Thursday, 24 September 2009

Love of the Land: The Soros-Axelrod Axis? The J-Street Gang

The Soros-Axelrod Axis? The J-Street Gang


Ed Lasky
American Thinker
24 September 09

(This article turned out to be quite a surprise. It details the formation and threat of J-Street and its creators, potential model for the creation of other front groups by the Soros clique in the U.S.)

George Soros is one of the big sugar daddies of the Democratic Party. He also is the ruler of an archipelago of so-called 527 groups that pose as non-partisan activists groups, but in fact are often hyper-partisan (such as MoveOn.Org), and are often employed by Democrats to influence elections. Soros, for years, has been the top funder of such groups. His influence among Democrats is widespread and enduring (and was well-documented by David Horowitz and Richard Poe in their book, The Shadow Party: How George Soros, Hillary Clinton and Sixties Radicals Seized Control of the Democratic Party). His pet think-tank, the Center for American Progress, has been the idea factory and employment agency (think Van Jones, among others) for President Obama.

There is no proof, but there certainly is reason to suspect that Soros also has been working in cahoots with David Axelrod, Obama's former campaign strategist and now his numero uno domestic policy adviser. Soros has expertise in influencing our nation's foreign policy by forming faux astroturf groups that operate under the guise of being independent. Soros, the hedge fund billionaire, is one of the world's most astute investors. He has mastered the art and science of politics and invests in a panoply of think tanks, 527 groups, politicians, astroturf groups, and the Democratic Party to provide himself with the tools to influence our nation's policies. In this administration , he may have reached the pinnacle of his power. Now many of his groups are starting to look like tools the White House is using to drive policy.

A little background might help to tease out the possibility that Soros may have established an early working relationship with Axelrod. Soros was an early and ardent supporter of Barack Obama, even using a loophole in federal campaign laws to funnel outsized donations to him for his Senate campaign. The various think tanks and 527 groups that Soros funds have provided advisers and de facto campaign help for Barack Obama. Naturally, Soros and Axelrod would have crossed paths.

Soros and Axelrod are natural allies. For years, Axelrod ran not just a political consultancy firm (AKP & D Message and Media) but also had a lucrative business operating under the rubric of ASK Public Strategies. The latter firm specialized in creating so called astroturf groups: well-funded activist groups that have the façade of being grassroots phenomena, but are merely tools of moneyed interests. Astroturf groups are a mirror image of 527 groups, of which, to repeat, Soros is the nation's top donor. Is it possible that Soros has worked hand in hand with Axelrod to create such an astroturf group -- this time not to win elections, but to carry out Barack Obama's policies?

A model for this type of strategy might be J Street, a recently-formed lobbying group that bills itself as being a pro-Israel group but whose policies and principles belie this claim. J Street has been run in ways that resemble a political campaign -- one that Axelrod himself might appreciate. J Street has an arm that raises campaign money for candidates, is skilled at public relations and using the internet to generate support, chants the change mantra, and even uses such campaign tactics as phony push-polls to promote its views. But J Street is not just promoting its views, it is promoting President Obama's as well, and is working within the Jewish community to peel away support for the American-Israel relationship. They may well be "protecting the Quarterback in the White House" as Lenny Ben-David writes in the Jerusalem Post.

In fact, it can be seen as having "Obama's back" when it comes to the pressure he is exerting on Israel.

Others concur with Ben-David's views.

James Kirchick , assistant editor of The New Republic, characterized J Street as all but being Obama's Lobby to the Jewish community.
And who better to counter the influence of the so-called "Israel Lobby" than other Jews? J Street and the constellation of far-left "pro-Israel" organizations put a kosher stamp of approval on Obama's bizarre hectoring and moral equivalence. By casting Israel as the obstructionist, as the "drunk" driver whose car keys need to be taken away (as Ben-Ami put it in one of his more candid moments), Obama will have a free hand to compel the parties to the peace table. And once gathered there, another Oslo accord can be forced upon a recalcitrant Israel (whereupon the disastrous consequences of that agreement -- the erection of terrorist infrastructure, a deterioration of the Palestinian economy, deepening mutual distrust -- will be repeated).

The New York Times agrees that "J Street shares the Obama administration's agenda" including opposition to settlements and sanctions on Iran. Is this a coincidence? Very few things are coincidences when it comes to politics -- especially as practiced by George Soros and David Axelrod.
(Full Article)

Related: Peeling Off J-Street's Invisibility Cloak


Love of the Land: The Soros-Axelrod Axis? The J-Street Gang

Love of the Land: Hizbullah: Still Strong, Getting Weaker

Hizbullah: Still Strong, Getting Weaker


Michael Young
Daily Star
24 September 09

As the permanent members of the UN Security Council, along with Germany, prepare for a dialogue with Iran in October over its nuclear program, Hizbullah is closely watching what happens. The party will almost certainly be at the vanguard of Iranian retaliation for an attack against its nuclear facilities, but it must also be ambivalent, because the political and social environment in Lebanon today does not favor Hizbullah’s entering into a new border conflict.

At three levels – the tactical military level in southern Lebanon, that of the Shiite community at large, and Hizbullah’s relationship with the rest of Lebanese society – genuine difficulties are looming for the party, even if it is stronger than ever militarily and its popularity among Shiites is intact.
One needn’t be a military expert to grasp that the next war against Israel will be very different for Hizbullah than the last one. By most accounts the party’s arsenal has been upgraded. It may well have anti-aircraft missiles today, some are suggesting the SAM-24 (Igla-S), and the secretary general, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, has warned that if Beirut’s southern suburbs are bombed, Hizbullah will respond by firing missiles at Tel Aviv. Israel, in turn, is training units to enter Lebanon, displaying a greater willingness to engage in a ground war than in 2006. The Israelis are also likely to devastate Lebanese infrastructure, particularly the electricity network, so that what they did three years ago may seem tame in comparison.

What would this mean for Hizbullah’s ability to fire rockets at Israel? The party is setting up its main defensive line north of the Litani, near Jezzine. However, some observers point to the fact that Hizbullah relies considerably on short-range rockets for its deterrence capability, rockets it can fire from primitive launching pads south of the Litani. They argue that the party’s military infrastructure in the area has, of necessity, been thinned out since 2006 after the deployment of the Lebanese Army and UNIFIL, so that even once-closed military zones such as Wadi Hujayr are now open to traffic. That’s why, these observers believe, Hizbullah will not have the same capability of firing rockets that it did three years ago, let alone to defend against Israeli incursions to prevent the launches.

As for the longer-range missiles, there remains some question of how extensively Hizbullah can rely on them. Given Nasrallah’s threats, these would effectively become strategic weapons, targeting Israeli cities and infrastructure, so their use would introduce frightening military realities that Hizbullah would have to withstand and defend domestically. For example, we can assume that if Tel Aviv is bombed, so too will be central Beirut, and it’s not at all clear that Hizbullah could sustain such an escalation politically and militarily for very long. On top of that, who would be launching these missiles, Lebanese or Iranians? If it’s the latter, Lebanon would be the front line in a regional battle, which neither the Shiite community nor other Lebanese would welcome.

Which takes us to the second obstacle Hizbullah must face: that put up by its own community. The party still dominates the Shiites, but as a visit to southern Lebanon will show, Hizbullah must address a more subtle challenge to its priorities, that provided by normalcy. Nasrallah dodged a bullet in summer 2006 by containing Shiite discontent following a month when hundreds of thousands of his coreligionists were turned into internal refugees. The secretary general showed psychological flair by declaring that shipwreck a “divine victory,” a notion the Shiites embraced because it lent meaning to their suffering. But Nasrallah can only play that game once.
( Full Article)

Michael Young is opinion editor of THE DAILY STAR.


Love of the Land: Hizbullah: Still Strong, Getting Weaker

Israel Matzav: Bolton: Obama put Israel on the chopping block

Israel Matzav: Bolton: Obama put Israel on the chopping block

Israel Matzav: The failure of Obama's Mideast policy

Israel Matzav: The failure of Obama's Mideast policy

Israel Matzav: Iran's only AWACS crashes

Iran's only AWACS crashes

On Tuesday, I reported that a plane had crashed in Iran and seven people had been killed. Defense News is reporting that the plane that crashed was participating in Tuesday's military parade in Tehran, and that it was Iran's one and only AWACS (Airborne Warning and Control System).

Iran's sole Simorgh AWACS aircraft was lost during a military parade Sept. 22, one of two Iranian military aircraft that crashed in Tehran while participating in a display to mark the anniversary of the start of the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War.

The Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force operated a single Simorgh, a former Iraqi Air Force Adnan. The Adnan AWACS was in turn a modification of a Soviet-built Ilyushin Il-76 transport.

The Simorgh collided with one of the Air Force's Northrop F-5E Tiger II fighters over the area of the Imam Khomeyni Shrine, southern Tehran. According to eyewitnesses, the crash occurred immediately after the parade. Apparently, no mayday call was issued.

Both aircraft crashed in flames. Initial reports indicate that seven crewmembers were killed in the crash.

In total, Iraq built three AWACS aircraft, one Baghdad, and two Baghdad-2s, the latter later renamed Adnans. One Adnan and the Baghdad were evacuated to Iran during the 1991 Gulf War, while the second Adnan was destroyed on the ground by a coalition air strike in January 1991.

The exact status of the Iranian Simorgh and its onboard systems was long uncertain. However, photographs suggest that the aircraft was equipped with a newly fitted functioning radar suite.

DEBKA adds (Hat Tip: Danny A):

Dubbed "Simorgh" (a flying creature of Iranian fable which performs wonders in mid-flight), the AWACS' appearance, escorted by fighter jets, was to have been the climax for the Iranian Air force's fly-past over the parade. Instead, it collided with one of escorting planes, a US-made F-5E, and both crashed to the ground in flames. All seven crewmen were killed.

Eye witnesses reported that the flaming planes landed on the mausoleum burial site of the Islamic revolution's founder Ruhollah Khomeini, a national shrine. According to Western observers, no distress signals came from either cockpit indicating that the collision and explosions were sudden and fast.

DEBKAfile's military sources say the disaster was a serious blow to the Iranian Air Force not long after its first and only AWACS went into service in April 2008. It was a renovated version of the Russian Ilyushin 76, part of Saddam Hussein's air force before it was transferred to Iran in 1991 during the first Gulf War.

Tehran hired Russian technicians to carry out renovations and install up-to-date radar. At the launching ceremony of the upgraded AWACS, Air Force commander Brig. Gen. Ahmad Miqani boasted its new radar systems were made in Iran and able to spot any airplane or missile at a distance of 1,000 kilometers from Iran's borders.

The loss of this airborne control system has left Iran's air force and air and missile defenses without "electronic eyes" for surveillance of the skies around its borders.

Iran's English language Press TV reports that the Iranian Air Force is denying that Tuesday's crash was connected with what it calls the 'aerial maneuver.'

The picture at the top is Iranian F-4 aircraft in action at Tuesday's parade.

I did not see any indication that the Mossad has been asked for comment.

Heh.



Israel Matzav: Iran's only AWACS crashes

Israel Matzav: New website: Buycott Israel

Israel Matzav: New website: Buycott Israel

Israel Matzav: Caroline Glick's response to the Goldstone Commission Report...

Israel Matzav: Caroline Glick's response to the Goldstone Commission Report...

Israel Matzav: Bulgarian defeats Egyptian for UNESCO position

Bulgarian defeats Egyptian for UNESCO position

Israel is said to be "quietly pleased" that Bulgarian Irina Bokova (pictured) pulled out an upset victory over Egyptian Farouk Hosni for the position of Director General of UNESCO on Tuesday night.

While Israel remained officially neutral on the campaign for the new head of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, a senior Israeli official said in the wake of the vote that government officials were pleased that the frontrunner in the race, Egyptian Culture Minister Farouk Hosni, was defeated.

Hosni, a painter, has been culture minister of Egypt for 22 years, during which time he has initiated numerous attacks on Israel, calling its culture "racist" and "inhumane" in 2001 and vowing to burn Israeli books in 2007. He has since apologized for the book-burning remark, which was made in the Egyptian parliament after he was accused by legislators of being soft on Israel.

Hosni has also drawn criticism for censoring movies and books under Hosni Mubarak's authoritarian government.

"It's gratifying that the Egyptian representative's problematic record was not ignored by the electors," said a senior Israeli official, speaking on condition of anonymity because Israel agreed not to publicly oppose Hosni's nomination.

"Hosni apologized for the things he said, but it appears it still left a bad taste when it came to selecting the head of the largest and most prestigious international cultural organization," he said.

Israeli officialdom did not trust Hosni's apologies, he added.

"It's no secret that most of the Egyptian elite has adopted virulent anti-Israelism and anti-Semitism as part of their cultural identity, and they are not ashamed of it until they compete for international jobs," he said. "The good news is that Hosni only got 27 votes. But the bad news is that he got 27 votes."

Hosni was defeated 27 to 31 by Bokova, who currently is Bulgaria's ambassador to France and Monaco and its representative to UNESCO, in a secret ballot by the organization's 58-member executive board.

This is excellent.

Had the Egyptians put up a candidate with a better record than Hosni's, I believe that Israel would have actively supported him. But Hosni is a racist anti-Semite and did not deserve the position.

On the other hand, I know that one of my readers will be upset because he believes that UNESCO should be led by an anti-Semite to show its true colors. He has a point, but maybe now the colors will change. You may recall that nine Bulgarian doctors and a 'Palestinian' nurse were tortured by the Libyan regime for years on trumped-up charges of spreading AIDS. I doubt Bulgarians are feeling all warm and fuzzy about Arab Muslims these days.


Israel Matzav: Bulgarian defeats Egyptian for UNESCO position

Israel Matzav: Not so fast: Abu Mazen may not come to the table

Israel Matzav: Not so fast: Abu Mazen may not come to the table

Israel Matzav: More good news: Iran claims to have two-stage missile with longer range than Shahab-3

More good news: Iran claims to have two-stage missile with longer range than Shahab-3

Iran claims to have displayed a two-stage homemade Sejjil missile on Tuesday, which it claims has a greater range than the Shahab-3. The Shahab-3 has a range of 2000 kilometers - about 1250 miles.

Sejjil missiles, considered as the third generation of Iran-made long-range missiles, were displayed during the parades at the mausoleum of the Founder of the Islamic Republic, the Late Imam Khomeini, in southern Tehran.

Iran successfully tested second generation of Sejjil missiles and brought it into mass production earlier this year.

The solid-fuel, two-stage Sejjil missile with two engines, is capable of reaching a very high altitude and therefore has a longer range than that of the Shahab 3 model.

The missile has boosted the Islamic republic of Iran's defense capabilities.

Various units of the Islamic Republic Army, Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) and Basij (volunteer) forces attended the military parades to commemorate the start of the Week of Sacred Defense.

During the parades Shahab 1, 2 and 3, and Zelzal missiles were also displayed.

The liquid-fuel Shahab 3 missile has a range of up to 1,250 miles (2000 kilometers) and is capable of carrying a 1,000-760 kilogram warhead.

As you may recall, Israel destroyed Hezbullah's entire supply of Zelzal's and Sejjil's on the ground during the first couple of days of the Second Lebanon War.

Still, if Iran has a missile with a range longer than 2000 kilometers, Europe had better wake up.

Yes, that's Ahmadinejad with Putin at the top.



Israel Matzav: More good news: Iran claims to have two-stage missile with longer range than Shahab-3

Love of the Land: President Obama's Remarks at UN:

President Obama's Remarks at UN:


U.S.commitment to Israel's security conditioned on accepting what he sees as legitimate Palestinian claims

IMRA
23 September 09

The United States does Israel no favors when we fail to couple an unwavering commitment to its security with an insistence that Israel respect the legitimate claims and rights of the Palestinians.

[Dr. Aaron Lerner - IMRA: Is this a threat to take us back to the toolshed for a thrashing if we don't dance to his tune - or worse?

Here is how this kind of threatening talk boomerangs:

What kind of "risks for peace" can we take if the President of the United States says in a carefully prepared address to the UN that as far as he is concerned if at any time in the future - no matter what concessions and withdrawals we make - if we find ourselves in a dispute with the Palestinians and American thinks the Palestinians have a point then we can kiss America's "unwavering commitment to our security" goodbye.

Set up a patchwork arrangement of sovereignties in Jerusalem after that warning? No thanks boss.

How about pull out of the Golan? Sorry - got to pass on that one too.]

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary

______________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release September 23,
2009

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
TO THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY
United Nations Headquarters
New York, New York

10:10 A.M. EDT
www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-to-the-United-Nations-General-Assembly/

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Mr. President, Mr. Secretary General, fellow delegates, ladies and gentlemen, it is my honor to address you for the first time as the 44th President of the United States. (Applause.)... No longer do we have the luxury of indulging our differences to the exclusion of the work that we must do together.

...Upon taking office, I appointed a Special Envoy for Middle East Peace, and America has worked steadily and aggressively to advance the cause of two states -- Israel and Palestine -- in which peace and security take root, and the rights of both Israelis and Palestinians are respected.
..
We've also re-engaged the United Nations. We have paid our bills. We have joined the Human Rights Council. (Applause.)

... The violent extremists who promote conflict by distorting faith have discredited and isolated themselves. They offer nothing but hatred and destruction. In confronting them, America will forge lasting partnerships to target terrorists, share intelligence, and coordinate law enforcement and protect our people.

...Our efforts to promote peace, however, cannot be limited to defeating violent extremists. For the most powerful weapon in our arsenal is the hope of human beings -- the belief that the future belongs to those who would build and not destroy; the confidence that conflicts can end and a new day can begin.

...I will also continue to seek a just and lasting peace between Israel, Palestine, and the Arab world. (Applause.) We will continue to work on that issue. Yesterday, I had a constructive meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas. We have made some progress. Palestinians have strengthened their efforts on security. Israelis have facilitated greater freedom of movement for the Palestinians. As a result of these efforts on both sides, the economy in the West Bank has begun to grow. But more progress is needed. We continue to call on Palestinians to end
incitement against Israel, and we continue to emphasize that America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. (Applause.)

The time has come -- the time has come to re-launch negotiations without preconditions that address the permanent status issues: security for Israelis and Palestinians, borders, refugees, and Jerusalem. And the goal is clear: Two states living side by side in peace and security -- a Jewish state of Israel, with true security for all Israelis; and a viable, independent Palestinian state with contiguous territory that ends the occupation that began in 1967, and realizes the potential of the Palestinian people. (Applause.)

As we pursue this goal, we will also pursue peace between Israel and Lebanon, Israel and Syria, and a broader peace between Israel and its many neighbors. In pursuit of that goal, we will develop regional initiatives with multilateral participation, alongside bilateral negotiations.

Now, I am not naïve. I know this will be difficult. But all of us -- not just the Israelis and the Palestinians, but all of us -- must decide whether we are seriousabout peace, or whether we will only lend it lip service. To break the old patterns, to break the cycle of insecurity and despair, all of us must say publicly what we would acknowledge in private. The United States does Israel no favors when we fail to couple an unwavering commitment to its security with an insistence that Israel respect the legitimate claims and rights of the Palestinians. (Applause.) And -- and nations within this body do the Palestinians no favors when they choose vitriolic attacks against Israel over constructive willingness to recognize Israel's
legitimacy and its right to exist in peace and security. (Applause.)

We must remember that the greatest price of this conflict is not paid by us. It's not paid by politicians. It's paid by the Israeli girl in Sderot who closes her eyes in fear that a rocket will take her life in the middle of the night. It's paid for by the Palestinian boy in Gaza who has no clean water and no country to call his own. These are all God's children. And after all the politics and all the posturing, this is about the right of every human being to live with dignity and security. That is a lesson embedded in the three great faiths that call one small slice of Earth the Holy Land. And that is why, even though there will be setbacks and false starts and tough days, I will not waver in my pursuit of peace. (Applause.)

Love of the Land: President Obama's Remarks at UN:

Love of the Land: The Netanyahu, Obama, Abu Mazen Summit

The Netanyahu, Obama, Abu Mazen Summit



By Moshe Feiglin
5 Tishrei 5770
23 September 09

What does Abu Mazen want?

Abu Mazen, (who holds a Soviet doctorate for his Holocaust denial thesis) wants to destroy Israel – just like every other Jew-hater in the world. Like every reasonable Moslem Arab who lives in Dar el Islam (a.k.a. the Middle East) that is polluted by the Zionist entity, Abu Mazen would also be pleased to carry on with the murders, rapes and mutilations that we all remember from the Arab riots of 1929, 1936, Israel's War of Independence - and from every opportunity that the Arabs in the Land of Israel have had to express their unique talents.

But in the meantime, Abu Mazen's immediate goal is to perpetuate the current situation. At the present, he needs Israel to prevent the Hamas from taking over Ramallah and throwing him off a local rooftop. He also has to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state – at any price. Why? Because in addition to all the honor and authority that he enjoys even now as "head of state", he would actually have to take responsibility for the Arabs of Judea and Samaria. Abu Mazen is not a pushover. He knows that as soon as there is "peace" he will interest no one. What will he do then? Take care of the sewage problem in Bir Zait?

Sound confusing? Just wait for the rest. For now, just remember that Abu Mazen needs to talk peace and to present Israel as intransigent.

What does Obama want?

The places in which Obama grew up and was educated, the mentors and events that, as per his own testimony, shaped his personality and world view – do not leave room for sweet speculation. Obama is a dangerously radical leftist who willingly subjugates himself to the most radical Islam.

Obama wants to appease all the dictators of the world – first and foremost, of the Moslem world – at Israel's expense. Anti-Semitism has always been subtly present in American governments. But the common values shared by the US and Israel had always afforded the two countries a basis for cooperation. Obama is past all that. As opposed to the previous US presidents of this generation, Obama sees no justification for Israel's very existence.

In the meantime, what is important to Obama is to talk peace and to appease the Arabs by presenting Israel as intransigent.

What does Netanyahu want?

This is the hardest question. The analysts in Israel can't seem to decide if Netanyahu would like to retreat but cannot, or if he can retreat but does not want to. As we are not mind-readers, we will try to get to the root of the matter.

What Netanyahu wants is what the State of Israel has wanted since it was established and even before that. A state wants to be normal, a country like any other country, a nation like any other nation. To accomplish that, Netanyahu needs to keep up normal relations with the US and the western world. The paradox is that the more that Israel surrenders its strategic and tangible assets (its land, settlements, army checkpoints) as well as its principles (recognition of our very right to a Jewish state) the more that the nations distance themselves from her. The more that we surrender our unique identity and destiny, the more that we insist that we seek only peace - the more that we become an international pariah.

But Netanyahu has nowhere to run. The concepts of holiness, of Israel's uniqueness and of Jewish rectification of the world are completely foreign to him. All that he can do is to continue to play the peace game and to hedge his bets that Abu Mazen will back down first.

In summary:
Abu Mazen wants to perpetuate the current situation.
Obama wants to appease Islam.
Netanyahu wants the US and the West to stop pressuring Israel.

The only one of the three who will get exactly what he wants is, of course, Abu Mazen.


Love of the Land: The Netanyahu, Obama, Abu Mazen Summit

Love of the Land: Why Have a Forced Marriage?

Why Have a Forced Marriage?


Ted Belman
israpundit.com
23 September 09

Sultan Knish suggests Why Israel is Losing the Military and Media Wars

    The answer is simple enough. Defensive PR, like defensive warfare, never works. And Israeli PR and Israeli warfare has been on the defensive for decades now. If you break down Israel’s message to a single sentence, it’s “We didn’t do any of the things we’re accused of.” That is the kind of message you expect to hear from criminal defendants, and it’s a message that impresses no one. The only thing it does is produce a debate about the validity of the accusations themselves, which is to PR what Stalingrad was to the Russian front.

I go further. Our diplomacy, if it has any chance to overcome the demonization of Israel and win us a better deal, must be rights based.

Rather than resist the demanded freeze with the argument that such settlements must be permitted internal growth, we should have been asserting our right to build because it is our right.

Rather than hide behind the necessity for Palestine to be demilitarized or to recognizing Israel as a Jewish state, we should be claiming our right to Judea and Samaria.

Rather than stand by failed agreements which have been honoured only in the breach, such as Oslo and the Roadmap, we should be discarding them.

Rather than wait passively for the next peace initiative to broadside us, we should have an initiative of our own. We must take matters into our own hands.

In a way, Netanyahu, with his economic plan for the “Palestinians”, is doing just that, but it is the wrong plan. It is premised on the basis that as the Palestinians develop a greater stake in peace, they will be more wont to preserve it. That may or may not be so. Essentially he is investing in a marriage, believing that it will work to our advantage in the long run. By doing so, he forecloses the option of squeezing the Arabs out of Judea and Samaria.

Many accept it as inevitable that we will have to live with them and must make the best of it. Others reject such a marriage, or separation or divorce if that’s what it leads to. They don’t want to get married in the first place.

Why struggle to share a house? Why not get one party to move out.


Love of the Land: Why Have a Forced Marriage?

Wednesday, 23 September 2009

Love of the Land: [Defeat for Radical Left] Supreme Court rules: Archaeological Research in the City of David is in the Public Interest

[Defeat for Radical Left] Supreme Court rules: Archaeological Research in the City of David is in the Public Interest


Press Release
Wednesday, September 23, 2009


In a Decision the High Court of Justice Handed Down Yesterday:
The Archaeological Research in the City of David is in the Public Interest


In the past week the Supreme Court, replying as the High Court of Justice,
dismissed two petitions that were submitted against the Israel Antiquities
Authority concerning the excavations the IAA is conducting within the
precincts of the "Walls Around the Old City" national park, at the City of
David in Jerusalem.


The petitions were submitted by residents who live near the place where the
excavations are being carried out, when in the opinion of the Israel
Antiquities Authority these residents are being incited by other factors
whose considerations are political and improbable.


One of the excavations is being conducted in an area known as the "Givati
Car Park", which is located south of the Old City's southern wall, adjacent
to Ophel Road. Numerous layers of antiquities were revealed in this
excavation. Among other things, a very impressive structure was found that
is probably a public building and dates to the Late Roman period. Remains
from the Early Islamic period were uncovered, as well as extraordinary
remains from the Second Temple period. All of the remains were
scientifically excavated, in meticulous work, whilst photographing and
documenting everything.


In the second excavation - for which a decision was handed down yesterday
(Monday) - a drainage channel structure from the Second Temple period was
exposed that extends over a distance of many dozens of meters. The drainage
structure is surprisingly well-preserved and one can walk through it
upright, for most of its length. The excavators were aware of the structure's
existence; nevertheless, the segment that was excavated was only recently
exposed.


The archaeological excavations that the Israel Antiquities Authority is
conducting in the City of David are exposing Jerusalem's magnificent past,
in all of the periods. These finds are of utmost importance to the Jewish
people in particular and world culture in general. The high court accepted
the position of the Israel Antiquities Authority pertaining to the great
importance of the excavations and the general public interest in uncovering
the antiquities.


Below is the concluding paragraph from the court's ruling issued by Justice
Edna Arbel: "The picture that was presented to us shows that the damage to
the property rights of the petitioners - as much as such damage does indeed
exist - is minor. As stated, the petitioners did not argue that any damage
was caused to their houses and the respondents explained that the activity
on the land is indeed underground, but does not extend as far as the houses
of the petitioners. Contrasting the asserted damage is the important public
interest in carrying out the work. Surely, revealing the secrets of the
past, which have been hidden for hundreds and thousands of years in the
bowels of the earth, is an essential part of the archaeologist's research.
From the standpoint of public interest, conducting this research is
multi-faceted, whether because of the contribution there is in understanding
the history of the country and the history of the Jewish people or because
of the contribution there is in understanding historic events that have
importance that is not just limited to the Jewish people and its history. In
this context I will refer to what I have already said in High Court decision
3702/05 - Ma'oz vs. Israel Antiquities Authority (unpublished, 11.106). It
is the legal position in the case that conducting an archaeological
excavation in a place where it benefits developing the infrastructure in the
region and improving the welfare of the residents is in the public interest.
This being the case, when the petitioners failed to point out real damage to
their property, it seems that there is no justification in harming or
restricting the public interest in conducting the excavation work on the
land. If my opinion will be heard, I will recommend to my colleagues that
the petition be rejected and the petitioners be required to pay the attorney
fees of each of the respondents for the sum of 10,000 NIS and court
expenses."



Love of the Land: [Defeat for Radical Left] Supreme Court rules: Archaeological Research in the City of David is in the Public Interest

Love of the Land: A Shot in the Air

A Shot in the Air


A Soldier's Mother
Paula R. Stern
22 September 09

Sometimes, you measure your progress in milestones, ones you knew would come but forgot you were expecting. Actually, in all likelihood, this latest milestone has come and gone (I'll have to ask), but this is the first time I'm hearing about it, so it is new to me.

I drove Elie to my office today, there to wait an hour until he could catch a bus to his base. He surfed the Internet and played games at the table in my office; I sat behind my desk answering emails and planning my week. It was quiet, but pleasant as the moments ticked away. We'd talked quite a bit over the long holiday weekend; sometimes the quiet is a comfort.

Too often on this winding street where my offices have been for the last few years, we hear a screech of brakes and wait. Sometimes we hear a thud; sometimes we don't.

Today we heard a thud, both going quickly to the windows that overlook the street. We saw a woman with her hands held to her head, obviously distressed, run around the car. She got into the driver's seat and sat there. She was fine. No injuries; but clearly she was upset and from all that we could see, it was her fault.

We looked to the second car and at the people around the street. No one seemed concerned; no one was racing to help; I could tell that Elie was trying to determine whether there was anyone injured. The other car door opened and a man stepped out. No injuries, a fender bender.

Elie stayed with me as we watched. The woman got out of the car, walked across the street...and put on her shoes that were on the sidewalk. Huh?

So, the best we could figure was that the woman had pulled up to the curb to buy something in the coffee shop on the ground floor of our building. She must have forgotten to put the car in park (did I mention that my street is a hill, gently sloped?). We assume her car began to roll backwards; she watched in horror as it slammed into the back of a car that had just passed in the opposite lane. In her haste to get to her car, she must have kicked off her open sandals. A mystery solved - not even 9:00 in the morning.

They exchanged information; the excitement was over, thankfully, no one was injured. Back to the computers for a few more minutes. All too soon, it was time for Elie to leave.

He picked up his heavy backpack and swung it onto his back. Without thought, I leaned over and picked up his gun to hand to him. It seemed silly for him to bend with the heavy backpack on his back.

"You aren't scared to hold it anymore?", he asked, clearly amused.

"Well, it's not like I'm firing it," I answered back.

"Not like me last week, huh?"

Okay, this was new. We'd just spent the last four days together and I hadn't heard anything. As calmly as I could, I asked him to explain. No big deal, an ordinary event, Elie said. Too ordinary, too common. An Arab approached the checkpoint and was asked for his identification. He handed it over and it was clear that it wasn't his; he'd stolen it and was trying to cross into Israel illegally for purposes unknown. It could have been to work...it could have been to steal, to harm, to kill. At that moment, it was anyone's guess...and you don't risk people's lives on a guess.

(
Continue)



Love of the Land: A Shot in the Air

Love of the Land: Re: Re: What Price Photo Op?

Re: Re: What Price Photo Op?


Jennifer Rubin
Contentions/Commentary
22 September 09

Obama’s silly stunt to force a complete settlement freeze is essentially kaput. To avoid a huge humiliation, he dragged both Abbas and Netanyahu to a meeting to decide they are going to talk some more—without preconditions (i.e., no freeze)—and get back to him in a month:

There was general agreement, including on the part of the Palestinians, that the peace process has to be resumed as soon as possible with no preconditions,” the premier told reporters in New York City.

Earlier, US President Barack Obama expressed a similar sentiment, emerging from bilateral meetings with both Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas vowing to move ahead with the diplomatic process, while seeming to step back from his call for a total settlement freeze, saying that Israel now is discussing “restraining settlement activities.”

In other words, the “Cairo effect” boils down to the Obama administration picking up where George W. Bush left off after a cringe-inducing detour into Israel-bashing. Meanwhile, the Arab states have repeatedly rebuffed Obama, as Zvi Mazel reminds us:

In a recent visit to Washington and following a meeting with the secretary of state, the Saudi minister for foreign affairs stated that “incrementalism and a step-by-step approach” would not lead to peace. The problem was not what the Arabs would give to Israel, but what Israel was ready to give in return for the Arab initiative, he later stated — adding, in effect, that the Arabs had only normalization to offer Israel as an incentive, and if they gave it away while the territories were still under occupation, they would lose their only leverage.

According to American sources, Obama himself got a dusty answer when, on his first visit to Riyadh a few weeks after he assumed office, he asked the Saudi king for some small normalization steps.

Prior to a tripartite meeting with the Mideast leaders, the US president said that Special Mideast envoy George Mitchell will continue holding negotiations with both sides, and Israel and the Palestinians will send delegations to Washington next week for the talks. He gave mid-October as a deadline for reviewing the status of the situation.

Similarly frosty answers have come from Egypt, Morocco, and others:

If Obama thought his famed charisma and the kudos he received in the Arab world for his attempts at reconciliation with Islam, as exemplified in his Cairo speech in June, would stand him in good stead with Arab leaders and that they would lead them to unbend a little and help him promote his policy, he must have been sadly disappointed.

The overall response from the Arab world highlighted not only its stubbornness, but also, and more to the point, its visceral hostility toward Israel.

Well, perhaps after some “self-reflection,” Obama will rethink what the central stumbling block to peace really is. It isn’t settlements—the parties don’t need any more preconditions. It might have something to do with that “visceral hostility toward Israel.”

Related: What Price Photo Op? and Re: What Price Photo Op?


Love of the Land: Re: Re: What Price Photo Op?

Love of the Land: the Goldstone UN Gaza Report

the Goldstone UN Gaza Report


UN Defamation of Israel's actions in Gaza: Dry Bones cartoon.


From the ZOA press release response to the shocking UN Report:

"The very title of the Report - ‘Human Rights in Palestine and Other Occupied Arab Territories: Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict’ – contains a falsehood – namely, that Gaza is “occupied” by Israel when, under Article 6 of the Fourth Geneva Convention on the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, a foreign power is only considered an occupier “to the extent that such Power exercises the functions of government in such territory” – something Israel has not done since 2005."

And also:

"the Report claims that “The data provided by non-governmental sources with regard to the percentage of civilians among those killed are generally consistent and raise very serious concerns with regard to the way Israel conducted the military operations in Gaza.’ Yet, as British journalist Melanie Philips points out, Israel provided a detailed breakdown of the Palestinians killed in Gaza and stated that the vast majority of these were Hamas or other terror operatives. Even the UN eventually acknowledged that some 75% of the dead in Gaza were Hamas terrorists."

And:

"ZOA National President Morton A. Klein said, “The ZOA condemns this atrocious, new installment in the international effort to delegitimize Israel, using perverted and spurious norms of international law in order to invalidate Israel’s elementary, fundamental right and obligation to defend its territory and its citizens. It is nothing less than an anti-Semitic, Israel-bashing, immoral piece of trash. We are appalled that Justice Goldstone was willing to ruin his legal reputation by participating in this dishonestly-conceived and fraudulent investigation. Most serious, perhaps, is the fact that Richard Goldstone was willing to bend and pervert legal norms – such as the definition of occupation and of combatants – in order to pin non-existent legal responsibility on Israel for acts were both justified and indeed necessary in self-defense."

To read the complete Press Release from ZOA (America's oldest Zionist Organization) in response to this latest example of Jewish Defamation and UN anti-Israel bias, click on ZOA Press Release.


Love of the Land: the Goldstone UN Gaza Report

The Miracle That is Israel

The Miracle That is Israel

Back in the Old Days, before people decided transplanting European ideas into non-European climes was colonial, paternalist and just plain evil, the Zionist project was often held up as a shining example of what could be achieved by people determined to lift themselves by their boot straps. The fact the Zionists could be portrayed as fine socialists gave an added fillip to supporting them, though the reality was never so clear; most of the Jews were escaping persecution in Europe or the Arab world, or fulfilling an ancient dream, or both; socialism was a fetish of a small group - but it was the powerful, leading group.

For decades there was a fundamental alignment between what we might loosely call the Left and Zionism, even if it was based partially on images and impressions, and the reality was always more complex. Seen from this perspective, the end of the affinity was the result of the Left redefining it's Weltanschauung, not a change in Zionism.

In recent decades there's a growing affinity between Zionism and the free-market Right. This, too, can easily be taken too far, and like it's predecessor position, it's built partially upon a willful editing and simplifying of the complexity that is Israel. Still, just as the previous alignment was based on some factual fundaments, so is this one.

Here's perhaps the most lucid exposition of the new alignment I've seen in quite a while. It's an article by George Gilder in City, and seems to be a synopsis of his new book The Israel Test.

I recognize not everyone likes George Gilder. He's a ferocious capitalist, one of the formulators of supply-side economics. I'll bet he's not at all a supporter of Obamacare. He's a prophet of the entrepreneur class, and of the idea that human ingenuity, if given the freedom to succeed and fail unimpeded, will make for a better world, while government needs mostly to get out of the way.

His article, and apparently his book, see Israel as the single most important place in the world right now, perhaps alongside Silicon Valley, where human ingenuity is forging a better reality. He's not Jewish; he's not a Zionist; he seems not to have had any position on Israel at all for most of his life (he's almost 70). Like many a recent convert, he sees his new love in a better light than it deserves.

Having said all that, however, there's basically a lot of truth to his description - and of course, it's lots of fun to read. Most gratifying, and better than a month's worth of The Guardian or three months of Mondoweiss. Near the end, he waxes a bit poetical

During a trip to Israel in 2008, Fruchter, Amir Eyal, and Guy Koren of EZchip
took me out to dinner in Caesarea. The restaurant was on the Mediterranean
beach. Above the beach stood the ruins of Roman temples and terraces, theaters
and arches, all surfaced with golden sandstone and carefully refurbished and
illuminated. Shops and restaurants were decorously arrayed along the beach. The
rush of water on the sand, the scent of fish in the air, the glow of sunset, and
the lights on the Roman stone all lent the area a magical feeling of peace and
prosperity.


The last time the Jews tangled with the Romans, the Jews came out a very sorry second best. Yet the Romans are long since gone, very long; the Jews, meanwhile, have set up snazzy restaurant's on their ruins and are peering around the corner to see how much of late 20th century technology they can make obsolete by the end of next year.
Originally posted by Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations

Maybe the Locals Aren't as Stupid as Expected

Maybe the Locals Aren't as Stupid as Expected

I have nothing original or particularly interesting to say about the photo-op Obama had yesterday with Abbas and Netanyahu. The Obama team seems slowly to be understanding (or not) that there's a reason the Arab-Israeli conflict is so long-running and intractable, and it's not that the players can't see what's so glaringly obvious from afar. On the contrary: us locals, we've long since covered all the options that seem so obvious to the novices, and we understand fully why they're not real. It's our lives, and we're not novices.

The clischee about how we've forgotten more about the matter than the newcomers may ever know is reality, not platitude.
Originally posted by Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations

The Torah Revolution: "The Great MiddleEast Tragedy Apology" is actually a sin

The Torah Revolution: "The Great MiddleEast Tragedy Apology" is actually a sin

DoubleTapper: Separated at Birth IDF Edition

DoubleTapper: Separated at Birth IDF Edition

RubinReports: France throws a Pie in Obama's Face: The Increasingly Obvious Failure of Obama's Middle East Policy

France throws a Pie in Obama's Face: The Increasingly Obvious Failure of Obama's Middle East Policy

By Barry Rubin

It’s a development of shocking proportions if properly noticed and evaluated. President Barack Obama’s entire Arab-Israeli and Iranian policies are miserably failing, though partly concealed by theatrical events and media protection.

Here's the latest development. French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner arriving at the UN General Assembly session, stated that he doesn’t favor blocking the export of refined oil products to Iran, the keystone of the new sanctions proposed by Obama.

The New York Times reported this story but grossly underplayed its implications:

“But if France is to come out against fuel sanctions analysts said, they will most likely be off the table as an option for increasing the pressure on Iran.”

Ha! If France does so it will be the end of Obama’s whole strategy against Iran. For Tehran, it will be a straight, largely untroubled stroll to nuclear weapons, unless derailed by an Israeli attack.

“I think this is a bit dangerous,” Kouchner said about the proposed sanctions. Would that be more dangerous than Iran getting nuclear weapons? But Kouchner didn't make clear to whom or in what way it's dangerous. He did say, however, that it would mostly harm “poor people” in Iran.

[An aside: This is the kind of phony “humanitarian” considerations that paralyze Western policy today. Sure, there is some patriotic reaction against foreign pressures in places like Iran, but do the millions opposing that regime as a repressive dictatorship really want the West to coddle and court their oppressors? Do Gazans favor Western actions ensuring Hamas remains in power? Do Iraqis retrospectively curse Western sanctions against Saddam Hussein’s regime?

[Can the West fight no war because there will be civilian casualties; can it not preserve its freedoms because Muslims or others might be offended? Is the “zero-harm” approach an effective way for policy to be conducted, or even for democracies to survive at all?]


Of course, French President Francois Sarkozy may reverse his foreign minister’s stance. Yet it is extraordinarily significant that a major ally supposedly wowed by Obama’s charisma and popularity, can publicly do the equivalent of throwing a pie into the president’s face with no consequences.

And there's a virtual parade of pie-throwers. Obama’s Arab-Israeli policy was derailed by similar responses. Israel refused to bow to American demands stated in the most extreme, public, peremptory manner and Obama gave in. Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and other Arab states all publicly made clear that they would defy the president and reject the confidence-building measures with Israel he request. Obama smiled and thanked them for their help.

Then the same thing happened with his Iran policy. First, Russia and China rejected his efforts to get their agreement to increased sanctions. Now, France may be doing the same thing. In between, the White House accepted an insulting Iranian message for talks.

Could it be any more obvious? Obama’s salient international characteristic is not popularity but weakness. Already, Obama has been defied or has buckled under to a long list of countries including: China, Egypt, Iran, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Venezuela, and now perhaps France.

That's why the conspiratorial notion that Obama aims to sell out Israel is wrong. He will back away if anyone stands up to him. The risk posed by administration policy is not to Israel but to U.S. interests altogether as he refuses to confront radical anti-American forces.

A strong argument could be made that the United States should boycott meetings with Iran altogether. After all, even if the Tehran regime wasn’t working on nuclear weapons, the mere fact that it is a dictatorship that has just stolen an election, repressed a peaceful opposition, put on trial many dissident leaders, and appointed a wanted terrorist as defense minister should be sufficient to inspire such a boycott.

Just this week, there are reports leaked by U.S. military officials—frustrated at White House policy?—that Iran’s Qods force (whose former head is now Iran’s defense minister) is training and arming Taliban gunmen in Afghanistan. The official spin is that this poses no current threat to American forces there. Right. Only when the Taliban soldiers finish their training and go out to kill Americans will there be an immediate threat. Already, though, the same Qods force has been involved in helping to kill Americans in Iraq, according to U.S. intelligence reports.

Instead of action, the administration delivers the photo op of a meeting between Israeli and Palestinian leaders in New York that will enable Obama to portray himself as a great success in peacemaking. In fact, what he has “accomplished”—a meeting of the two leaders—would have happened months ago if Obama’s injection of the construction freeze issue had not given the Palestinians a rationale for suspending talks.

[After I wrote this article, I heard National Public Radio's report on this event. It explained clearly the main problem clearly as Israel not wanting to freeze construction and the Palestinians not wanting to negotiate unless that was done. But it never mentioned that the whole problem arose because Obama made the issue the central factor. In other words, this conflict didn't just arise from Israel or the Palestinians but is all Obama's fault. This is rather typical of how most of the media has dealt with the administration's mistakes.]

[And the AP coverage was equally wrong:

"Despite months of effort, the sides remain far apart on a staunch Palestinian precondition for talks: that Israel halt all construction of Jewish settlements in Palestinian territory. Obama has publicly echoed that demand to Israeli leaders...."

Echoed? The Palestinians got the idea from Obama! Before he got started there were no Palestinian preconditions about meeting Israeli officials.

Continuing with the kind of insanity that seems to seize many reporters when they cover Obama, the AP story continues:

"Bristling with impatience, President Barack Obama sternly prodded Israeli and Palestinian leaders to relaunch Mideast peace negotiations Tuesday, grasping a newly personal role in their historic standoff."

How patronizing can you get? This is a man whose role in dealing with the conflict goes back about six months meeting two leaders who have been coping with it for more than thirty years. It is as if the Israeli and Palestinian leaders are schoolchildren, as if their duty was not to their own people but to satisfy Obama. With an attitude like this--arrogance plus weakness--he can expect no success in this part of the world.

Nahum Barnea, arguably the Israeli left’s most distinguished writer, who backs a complete settlement freeze and would like to support Obama, wrote the get-together at the UN meeting, “Is a joke at the expense of an American president who tried to get involved in Middle East politics and was stung….The Americans,” Barnea continued, “discovered that they want an Israeli-Palestinian agreement more than the leaders of both sides desire one.”

Precisely. And in this regard nothing has changed much since 2000 when the Palestinian leadership rejected peace. That reality should have been clear to the Obama Administration from the beginning rather than its attitude of bravado about how it was going to hit the ground running and solve the conflict very fast.

Barnea concluded: Obama “is cool….Yet the U.S. president is not Brad Pitt or George Clooney. He’s supposed to bring results.”

Well-put. While American opinion-makers continue to focus on Obama’s “coolness” and Western Europeans cheer him—what’s not to cheer in an American president who let’s you do whatever you want?—the world is giving him the cold shoulder.


RubinReports: France throws a Pie in Obama's Face: The Increasingly Obvious Failure of Obama's Middle East Policy

RubinReports: Avoiding the Unthinkable: Missile Defense is Israel’s “Secret” Weapon Against Iran’s Nuclear Weapons

Avoiding the Unthinkable: Missile Defense is Israel’s “Secret” Weapon Against Iran’s Nuclear Weapons

By Barry Rubin

Remember the name Uzi Rubin because he might emerge as the most important individual in the issue of Iran’s nuclear weapons drive. Rubin is the former head of Israel’s missile defense program and now a defense consultant. He has developed the best alternative (or supplement) to blocking the dangers of a radical Islamist, genocidal-oriented, terrorist supporting, antisemitic regime having nuclear-tipped missiles pointed at Israel.

Briefly, Rubin and his colleagues have been developing a multi-layered defense system consisting of long-range Arrow missiles (developed in cooperation with the United States), medium-range David’s Sling interceptor missiles, and the short-range Iron Dome system aimed against the kind of rockets being fired by Hizballah and Hamas. By the time Iran gets nuclear weapons, and in some cases well before, these systems will all be operational.

None of these systems are perfect. For example, Iron Dome will not protect small areas of Israel closest to the Gaza border but will shield more populated places deeper inside Israel.

For those actually facing attack by rockets or missiles, what is most important is that the number of incoming warheads—and hence both casualties and damage--be reduced to the minimum possible number.

This would undermine the strategy used by Hizballah against Israel in 2006 and Hamas from the Gaza Strip more recently of mass rocket attacks as a means of sowing terror among civilians, disrupting life in Israel, and gaining strategic leverage. In addition, if Israel ever does attack Iran’s nuclear installation, these systems will reduce the effectiveness of retaliation by Iran’s client groups.

In addition, missile defense is part of a triad of ways to counter Iran, along with diplomatic efforts plus sanctions (sadly lagging) and a direct attack on Iran’s facilities. Since even an effective attack would only slow down and not completely stop Tehran’s efforts, missile defense may emerge as the most important of these three factors.

Obviously, of course, there is a problem with nuclear threats that doesn’t exist with rockets: even if one or two get through the results would be catastrophic. Uzi Rubin has a detailed answer that goes something like this:

For Iran to attack Israel with nuclear missiles, any even marginally rational commanders know they need to knock out Israel’s air force bases lest an Israeli second strike devastate Iran. To feel at all secure, Iran needs to launch a minimum of three missiles simultaneously against each airfield. Missile defenses, however, keep pushing up that number to the point where an Israeli second strike becomes unavoidable. Thus, any attack on Israel is clearly suicidal. This makes such an attack less likely.

But, you can say, it is a mistake to regard the Iranian regime as purely rational. This is far truer of the regime today than it was a year ago. And even then it is far truer of elements in the regime, including those who will have actual possession of the nuclear weapons.

How often do you see the point made in the Western media that the missiles and atomic bombs will be controlled by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the part of the regime closest to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the institution that is gaining growing power over Iran, and the one with the closest ties to terrorists abroad?

True as this is, missile defense becomes all the more important by providing protection against an “irrational” attack. Combined with direct air strikes on Iranian launchers, this becomes an impressive defensive system. The maximum possible deterrent gives the maximum possible protection and the greatest possible discouragement for Iran from starting a war.

Remember, too, that the number of atomic bombs Iran can build is going to be relatively limited in number, while the number which can be launched simultaneously (especially very fast) is even fewer.

Finally, there is more than one way to "use" nuclear weapons which involves flourishing rather than firing them. Much of the Iranian regime bluster about attacking Israel is designed to give Tehran greater leverage in the region. Israel can defend itself; Iran's Arab neighbors cannot and must depend on the United States--not the greatest assurance nowadays--to counter Iran's influence and power. Given their weakness and vulnerability to internal subversion, Arabic-speaking states are more likely to be the main target where Tehran regime's threats can achieve results.

In short, missile defense in combination with other efforts cannot necessarily provide perfect defense but it can provide the best possible defense. It is far more likely to be effective than the sadly weak diplomatic-sanction defense offered by divided and timid Western countries. Indeed, it might not be long before some of these are buying Israeli made systems, which the U.S. military is reportedly already planning to deploy.


RubinReports: Avoiding the Unthinkable: Missile Defense is Israel’s “Secret” Weapon Against Iran’s Nuclear Weapons

Massive US Protests Against Ahmedinajad - Politics & Government - Israel News - Israel National News

Massive US Protests Against Ahmedinajad - Politics & Government - Israel News - Israel National News
Shared via
AddThis

Netanyahu Ripped for Bowed Head, Lauded for 'Standing Firm' - Politics & Government - Israel News - Israel National News

Netanyahu Ripped for Bowed Head, Lauded for 'Standing Firm' - Politics & Government - Israel News - Israel National News
Shared via
AddThis

IDF Videos Disprove Goldstone Report - Defense/Middle East - Israel News - Israel National News

IDF Videos Disprove Goldstone Report - Defense/Middle East - Israel News - Israel National News#replies
Shared via
AddThis

Netanyahu: Iran is a Weakling - Defense/Middle East - Israel News - Israel National News

Netanyahu: Iran is a Weakling - Defense/Middle East - Israel News - Israel National News

Shared via
AddThis

PA Officials: Obama Disgraced Us, Surrendered to Israel - Politics & Government - Israel News - Israel National News

PA Officials: Obama Disgraced Us, Surrendered to Israel - Politics & Government - Israel News - Israel National News
Shared via
AddThis

The Mosquito: Israel's Unique Micro-Unmanned Aircraft - Defense/Middle East - Israel News - Israel National News

The Mosquito: Israel's Unique Micro-Unmanned Aircraft - Defense/Middle East - Israel News - Israel National News
Shared via
AddThis

Holy Temple Mikveh Discovered Near Western Wall - Jewish World - Israel News - Israel National News

Holy Temple Mikveh Discovered Near Western Wall - Jewish World - Israel News - Israel National News
Shared via
AddThis

UNIVERSAL TORAH: HA-AZINU

UNIVERSAL TORAH: HA-AZINU


By Rabbi Avraham Greenbaum

Torah Reading: HA-AZINU, Deuteronomy 32: 1-52

THE SONG OF G-D'S JUSTICE

Some songs are happy, some are sad. Some are for entertainment. Some come to tell a story or teach a lesson. Some express the inner heart and soul. Unique among all songs is the song of Moses in our parshah. HA-AZINU is the song of G-d's perfect Justice -- the ultimate reproof to man.

The Hebrew word for song, SHIRAH, is related to the word SHER, which means a chain or necklace. A song is a chain, thread or structure that connects various particulars together in order to make a meaningful order. As the very climax of the Torah, Moses' song of HA'AZINU gives order and meaning to the history of the people of Israel with its great highs and terrible lows. Everything comes to show the faultless, inexorable justice of G-d. "The Rock -- His work is perfect, for all His ways are Justice, the G-d of faithfulness in Whom there is no wrong, He is righteous and straight!" (Deut. 32:4).

This may be easy to say, but it is very hard to actually know and believe in our heart of hearts. Nevertheless Moses challenges us to join him in this song of testimony, so that we too will know and declare G-d's justice. The song is "interactive": Moses chants, calling upon us to respond. "For I will call upon the Name of HaShem -- ascribe greatness to our G-d" (ibid. v. 3). This verse is the Torah source for the prayer leader's call to prayer and the congregational response, both in the synagogue -- BAR'CHU -- and at the table introducing the blessings after eating bread -- NEVORECH (Brachos 45a). HA-AZINU challenges us to respond: to wake up, see and acknowledge G-d's truth and justice, and to respond in the proper way, by repenting. HA-AZINU is such an important expression of the essence of Israel's faith and destiny that some communities had the custom of reciting it daily in the morning prayers together with SHIRAS HAYAM ("Song of the Sea") (Rambam, Laws of Prayer 7:13). In the Temple, successive portions of HA-AZINU were read every Shabbos in a six-week cycle as part of the service accompanying the Shabbos additional offering (Rambam, Temidim Umusafim 6:9).

"Listen, O heavens, and I will speak. Hear, O earth, the words of my mouth" (Deut. 32:1). Moses calls upon the heavens and earth, G-d's impassive, unwaveringly obedient servants, as his witnesses. For mortal man is too devious and full of ploys to be a valid witness -- he has a vested interest: he wants to justify himself. "Why did this happen to me? It isn't fair." Moses confronts us -- the latter generation that he is addressing -- with independent testimony that cannot be denied: the actual history of the people of Israel from the very beginning to the very end, for it is all encapsulated in HA-AZINU. "Remember the days of the universe, understand the years of generation after generation; ask your father and he will inform you, your grandfather and they will tell you..." (v. 7). What has happened in the past and what is happening now to Israel is of significance to the entire world. For Israel is at the very center. "When the Supreme gave the peoples their inheritance, when He spread out the children of man, He established the boundaries of the nations according to the number of the Children of Israel..." (v. 8).

The history of Israel is the history of Adam writ large. Adam was created out of dust and nothingness and placed in G-d's sublime garden, but he quickly rebelled and sinned, causing G-d to punish and chasten him, in order to make him repent and to cleanse him. Similarly, G-d "found" the Children of Israel in a wild, desolate land and built them into a nation, giving them to ride on the high places of the earth -- the land of Israel and Jerusalem. But their very good fortune and prosperity became their undoing. "And Yeshurun became fat and he kicked" -- causing G-d to let loose all the evils and terrors of persecution and oppression that have plagued the people of Israel for thousands of years. Only when we internalize the message that rebellion leads to nothing but pain in the end, and that we have no recourse except in G-d -- only then will G-d relent and swing everything around to goodness and blessing -- VE-ZOT HABRACHAH (the closing parshah of the Torah).

* * *

G-D ALWAYS HAS THE UPPER HAND

We cannot escape from G-d and His Covenant, with its privileges, responsibilities and its terrible sanctions. The stark severity of the message of HA-AZINU may cause discomfort among those in today's obese, irreverent world who seek a sweet, undemanding spirituality that complements and enhances contemporary lifestyle without causing any radical upsets. People are bewildered by the war, terror, crime, disease and other scourges afflicting us, but would like to see them as mere aberrations that should be able to be eliminated if only we could apply sufficient human ingenuity. HA-AZINU teaches the futility of trying to overcome these G-d-sent scourges without confronting the rebelliousness and deviousness in our own hearts. For G-d always has the upper hand. "For I am He, and there is no god with Me: I kill and make alive, I struck the blow and I will heal, and none can save from My hand" (v. 39).

"If only they would be wise and apply their intelligence to this, and understand their latter end. How could one chase after a thousand and two put ten thousand to flight if not because their Rock sold them and HaShem delivered them?" (vv. 29-30). How could it be that small groups of Nazis were able to uproot thousands from their homes and towns and lead them literally like lambs to the slaughter? How could it be that today a people that is not a people have the whole world dancing to their tune, while small cells of terrorists torment and demoralize the entire population? How can this be if not that it is G-d's doing?

If it is true that our sins as a nation have brought us great suffering, it must also be true that the stirrings of Teshuvah in our hearts will also prove to be the channel for abundant blessing and peace. Rabbi Nachman of Breslov taught that when Israel accepted the Torah, their essential wisdom lay in their willingness to throw away their own sophisticated wisdom and humbly submit themselves completely to G-d's superior wisdom. Rabbi Nachman brings proof from Onkelos' Aramaic translation of the verse in HA-AZINU: "O foolish people and not wise" (Deut. 32:6) -- "O nation that received the Torah and were not sophisticated" (see Likutey Moharan I:123).

We cannot redeem ourselves with sophisticated ploys but only through taking the ancient, unglamorous path of Teshuvah -- honest self-scrutiny, remorse, contrition, owning up to the foolishness and evil in our own hearts and taking ourselves in hand in order to better fulfill G-d's commandments. HA-AZINU calls to repent with all our hearts and come home to G-d as we stand before Him in prayer during these Days of Awe. Repentance -- Teshuvah -- is the hallmark of the true savior, Melech Mashiach, as personified in David, the messianic king of Israel. David came to complete the work of Moses in rectifying the original sin of Adam. The striking fact about David is that he sinned. His greatness lay in the fact that he had the courage to acknowledge it, and to repent. The true messiah is not a flawless, superhuman saint who rides on clouds of glory. He is one who -- on his level -- knows sin and knows the devices of man's heart. And he knows that only G-d can rectify.

"Cleanse me of my sin and purify me from my transgression... O G-d, create in me a pure heart and renew within me a proper spirit... I will teach sinners Your ways and transgressors will return to You" (Psalm 51).

As soon as we learn that there is no other way but to repent, we will be redeemed. And then: "Sing aloud -- O you nations -- of His people, For He does avenge the blood of His servants and render vengeance to His adversaries, and will make atonement for the land of His people."

Shabbat Shalom! Shanah Tovah! Gmar ChaTimah Tovah!

Avraham Yehoshua Greenbaum

--
AZAMRA INSTITUTE
PO Box 50037 Jerusalem 91500 Israel
Website: www.azamra.org

ADL: Email - Farouk Hosni Defeated!

ADL: Email - Farouk Hosni Defeated!

Coal to Newcastle

Coal to Newcastle

Israel is exporting snow to the Alps.

Honestly. Not a joke. Really. It even says so in the newspaper.

For the Hebraically challenged, here's the story. An Israeli company called IDE started by desalinating sea water, then turned its technology to large cooling installations used in mines, and from there it was a short step to producing large quantities of ice or snow. Of course, the ski resorts in the Alps have been using artificial snow machines for years (decades?), but some recent years have been uncommonly warm, and there's a growing demand for a longer ski season, while energy is capped (or not). The new Israeli contraption gives more snow for 20% of the energy.

The base prices of such a toy is $3,000,000, and it will give you 950 cubic meters of snow daily, so if you want one for your back yard feel free to contact me and I'll help you with the deal (reduced commissions for readers of this blog).

Or you might wish to boycott Israel and stop skiing. That's also an option.
Originally posted by Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations

Did Israel Win?

Did Israel Win?

Politics makes for strange bedfellows. Jeffrey Goldberg and the Powerline guys don't agree on many things, yet they've joined in linking to the Jackson Diehl column at the Washington Post, Israel's Gaza vindication.

The point, however, is that Israel has bought itself a stretch of relative peace
with Hamas, just as its costly 2006 invasion of Lebanon has produced three years
of quiet on that front. From the Israeli perspective, a respite from conflict is
the most that can be expected from either group -- or from their mutual sponsor,
Iran.


Actually, as I've described in the past, the reprieve may prove to be more than merely a lull in violence. Israel's various anti-missile systems are all approaching the point of operative depolyment. Should they succeed at the task they were designed for, Hezbullah and Hamas may have whiled away their chances to inflict serious harm. I'm not saying they won't devise new ways - of course they will. They're miserable at giving their people better lives, but they'll always figure out innovative ways to hit Israel. Still, each week of calm is a week closer until those systems are deployed.

It's nice the Israeli perspective is gaining traction at the Washington Post.
Originally posted by Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations

Is the Boycott Movement Gaining Traction?

Is the Boycott Movement Gaining Traction?

Gal Beckerman at the Forward thinks it is.

Yet note that his article, like most pieces that seek confirmation that the boycotters are beginning to hurt Israel, never gives numbers. Ultimately it's an economic matter, after all: can Israel be made to hurt so badly that it makes a difference. So you'd think the boycotters would have a big chart with numbers: the size of Israel's economy, stats on various segments of it, targets that need to be reached so as to make a difference - that sort of thing.

But of course there is none of this. As even Beckerman sort of admits, the boycott movement is fundamentally about having a world without Israel; if that's the goal, the boycotters might note that the Jews have faced much worse foes in the past, and from abysmally worse starting positions.

So far, 2009 is proving less of a problem for Israel's economy than for most developed countries. (See the various financial and economic indicators of The Economist).

Then, of course, you've got the ludicrous aspects of the movement:

Ironically, Barghouti, who appears to be one of the movement’s chief strategists, is currently in a master’s degree program in philosophy at Tel Aviv University — even though he is one of the founding members of the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel. He has been one of the activists strongly pushing the greater BDS movement in the direction of opposing any institution associated with Israel. Asked about his affiliation with an institution he wants boycotted, Barghouti declined to discuss his personal life.

Originally posted by Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...