I do agree that some of Israel's defenders are too quick to throw out charges of anti-Semitism or "self-hating Jew," and that's lamentable and a problem. But it seems that among many of Israel's critics, claiming that you've been accused of being an anti-Semite has become some sort of bizarre badge of honor. And quite a few of those that have allegedly been accused of being an anti-Semite, according to Wieseltier's critics, either were never smeared with such a term or were only accused of making a specific problematic remark and not tarred with some broad brush of disliking Jews, as they claim.

The best example of this overheated "He called me an anti-Semite" charge is a column by Glenn Greenwald last week. Early in the article, he writes: "As Charles Freeman can attest, frivolous anti-semitism accusations can still damage those seeking high-level political positions, but those accusations no longer pack any real punch in virtually any other realm" and later gives us this paragraph:

If The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan, and Time's Joe Klein, and Foreign Policy's Stephen Walt, and the University of Chicago's John Mearsheimer, and Gen. Wes Clark (a TNR target), and Howard Dean, and former President Jimmy Carter, and a whole slew of others like them are "anti-semites," then how terrible of an insult is it?

So let's examine a few of Greenwal'd alleged victims.

You should read the whole thing, but for those of you who won't click through, I'll leave you with the Fingerman's questions at the end of his piece:

Why exactly has claiming you've been called an anti-Semite become so cool lately? Could it be that those claiming they've been called anti-Semites find it easier to do that that actually defend their positions with facts?

I'd bet on it. Eric Fingerhut says he'll have more about it later in the week. By the way, three years ago, David Bernstein wrote something similar to what Fingerhut wrote.


Israel Matzav: When being accused of anti-Semitism is a badge of pride

Israel Matzav: What if Feiglin wins?

What if Feiglin wins?

In what can only be described right now as a pleasant daydream, Bernie Quigley speculates on what Moshe Feiglin means by 'independence from America,' and likens Feiglin to Sarah Palin and Scott Brown.

But what I want to know is about the “independence from America” part. Which America? The current, transient New York City zeitgeist of dark-wing late-night comics like David Letterman and Tina Fey, New York Times lifestyle columnists such as Frank Rich and Manhattan’s resident avatar, that great, aging emperor penguin, Bill Clinton? Or that of Auschwitz survivor, Elie Wiesel, Texas Gov. Rick Perry and Pastor John Hagee of San Antonio?

Attitudes of support for Israel vary on a spectrum. Probably many are like Thomas Friedman, the Times columnist, who supported the invasion of Iraq and even suggested American boots on the ground in Israel and throwing France off the U.N. Security Council. Then he changed his mind and started talking about India.

Pastor Hagee’s America is a different place, and it is alienating and unacknowledged in the Clinton outlook. Hagee sees a biblical life-or-death conflict in Israel. Passing through the cable channels recently, I saw both Elie Wiesel and Rick Perry sitting on his couch.

As journalist Max Blumenthal writes (on 10/29/09): “On October 25, while an overflow crowd of 1,500 poured into the first convention of the progressive-leaning Israel-oriented lobbying organization J Street, Elie Wiesel, addressed a crowd of 6,000 Christian Zionists at Pastor John Hagee’s ‘Night To Honor Israel.’ According to the San Antonio Express News, while Wiesel sat by his side, Hagee trashed President Barack Obama, baselessly accusing him of ‘being tougher on Israel than on Russia, Iran, China and North Korea.’ ”

Here's my gut on this, and I know I have at least one reader out there (who arranged my interview with Feiglin last year) who knows Feiglin well and will correct me if I am wrong.

First, much as I would love to see Feiglin become the Likud leader, I don't see it happening - yet. Feiglin got just under a quarter of the vote last time. This time, I see him pushing towards 40% and maybe even taking Bibi to a runoff, but the powers that be will find a way to keep Feiglin from winning. This time.

Second, when Feiglin talks about 'independence from America,' he means independence from the diktats that American administrations impose on us in order to maintain their relations with their Arab allies. The Obama administration is not the first to try to pressure us and they won't be the last. For example, if Feiglin were Prime Minister now, we would not have a 'settlement freeze.' If Feiglin had been Prime Minister in 2007, there would have been no Annapolis. Feiglin is about the Jewish state (emphasis on Jewish) determining its best course of action based on its laws and traditions. Nothing more and nothing less.

Third, as I noted when I interviewed him last year, Feiglin has no ego. Quigley assumes that if Feiglin's Manhigut Yehudit (Jewish Leadership) faction were to take over the Likud, Feiglin would become party leader. That is not necessarily the case. But you can bet that whoever did become the party leader would share Feiglin's commitment to a Jewish state based on Jewish values.

Finally, curiously, I got to this post through a Tweet from none other than Moshe Feiglin. Maybe that means he will react to this post (the Hill's - not mine. Katonti (I am too small)) in his weekend email to his supporters. If so, I will let you know.

Israel Matzav: What if Feiglin wins?

Israel Matzav: 'Palestinian' terrorist from 60's: 1967 borders just a phase

'Palestinian' terrorist from 60's: 1967 borders just a phase

How many of you are old enough to remember Leila Khaled? To hear her tell it, airplane hijackings were relatively tame in the '60's and '70's.

On August 29, 1969, Khaled was part of a team that hijacked TWA Flight 840 on its way from Rome to Athens, diverting the Boeing 707 to Damascus. She claims she ordered the pilot to fly over Haifa, so she could see her birthplace, which she could not visit.[4] No one was injured, but the aircraft was blown up after hostages had disembarked. According to some media sources,[5] the PFLP leadership thought that Yitzhak Rabin, then Israeli ambassador to the United States, would be on board. This was however denied by Leila Khaled and others.[3] After this hijacking, Khaled underwent plastic surgery to conceal her identity and allow her to take part in a future hijacking.[4]

On September 6, 1970, Khaled and Patrick Argüello, a Nicaraguan, attempted the hijack of El Al Flight 219 from Amsterdam to New York City as part of the Dawson's Field hijackings, a series of almost simultaneous hijackings carried out by the PFLP. The attack was foiled when Israeli skymarshals killed Arguello before eventually overpowering Khaled. Although she was carrying two hand grenades at the time, Khaled said she had received very strict instructions not to threaten passengers on the civilian flight.[4] (Patrick Argüello, the co-hijacker, shot a member of the flight crew).

The pilot diverted the aircraft to Heathrow airport in London, where Khaled was delivered to Ealing police station. On October 1, the British government released her as part of a prisoner exchange. The next year, the PFLP abandoned the tactic of hijacking, although splinter movements would continue to hijack airplanes.[citation needed]

On January 31, 2010, Khaled was interviewed on Abu Dhabi Television. Khaled, who is still active in the 'moderate' Fatah movement confirmed what we all know already: That for the 'Palestinians' a 'state' based on the 1967 borders is just a phase in replacing the State of Israel with a 'Palestinian state.'

Let's go to the videotape.

Israel Matzav: 'Palestinian' terrorist from 60's: 1967 borders just a phase

Israel Matzav: America's first Muslim congressman afraid to debate American Middle East scholar?

America's first Muslim congressman afraid to debate American Middle East scholar?


Israel Matzav: America's first Muslim congressman afraid to debate American Middle East scholar?

Israel Matzav: Arabic inscription found in Jewish Quarter of Old Jerusalem

Arabic inscription found in Jewish Quarter of Old Jerusalem

A stone with an inscription in Arabic that is estimated to be 1200 years old was found in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem on Wednesday according to a statement released by Israel's Antiquities Authority.

The stone (pictured) is approximately 20 centimeters by 20 centimeters (8 inches by 8 inches). The inscription was said to date back to the Abbasid Caliphate, the third caliphate of Muslim rule in the region and a dynasty founded by the prophet Muhammad’s youngest uncle in the tenth century CE.

The three lines of Arabic script were carved into a marble slate 20 centimeters long and 20 centimeters wide.

In addition to the inscription, numerous ceramic vessels, glass vessels and coins that range in date from the Second Temple period to the Middle Ages were discovered in the excavation. Noteworthy among the pottery are the oil lamps decorated with Arabic inscriptions that were found in the foundations of the Ayyubid structure and on its floor.

The archaeological finds were discovered in the Jewish part of Jerusalem’s Old City, underneath an area on which a private home will be constructed, north of the Church of St. Mary of the Germans. Parts of the foundations of the church were also unearthed in the excavation.

Two similar inscriptions have been discovered in Israel in the past. Based on those previous discoveries, Professor Moshe Sharon of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem concluded that the recent discovery “dates to the year 910 CE … commemorates the granting of an estate by the Abbasid caliph to one of his loyal followers in Jerusalem.”

Well, that still puts them about 1900 years after the Jews got here.

By the way, you know what would have happened if Muslims had found an ancient Hebrew inscription in the Muslim Quarter of the Old City, don't you?

Israel Matzav: Arabic inscription found in Jewish Quarter of Old Jerusalem

Love of the Land: Jewish refugees must be tied to Palestinian issue

Jewish refugees must be tied to Palestinian issue

Point of No Return
18 February '10

The fullest account yet of Monday's important Knesset reception to mark the passing of Israel's prospective law tying compensation for Jewish refugees expelled from Arab countries to a future peace deal comes from Rachel Kliger of The Media Line. There would be no discussion of Palestinian refugees unless the Jewish refugees problem was resolved.In heated exchanges with refugees in the audience deputy foreign minister Danny Ayalon revealed that his father left his belongings behind in Algeria to come to Israel in 1948.

The Palestinian spokesman interviewed at the end admits that the Arabs have enough money to solve the plight of Palestinian refugees, but 'the problem belongs to Israel'. If Israel gave them their 'rights' - consenting to being overrun by the Arab 'right of return', perhaps? - the Arabs might compensate Israel, he concedes.
(With thanks bh)

Israeli lawmakers are seeking a law that will make compensation for Jewish refugees expelled from Arab countries after 1948 an integral part of any future peace negotiations. Lawmakers put together a bill demanding compensation for current Jewish Israeli citizens, who were expelled from Arab countries after Israel was established in 1948, leaving behind significant valuable property.

Originally submitted almost a year ago in the Knesset, Israel’s parliament, the bill passed its first hearing two weeks ago. Now various interest groups are pushing the bill with the Knesset’s 120 members before it is subjected to a second and third hearing next week.

(Read full article)

Love of the Land: Jewish refugees must be tied to Palestinian issue

Love of the Land: Scandal over Mossad use of UK passports curiously fails to materialise with Britons awe struck at Israeli daring

Scandal over Mossad use of UK passports curiously fails to materialise with Britons awe struck at Israeli daring

Robin Shepherd
Robin Shepherd Online
18 February '10

There is something very strange going on in Britain, and Israel’s detractors are hopping mad. Not, I hasten to add over the apparent use by the Mossad of six British passports in the assassination in Dubai of Hamas operative Mahmoud al-Mabhouh. Criticism on that score is both reasonable and necessary. No country can allow its passports to be used by a foreign state, let alone in the course of a secret service hit job. Britain is no exception.

What vexes them is not so much the use of the passports per se as the fact that the kind of hyserical public furore that we have come to expect whenever a stick presents itself for the beating of Israel has singularly failed to materialise. On the contrary, large sections of the British press have responded with barely disguised awe at the audacious operation that the Israelis had the balls to carry out.

The usual suspects in the Guardian and the BBC look uncommonly isolated. Witness BBC MidEast Editor Jeremy Bowen on World Service Television this morning.

A dour and subdued looking Bowen was asked to reflect on the effect the affair might have on the UK’s already strained relationship with the Jewish state but was only able to warn of “very severe” consequences at some vague point in the future if the allegations were proved to be correct.

Seumas Milne, a regular columnist for the Guardian and one of the most fanatical opponents of Israel in the British press, was almost tearful at the sheer refusal of both the media and the government to jump to attention in the usual manner. Writing in today’s Guardian he said:

(Read full article)

Love of the Land: Scandal over Mossad use of UK passports curiously fails to materialise with Britons awe struck at Israeli daring

DoubleTapper: Israeli Soldiers Mother

Israeli Soldiers Mother

Her Blog began with, "Starting from a very young age, Israeli boys (and girls) know that they are destined to go to the army. It's part of how they grow up, where they are headed, who they will become..."

She is an Israeli Soldier's Mother. She writes a heartfelt blog of what it's like to send her son's to the IDF for their required 3 years of military service.

Her eldest son has just completed his third year and she wrote, "Tonight, I close my eyes and will sleep deep and with the normal fears of a normal mother. I have no sons on the borders of Israel, none at a checkpoint or deep in the desert."

On her son's miliray service she wrote, "I wish as a soldier's mother there was someone I could thank for the gift they have given to my son. In making him a soldier, they have made him a better, stronger, healthier, smarter man. I gave them a boy, much loved and handsome. He was smart, they made him smarter. He was too quick to anger, they taught him discipline. He was always analytical, they taught him to think. I gave them a beautiful boy, they return to me an amazing man."

There's lot's more at IsraeliSoldiersMother

DoubleTapper: Israeli Soldiers Mother

Elder of Ziyon: UNRWA soccer tounament named after terrorist

Elder of Ziyon: UNRWA soccer tounament named after terrorist

RubinReports: Why Naïve Westerners Constantly Exaggerate Middle Eastern Moderation

Why Naïve Westerners Constantly Exaggerate Middle Eastern Moderation

By Barry Rubin

There are three basic reasons why many Westerners are so gullible that they often overstate the moderation—or inaccurately claim that a major step toward moderation has taken place—on the part of radical states or groups. Among the beneficiaries of these errors are: Fatah, Iran, Hamas, Hizballah, Libya, Muslim Brotherhood groups, the PLO, Sudan, Syria, the Taliban, and others, including many individuals.

Such errors are dangerous for a variety of reasons. Advocating engagement with extremists strengthens them; reducing sanctions or not instituting them has the same effect. Those who oppose such groups are stigmatized and don’t receive the support they need and deserve. Acts of terrorism and advocacy of genocide are ignored. People do die as a result of these errors, though rarely are they those who made the mistakes.

Such misestimates take place for a number of reasons:

--Deliberate propaganda. The journalists, politicians, academics, or activists are in some way agents of the radicals seeking to mislead.

--Ignorance and carelessness: The conveyer belts of lies and mistakes simply don’t do serious research or are incapable of understanding these subjects.

-- Wishful thinkers: People who wrongly believe that they promote peace and international understanding, while reducing bias or the chance of conflict, by giving the benefit of the doubt to those about whom there should be no doubt.

--Dupes: Those who are genuinely fooled either directly or because they believe people who aren’t telling the truth.

--Doctrinaire disbelievers: Those who intellectually and culturally cannot believe that anyone would want to be an extremist, at least unless they had been mistreated or simply didn’t understand the advantages of moderation. This last group is an extraordinarily powerful force in Western societies today.

RubinReports: Why Naïve Westerners Constantly Exaggerate Middle Eastern Moderation

RubinReports: How Naïve Westerners Exaggerate Middle Eastern Moderation: Today’s Example

How Naïve Westerners Exaggerate Middle Eastern Moderation: Today’s Example

Please subscribe

By Barry Rubin

How does a leading sponsor of terrorism cease being a sponsor of terrorism? By stopping the encouragement, organization, funding, logistical backing, and even ordering of terrorist attacks? No. By being given a free pass by its would-be victim who doesn’t see what is going on under its own nose—literally.

Consider U.S. Undersecretary of State Robert Burns. He was in Damascus to reestablish U.S. relations with Syria. Syria has paid nothing for its past involvement in terrorism. It is still backing terrorist attacks to kill Americans in Iraq. True, the U.S. government hopes that it will talk Syria out of this behavior. But that won’t happen, especially since it isn’t willing to threaten Syria when such attacks do occur.

Indeed, as Reuters reports, “Washington has muted its criticism of Syria's authoritarian system.” Needless to say, Damascus has not muted its criticism of the United States, and will never do so.

Burns gives a press conference in which he says that he “is under no illusions of the challenges ahead” but that his “meeting with President Assad has made me optimistic."

If you look at the video of the press conference you will see that one microphone on the right side is larger than the others and is placed by the Syrians above them, practically thrust into Burns’ face. It is the microphone of al-Manar, the Hizballah television station, famous for its anti-American diatribes and calls to kill Israelis.

As a close observer of Syria puts it: “I don't think that the al-Manar microphone was placed there by accident. It seems to me that there's a message being sent. The Middle East runs on metaphor, insinuation and symbols.”

Ah, but is Hizballah terrorist? There is a growing campaign to launder its reputation. Of course, Hizballah hasn’t committed any terrorist acts for a while because it doesn’t need to do so and has been at least temporarily intimidated by one intended victim. In Lebanon, though, the terrorist acts have already done their work for the moment, making everyone there fear the Iran- and Syria-backed group. It has not attacked Israel for a while, largely because Israel gave it such a walloping in 2006, but Hizballah is preparing for a next round and openly talking daily about wiping Israel off the map. As for Iraq, it is literally business as usual with some minor cutback.

Yet here is what the Associated Press, the main wire service for the Western English-language media tells us under the byline of Zeina Karam:

“The leader of Lebanon's Shiite movement Hezbollah recently delivered an odd but deeply important political message to his followers: Heed traffic signs and pay your electric bills.

“The call may not seem particularly significant, but it was widely seen as the latest sign that Hezbollah — long considered mainly as Iran's militant arm in Lebanon running its own state-within-a-state — is reinventing itself as a more conventional political movement in Lebanon.”

While the U.S. president’s terrorism advisor says that Hizballah isn’t terrorist because its membership includes lawyers, AP uses its alleged law-abiding urgings to demonstrate the same point

But guess what? Hizballah is now part of the government with cabinet minister and veto power over all decisions. Why shouldn’t the group tell people to pay taxes which in large part go to itself? And if reporters once proclaimed that at least a fascist dictatorship made the trains run on time they can now tell us that terrorist groups tell their supporters to stop at red lights.

RubinReports: How Naïve Westerners Exaggerate Middle Eastern Moderation: Today’s Example

Love of the Land: Heritage Sites Must Include Key Biblical Sites

Heritage Sites Must Include Key Biblical Sites

Dr.Aaron Lerner
Weekly Commentary
18 February '10

The most powerful Jewish advisor to a foreign superpower returned home to Israel to bury his father in the family crypt. He stood there with his brothers, knowing that they had no choice but to return to the formidable foreign entourage waiting for them across the border.

For while he was second only to the ruler of the foreign empire, he and his brothers had to leave their children and cattle behind in what at the time was a gilded cage as a guarantee that they would not exploit this opportunity to permanently return home to Israel.

And today, we can stand at that very same place and as we let the pathos sink in of that heart wrenching moment we also celebrate how lucky we are that we have been honored to be able to not only visit, but to stay, rather than turn back to face generations of servitude on foreign soil.

That's what strikes me when I visit the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron.

It is right there in Genesis Chapter 50.

When Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu talked about the critical need for Israelis to link to their past in his 3 February speech at the Herzliya Conference, the Cave of the Patriarchs - now covered by the only intact Herodian period building - came immediately to mind.

And this with the added "bonus" that prayer arrangements at the site shared by Jews and Moslems serve as living proof that Jewish controlled holy sites can indeed be open to all. This in sharp contrast to Moslem controlled multi-religion sites where non-Moslem prayer is strictly restricted.

(Read full commentary)

Love of the Land: Heritage Sites Must Include Key Biblical Sites

Love of the Land: Promoting Israel’s Image Means Answering the Libels

Promoting Israel’s Image Means Answering the Libels

Jonathan Tobin
17 February '10

New York Times Jerusalem Bureau Chief Ethan Bronner writes today about the effort by Israel’s Information and Diaspora Affairs Ministry to get Israelis to promote a positive image of their country. The idea is to coach those traveling abroad on how to improve their nation’s faltering international image.

The effort gets mixed reviews. Some, like leftist political scientist Shlomo Avineri, think it is representative of a “Bolshevik mentality” that seeks to mobilize the people to serve their government. More to the point, he doesn’t like the information the campaign is peddling because it defends the Jewish state against false charges that Israeli policies are obstacles to peace with the Palestinians.

(Read full post)

Love of the Land: Promoting Israel’s Image Means Answering the Libels

Love of the Land: Double Standards? Nato's Afghan Errors

Double Standards? Nato's Afghan Errors

Honest Reporting
18 February '10

Nato and Afghan government forces have recently launched the largest military operation against the Taliban since the beginning of the conflict in Afghanistan in 2001.

Like the IDF during Operation Cast Lead, US and British troops face an enemy that cares little for the well being of its people.

Like the IDF, US and British forces operate under a military doctrine that aims to prevent civilian casualties.

Like the IDF, US and British forces have found that in a conflict situation, mistakes inevitably occur and civilians are the tragic victims.

According to a BBC report: "A Nato air strike against suspected insurgents in Kandahar has instead killed five civilians, officials say. The group was seen digging on a roadside and was thought to be planting bombs, Nato said. A senior Isaf official said he regretted the loss of life, adding that an investigation was underway."

This followed an incident only a day earlier when 12 Afghan civilians were reported to have been killed by an errant missile:

Gen Carter confirmed on Tuesday a missile that struck a house outside Marjah on Sunday killing 12 people, including six children, had hit its intended target.

Gen Carter said the rocket had not malfunctioned and the US system responsible for firing it was back in use. Officials say three Taliban, as well as civilians, were in the house but the Nato soldiers did not know the civilians were there.

Initial Nato reports said the missile had landed about 300m (984ft) off its intended target. Gen Carter blamed these "conflicting" reports on "the fog of war".

(Read full article)

Love of the Land: Double Standards? Nato's Afghan Errors

Love of the Land: Resistance Conference in Beirut Declares Resistance's Victory, U.S. Policy's Defeat in Region

Resistance Conference in Beirut Declares Resistance's Victory, U.S. Policy's Defeat in Region

The Beirut Conference: A Show of Strength by Resistance Organizations, Syria, and Iran

Y. Yehoshua
10 February '10

The first conference of the Arab-International Forum for Support of the Resistance was held January 15-17, 2010 in Beirut. Over 3,000 individuals from the Arab, Islamic, and Western world were in attendance; figuring prominently among them were leaders of the Palestinian, Lebanese and Iraqi resistance movements, and representatives from Iran and Syria.

The guest list included: Hizbullah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah, Hamas Political Bureau head Khaled Mash'al, and Iraqi Scholars Association chairman Sheikh Harith Al-Dhari, who represented the Iraqi resistance. There were also senior officials from Islamic and Arab countries, including Iranian Vice President Mohammad Reza Mir-Tajeddini, who read a letter from Ahmadinejad; a Syrian Ba'th Party official representing Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad; and numerous Lebanese officials, including a representative of Lebanese President Michel Suleiman, a representative of Lebanese Prime Minister Sa'd Al-Hariri, and former Lebanese prime minister Salim Al-Hoss. Also among the participants was International Union of Muslim Scholars head Sheikh Yousef Al-Qaradhawi, as well as officials and intellectuals from various Western countries. The latter included British MP George Galloway, as well as former U.S. attorney-general Ramsey Clark and American attorney Stanley Cohen, who for years have been active in providing legal defense for accused terrorists.

During the conference, in what was in effect a show of strength by the elements of the pro-Iran camp, participants underlined the right to armed resistance against the Israeli and American occupations, and also the importance of the resistance in thwarting the West's policy vis-à-vis the Middle East and creating a just world order. The official website of the conference explained that the idea to convene it was born of the increase in pressure and in attempts to eliminate the option of resistance to occupation after the resistance "proved its great effectiveness in thwarting the hostile plans in Lebanon, Gaza, Iraq, and Afghanistan."[1] The conference's concluding statement called for coordination among all the resistance movements, and declared the resistance in Lebanon, Palestine, and Iraq to be a model for ways of "countering the terrorism being implemented by Israel and the U.S."[2]

(Read full report)

Love of the Land: Resistance Conference in Beirut Declares Resistance's Victory, U.S. Policy's Defeat in Region

Love of the Land: Mahmoud al-Mabhouh: To Kill a Terrorist - Exclusive Analysis

Mahmoud al-Mabhouh: To Kill a Terrorist - Exclusive Analysis

Daniel Greenfield
Sultan Knish
17 February '10

The assassination of Hamas leader Mahmoud al-Mabhouh has touched off a great deal of outrage by the same media organizations and countries that typically ignore the murders committed by Islamic terrorists. Mahmoud al-Mabhouh was a Muslim Brotherhood member and a co-founder of the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, the "armed wing" of Hamas. Essentially Mahmoud was a co-founder of the terrorist sub-group responsible for more than half of the murders of Israelis that have taken place over the last decade alone.

If you're wondering what that long string of syllables, Izz ad-Din al-Qassam, means. It's in memory of Sheikh Izz ad-Din al-Qassam, a Muslim religious leader who founded the "Black Hand" terrorist group, the first modern day Muslim terrorist group in Israel, which murdered Jewish farmers and tried to launch an uprising in order to create an Arab-Islamic state in place of Israel. The good Sheikh worked together with the Mufti of Jerusalem, who went on to help Hitler to carry out the Holocaust. Qassam never had the chance to do the same, as he was killed in 1935 while hiding in a cave after the murder of a Jewish police officer.

The only difference between Mahmoud al-Mabhouh and his inspiration Sheikh Al-Qassam, is that the latter met his end in a cave and the former in a hotel room. Both men were committed and fanatical Islamic terrorists who plotted to drown the region in blood in the name of their Jihad. Mahmoud al-Mabhouh's presence in Dubai was no casual vacation trip. Mabnouh had become a key figure in the weapons smuggling network between Hamas and its Iranian backers. Meanwhile Dubai has become an vital link in the chain of international terrorist operations. Its global import-export connections combined with the support of UAE leader Sheikh Zayed for Hamas, and Dubai's proximity to Iran make it a mecca for terrorist smuggling operations.

(Read full article)

Related: Mossad? I certainly hope so!

Love of the Land: Mahmoud al-Mabhouh: To Kill a Terrorist - Exclusive Analysis
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...