Love of the Land: The Israeli Field Hospital in Haiti — Ethical Dilemmas in Early Disaster Response

The Israeli Field Hospital in Haiti — Ethical Dilemmas in Early Disaster Response

Ofer Merin, M.D., Nachman Ash, M.D.,
Gad Levy, M.D., Mitchell J. Schwaber, M.D.,
and Yitshak Kreiss, M.D., M.H.A., M.P.A.
New England Journal of Medicine
03 March '10

Within 48 hours after the massive earthquake that struck Port-au-Prince, Haiti, on January 12, the government of Israel dispatched a military task force consisting of 230 people: 109 support and rescue personnel from the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) Home Front Command and 121 medical personnel from the IDF Medical Corps Field Hospital. The force's primary mission was to establish a field hospital in Haiti.

We landed in Port-au-Prince 15 hours after leaving Tel Aviv and began to deploy immediately. The first patients arrived at our gates and were admitted even before the hospital was fully built, within 8 hours after our equipment arrived. In its 10 days of operation, the field hospital treated more than 1100 patients.

Our mission was to extend lifesaving medical help to as many people as possible. The need to manage limited resources that fell far short of the demands continuously presented us with complex ethical issues. Every mass-casualty event raises ethical issues concerning the priorities of treatment, but the Haiti disaster was exceptional in several ways. Haiti is a poor country with minimal civil facilities, and the earthquake's destruction of infrastructure left millions of people homeless and hundreds of thousands in need of medical assistance. When we arrived, there was no functioning authority coordinating the distribution of the available medical resources. We were faced with the challenge of establishing an ethical and practical system of medical priorities in a setting of chaos.

Our hospital was designed to contain 60 inpatient beds, including 4 in the intensive care unit (ICU). It had one operating room with a single table. In view of the initial absence of functioning nearby medical facilities and the dire need for medical services, we extended our hospitalization capacity to its maximum of 72 patients and added a second operating table.

Under normal circumstances, triage involves setting priorities among patients with conditions of various degrees of clinical urgency, to determine the order in which care will be delivered, presuming that it will ultimately be delivered to all. After the Haitian earthquake, however, it was impossible to treat everyone who needed care, and thus the first triage decision we often had to make was which patients we would accept and which would be denied treatment. We were forced to recognize that persons with the most urgent need for care are often the same ones who require the greatest expenditure of resources. Therefore, we first had to determine whether these patients' lives could be saved.

Our triage algorithm consisted of three questions: How urgent is this patient's condition? Do we have adequate resources to meet this patient's needs? And assuming we admit this patient and provide the level of care required, can the patient's life be saved?

In the first days of our deployment, most of the patients we saw had recently been removed from the rubble. The majority had limbs that were compromised by open, infected wounds. Untreated, open fractures meant infection, gas gangrene, and ultimately death. Clearly, the sooner after injury the patient received medical attention, the better his or her chances of survival. Late-arriving patients who already had sepsis had a poor chance of survival. But there was no clear cutoff time beyond which patients could not be saved; each case had to be evaluated individually.

(Read full article)

Love of the Land: The Israeli Field Hospital in Haiti — Ethical Dilemmas in Early Disaster Response

Love of the Land: Anti-Israel Bigotry Week

Anti-Israel Bigotry Week

Melanie Phillips
The Spectator
02 March '10

This afternoon, I attended a reception at the House of Commons given by the All-Party Parliamentary Committee against Antisemitism. As its splendid and doughty chairman the Labour MP John Mann observed, it is heartening to find MPs from all political parties taking a lead in fighting the re-emergence of this disgusting prejudice. This week provides evidence of why such a defence is tragically so necessary with Anti-Israel Bigotry Week (aka Israel Apartheid Week), a global campus hate-fest whose message, that Israel is fundamentally illegitimate, is in effect a call for Israel’s destruction and is therefore an incitement to genocide.

In Canada, the fact that the University of Toronto is hosting this odious travesty has caused one of its alumni, Howard Rotberg, to return the degrees he obtained there. He wrote to the President of his old university thus:

We have now reached a stage where Jewish students and others identifiably Jewish fear for their safety at various universities in North America and Europe, and where various Jewish speakers are denied permission to speak because of Islamist intimidation. We have now reached a situation where various student groups, such as the Muslim Students Association are being funded by radical Islamist groups, and where various University departments across the ‘free world’ are becoming beholden to radical Islam due to financial funding from Saudi Arabia and the Emirates.

I am sure you have read how young Muslim students are being ‘radicalized’ at universities in England, and such was the case with the attempted terror attacker on the Delta airlines jet on Christmas Day.

The situation at English universities and even at York University has gotten out of hand. To the extent that your views are infused with cultural and moral relativism, I suggest that the University of Toronto is poised to eventually join those institutions where Jewish students will be viewed as ‘offensive’ per se to Muslim students and other illiberal antagonists who apply double standards and factually incorrect legal and historical judgments against the Jewish State, and interpret Islam as holding Jews and Christians to be second class citizens, which is the real apartheid that your University will not allow to be discussed. Moral equivalency is not appropriate between liberal democrats and terror supporting illiberals.

(Read full article)

Love of the Land: Anti-Israel Bigotry Week

Love of the Land: Franchising “Apartheid”: Why South Africans Push the Analogy

Franchising “Apartheid”: Why South Africans Push the Analogy

Rhoda Kadalie & Julia Bertelsmann
Z-Word Blog
Originally Posted March '08

ON A COLD NIGHT IN Johannesburg last year, a bus pulled up outside the American consulate. It was the 40th anniversary of the Six Day War in the Middle East-June being a winter month in South Africa-and several dozen activists planned to mark the occasion by protesting U.S. support for "Apartheid Israel." The protest was organized by the Palestine Solidarity Committee and most of the demonstrators were South African Muslims.[1] Among their number, however, were black South Africans who shared the organizers' hostility to Israel.

Or so it seemed. A reporter discovered that some of the black demonstrators "were not pro-Palestinian activists, but homeless people bused in from the surrounding townships," he told Ha'aretz. "[M]ost of them refused to protest, opting to sit on the warm bus. The organizers refused to allow it. When I asked one black 'protester' if he was for Palestine, he replied: ‘I am for nobody.'" The organizers soon ejected the reporter. [2]

Like the ‘protester' on the bus, most South Africans feel indifferent towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, according to a study conducted by the Pew Global Attitudes Project in 2007. Of those with clear opinions on the matter, the majority sympathized more with Israel: 28 per cent of South Africans overall sided with Israel compared to only 19 per cent with the Palestinians. [3]

Nevertheless, South Africa has increasingly become the flash point of virulently anti-Israel demonstrations. Many of the country's leaders routinely compare the State of Israel to the apartheid regime that governed South Africa from 1948 to 1994 and imposed an oppressive system of segregation and discrimination on grounds of race. "End Israeli Apartheid" rallies are usually organized by radical Muslim organizations, but some black South Africans have also entered the fray.

(Read full article)

Love of the Land: Franchising “Apartheid”: Why South Africans Push the Analogy

Israel Matzav: What would the aftermath of a strike on Iran's nuclear weapons facilities look like?

What would the aftermath of a strike on Iran's nuclear weapons facilities look like?

This is without question the most interesting piece I have read in a LONG time, and I urge you all to read it.

It's a write-up of a simulation of the aftermath of an Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. It was done by the Saban Center at the (Left-leaning) Brookings Institute.

The surprises start from the very beginning because it wasn't supposed to be the aftermath of an Israeli attack. It was supposed to be the lead up. The Control group decided to change the scenario at the last minute and tell the three groups (US, Israel and Iran) that Israel had just carried out an attack and destroyed (best case scenario) Iran's nuclear capability. And that's the first lesson: The US team said that they would have stopped an Israeli strike even at the last minute if they could have stopped it. If Israel is going to attack Iran, it cannot tell the US in advance. Everyone agreed that the surprise scenario was much better than Israel telling the US it was going to attack, meeting a US refusal and then attacking anyway.

The US then behaved the way it did during the first Gulf war. During the first Gulf war, the first Bush administration forced Israel to sit on the side and absorb one missile after another from Iraq. In this simulation, eight days after the initial strike, the US had just given Israel permission to retaliate against Hezbullah (which was also firing missiles), but not against Iran. The US also continued to attempt to 'engage' Iran, but Iran wasn't interested. 'Engagement' brought no positive results.

Because the US kept pushing for 'engagement,' Iran kept pushing the US to the limit to see where that limit was. Eventually, Iran crossed a red line by bombing a Saudi oil facility in Dharan and mining the Straits of Hormuz. Another lesson (that Obama will undoubtedly ignore): Don't keep acting like a wimp in front of Iran - it will only encourage them further.

The Iranian team admitted that its actions were much more aggressive because its nuclear facilities were completely destroyed. It figured it had nothing to lose. I'd like to see Iran's nuclear facilities completely destroyed and for them to feel that they still have something to lose. The only way that will happen (and this is not in the simulation) is for Israel to ignore the US red light after it destroys Iran's nuclear facilities and go after Iran's infrastructure and the regime's leadership. Let's hope it happens.

There's much more. Read the whole thing. By the way, it's a pdf link but it's only six pages. It's worth it.

Israel Matzav: What would the aftermath of a strike on Iran's nuclear weapons facilities look like?

Israel Matzav: Iran to seek seat on 'Human Rights Council'

Iran to seek seat on 'Human Rights Council'

The 'Human Rights Council' is holding elections in May and one of the candidates is likely to be the 'Islamic Republic of Iran.'

On Wednesday, Germany's Foreign Minister urged countries to vote against Iran saying having the human rights violator on the body would be an affront to human rights.

Actually, I hope that Iran wins. It would be the loudest and clearest statement possible that the 'Human Rights Council' is a fraud that couldn't care less about human rights.

Israel Matzav: Iran to seek seat on 'Human Rights Council'

Israel Matzav: Da Silva (Brazilian President): Don't push Iran into a corner

Da Silva (Brazilian President): Don't push Iran into a corner

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton paid a visit to Brazil on Wednesday to try to convince Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva (pictured with President Obama), whose country is currently a member of the UN Security Council, to support sanctions against Iran. Mighty Hillary struck out.

Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva said on Wednesday the international community should not "push Iran into a corner" over its nuclear program.

Lula, speaking before a meeting with U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, said "it is not wise to push Iran into a corner. It is wise to establish negotiations."

And we just have so much time remaining to negotiate with Iran, don't we? What could go wrong?

More details here.

Israel Matzav: Da Silva (Brazilian President): Don't push Iran into a corner

Israel Matzav: He's a sweet-talkin' guy

He's a sweet-talkin' guy

If you all haven't figured it out yet, I spent way too much time watching television and listening to rock music in the 1970's. And since I have no place else to use those brain cells these days, I inflict them on all of you. So....

Let's go to the videotape.



Caroline Glick says that Joe Biden is a sweet talkin' guy. And while she believes that most of Israel's media will fall for him when he is here next week, Caroline has seen right through Joe Biden since Day One.

Glick said that Vice President Joe Biden will bring with him a message of “we love you” although, "despite his sweet talk," he has been the biggest defender of Iran. “Maybe he will talk about the 'American commitment to the security of Israel,' but this would be a gross lie,” Glick stated.

She added, “The journalists in Israel undoubtedly will be convinced and will call on our leaders to give Obama a chance.

Glick warned as far back as 2008 that President Obama’s choice of Biden as his running mate was a sign that the two could not be trusted.

...

Glick pointed out that despite the pro-Israel talk, Biden was "a staunch supporter of an Israeli transfer of the strategically critical Golan Heights to Syria and…harshly criticized the Bush administration for its refusal to support Israeli negotiations with Syria. At the same time, he downplays the significance of Syria's strategic alliance with Iran and its sponsorship of terrorists in Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestinian Authority. Belittling those ties, Biden has claimed repeatedly and without a shred of evidence that the Syrians really want to put all of that behind them.

“Biden's positions on Iran are even more troubling. Over the past decade, since Iran's ballistic missile program and its nuclear program came into full view, Biden has distinguished himself both for his refusal to support tough U.S. diplomatic moves against Iran…. In 1998, Biden was one of only four senators to vote against the Iran Missile Proliferation Sanctions Act, a bill that punished foreign companies and other entities that sent Iran sensitive missile technology or expertise.”

The vice president also “was one of just a handful of senators who voted against a Senate resolution calling on the State Department to classify Iran's Revolutionary Guards Corps a terrorist organization,” according to Glick.

Smart women aren't fooled by sweet talkin' guys anymore. Maybe Israel's media needs a few more smart women like Caroline.

Israel Matzav: He's a sweet-talkin' guy

Israel Matzav: Another month and still no sanctions

Another month and still no sanctions

It should surprise no one that new sanctions against Iran are not on the Security Council's agenda for March.

Also on Tuesday, Gabon's UN envoy said that the UN Security Council might take up this month the issue of Iran's nuclear program and Western proposals for a fourth round of sanctions against Tehran.

Ambassador Emanuel Issoze-Ngondet, who is president of the Security Council for the month of March, said the Iranian nuclear issue was not on the agenda of the 15-nation panel this month, but council members might still hold a meeting on it.

"We think the question could come to the table [in March]," Issoze-Ngondet told reporters through an interpreter. "But right now we are waiting. We're following the process that's ongoing. We're waiting for the right time to bring the Security Council to deal with it."

Speaking on condition of anonymity, Western diplomats told Reuters the United States, Britain, France and Germany have prepared a draft proposal -- which they hope China and Russia will support - for a fourth round of sanctions against Iran for refusing to halt its uranium enrichment program.

The four Western powers had hoped to secure an agreement among the six as early as this week, so they could submit it to the full Security Council for discussion. But it has been difficult getting China to negotiate, the diplomats said.

"We still don't know what China thinks," a diplomat told Reuters.

What could go wrong?

Israel Matzav: Another month and still no sanctions

Israel Matzav: Arab League okays 'proximity talks'

Arab League okays 'proximity talks'

The Arab League foreign ministers met on Wednesday in Cairo and endorsed 'proximity talks' - indirect talks between Israel and the 'Palestinians' to be mediated by the United States. The League rejected the notion of direct talks unless and until Israel implements a 'full settlement freeze,' which would include Jerusalem. Don't hold your breaths waiting for that to happen.

One foreign minister opposed the decision: Syria's Walid Moallem.

Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem interrupted Moussa while he was reading the statement, insisting that the decision on whether to join indirect talks or not was up to the Palestinians. "The Palestinians are better positioned to know what to do," he said.

Moallem is correct. The 'Palestinians' are better positioned. The fact that Abu Mazen needs the cover of the Arab League to even open talks shows how weak his position is. It also means that Abu Mazen cannot make any concessions. Since Prime Minister Netanyahu is not Ehud Olmert and is not going to be a gift that keeps on giving (even if he would give too much in my book), Abu Mazen's weakness ensures that these talks will end in failure. They are all for show.

By comparison, Yasser Arafat never sought Arab League approval for what he did vis a vis Israel. He sought (and did not receive) Egypt's and Saudi Arabia's approval for the minimal concessions he sought to make on the Temple Mount in 2000, but that was the sum total of it.

Abu Mazen's weakness derives from several sources. The most obvious one is the split with Hamas. The second source is that he has now been President for more than a year past the point that he was supposed to stand for re-election. The third source is that he is not Yasser Arafat and does not enjoy the 'Palestinians' confidence the way that Arafat did.

All of these factors make it all but certain that these talks will fail. The fact that they are not direct talks is just the icing on the cake. The real question here is why the Obama administration insists on continuing to waste American political capital on this game. I have no rational answer to that question.

Israel Matzav: Arab League okays 'proximity talks'

Israel Matzav: Italy accuses nine of selling arms to Iran

Italy accuses nine of selling arms to Iran

Italy has arrested seven people in connection with arms sales to Iran - five Italians and two Iranians who live in Italy. Two other Iranians are being sought.

Italy’s veteran counterterrorism prosecutor, Armando Spataro, said at a news conference in Milan on Wednesday that a nine-month investigation, including intercepted phone conversations and e-mail messages, indicated that the group was trafficking in weapons to Iran despite an arms embargo.

Mr. Spataro said that the British, Swiss and Romanian authorities had joined the investigation and that shipments of materials had been intercepted, including 1,000 rifle scopes. The authorities also said the operation stopped explosives from being shipped to Iran, according to the Italian media.

I would bet that a fair chunk of those weapons were supposed to go to Hezbullah and Hamas.

Israel Matzav: Italy accuses nine of selling arms to Iran

The Torah Revolution: Thank you Ynet for the beautiful video

The Torah Revolution: Thank you Ynet for the beautiful video

Elder of Ziyon: Dubai police chief: "We could infiltrate the Mossad"

Elder of Ziyon: Dubai police chief: "We could infiltrate the Mossad"

Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations: All Knowing

All Knowing

I don't think I've ever written directly about my religious beliefs, one way or the other. In all the verbiage I spout, I challenge anyone to find any clear endorsement of a position on a transcendent deity. Mostly, this is because it's my business, not of interest to the world; but there's something very Jewish (I think) in discussing the issues I focus on without dragging divinity into it.

This post will be no different. The point I'm about to make is about logic, not belief.

The earliest computers were invented in the 1930s, I think. As a child in the early 1960s I heard the grownups talk about machines that were learning to think, though I doubt I'd ever met anyone who had actually seen such a machine (and they still haven't figured out how to think). If you can believe it, I completed my undergraduate studies on a portable typewriter, and never considered acquiring a PC until I was doing an MA. When in 1994 I stood in front of an audience of hundreds of researchers and said that the goal of the Yad Vashem archives was to put everything we had on the Internet, the startled audience erupted in applause. (Only later did I begin to think about the practicalities. Ouch).

70-some years after the first invention, The Economist has a special report on the super-abundance of data we're creating. (The report begins here; a single-page introduction is here). The thesis: Everything is being recorded, and the world is dramatically changing. The Onion spoofs the reality here.

If we allow our thoughts to run forward a few decades, to, say, the first centenary of the invention of the earliest computer, it's reasonable to expect there will be digital images of every inch of the globe viewable from any direction; there will be mountains of data on every human and much of their activities; every human thought which has ever been put into writing and survived until the late 1990s will be available somewhere in digital form; any and every human interaction which takes place in any format other than face-to-face talk will be recorded... and probably much more.

Whether you like it or not.

Now, assume a deity which has been around for longer than the first century of human digital recording. Is there any logical reason to assume that this deity doesn't have the abilities Man has so recently acquired? What's so implausible about a deity knowing everything about us all, always? We're well on our way there on our own, and just starting...

Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations: All Knowing

DoubleTapper: IDF Field Intelligence Corps

IDF Field Intelligence Corps

The Field Intelligence Corps was founded roughly a decade ago, and since then has founded a field intelligence school, opened new units, tripled it’s size, and invented weapons known and used around the world. The IDF Field Intelligence Corps, currently comprised of roughly 60% IDF women, has it’s own insignia badge, a new name, and is soon to receive a unique beret.

The IDF Field Intelligence Corps recently showcased several new weapons it developed, along with a demonstration of it’s camouflage abilities. Also showcased was “Spot and Strike”, a system that allows soldiers to defend the border using remote control equipment to detect and handle threats. Soldiers are trained to use the system in a special course and have monthly training sessions throughout their service to ensure they know the field and are qualified to operate “Spot and Strike”.

IDF Field Intelligence Corps Official Video


IDF Field Intelligence Corps Fan Video

From IDF Spox
تنسيق-

DoubleTapper: IDF Field Intelligence Corps

RubinReports: How Political Correctness Stifles Intellectual Correctness: An Ivy League Experiment

How Political Correctness Stifles Intellectual Correctness: An Ivy League Experiment

By Barry Rubin

A friend just told me about an experience he had teaching at an Ivy League university that sums up a lot of the problem with American education nowadays.

One day he went into his history class and began lecturing with a long and spirited defense of slavery. The students were amazed and appalled, asking “How can you say such things?”

Let me interrupt here to make two points. First, none of the students apparently seemed to think he might not mean what he was saying, which tells how much they have become used to hearing only what has already become pre-digested "truth." Second, the professor is an African-American. Of course, if he wasn’t his talk would probably have ended his academic career right there.

He explained to the students that it was not enough to oppose something—like slavery—by merely assuming it was wrong. You must make a good coherent case on the other side. And this requires taking very seriously arguments you may find repugnant but which in some cases—even if not this specific one—could even persuade you that you don’t already possess the full truth.

The professor added, “I won’t accept your merely saying that it is immoral. You have to give me social, economic, political, and other arguments against it.”

In other words, the test for any idea is not whether it meets some pre-existing political standard of what is socially acceptable nowadays (Political Correctness, multiculturalism, and non-hate speech) outside of which everythig is automatically an evil lie. The test is whether it corresponds to reality in some way (that is based on evidence), has consistent arguments (that is, based on logic), and all the other tools of rational thought (for example, handling exceptional cases, having some predictive capability, employing reliable sources, to strive for the closest possible approximation of objective truth even if they could never achieve that perfectly, etc).

I asked him what happened next. He said that about two students understood what was going on and did a good job of meeting his challenge. The rest had no idea of how to respond.

This reminds me of a story I heard from another professor who proposed that a broad reading list should be established for a course which gave a range of views. The professor teaching the course replied that such an idea was old-fashioned and boring. "What I do in my course is explain in the first class that the world's problems are caused by the United States and I spend the rest of the course proving it."

The point is that a short history of American education (and that in some other places in the West) over the last few decades might go like this:

Stage 1: What we are now told were the “bad old days” in which students were indoctrinated to be patriotic and think America was a good society with few if any faults; the cowboy were always the good guys, and the focus was on only some groupings.

Stage 2: The transition, during which students were given a balanced story, with both America’s virtues and its shortcomings presented. (At best, that included an explanation about how the system was free enough to allow for advocacy of change and good enough to make reforms without massive conflict or collapse.)
Of particular importance, during this period students were encouraged to think for themselves, be critical but rational, to question what they were being taught.

Stage 3: The current era. Things have come full circle and even more so. Students in many cases are indoctrinated to be anti-patriotic and think America was a bad society with few if any virtues. They are encourged not to question authority and might be ridiculed or punished for doing so.

But the shortcoming now isn’t just the indoctrinating content of many courses, in humanities and social science at least, it is the failure to teach good methodology. How bizarre that we’ve come full circle to an era where students are not encouraged to think for themselves, given one “correct” view point to the exclusion of others, and thus cannot develop coherent, logic-based arguments.

RubinReports: How Political Correctness Stifles Intellectual Correctness: An Ivy League Experiment

Love of the Land: Why Palestinians Riot Over Jewish Heritage Sites

Why Palestinians Riot Over Jewish Heritage Sites

Moshe Dann
Frontpagemag.com
03 March '10

Last week saw an upsurge in Palestinian riots and attacks against Israeli vehicles in Gaza and the West Bank. What crime did Israel commit to invite the wave of violence? Israel’s government simply announced that it intended to honor the country’s heritage by including the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron, and Rachel’s Tomb in Bethlehem in a list of Israeli national “heritage” sites.

The violence-fueled Palestinian reaction may seem entirely disproportionate to Israel’s offense. But a look at the historical background shows that it is not without grim precedent.

For several decades, Palestinians have been attacking Jewish worshipers at the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, the Tomb of Rachel near Bethlehem, and the Tomb of Patriarchs and Matriarchs, Machpelah, in Hebron. After the Oslo and Hebron Agreements in the 1990’s, attacks intensified.

To protect visitors to Rachel’s Tomb, a fortified building was built around the tiny, 19th century building that had been built over the tomb. That wasn’t enough, since getting to the building from the closest Israeli checkpoint, a few hundred meters away, exposed Jews to sniper fire and bombs from adjacent buildings along the road. A new road was built, therefore, surrounded by high cement walls.

Palestinian riots against the rights of Jews to visit holy and historic sites are nothing new. In Jericho and Gaza, ancient Jewish synagogues from the Talmudic period have been destroyed and are off limits to Jews.

In Shechem, Nablus , the site of Joseph’s Tomb, was attacked by Palestinian mobs in 2000, fire-bombed and destroyed. A wounded Israeli soldier inside bled to death while Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and his Defense Minister, Shaul Mofaz, negotiated with the Palestinian Authority.

(Read full article)

Love of the Land: Why Palestinians Riot Over Jewish Heritage Sites

Israel Matzav: Good news: Hariri to visit Iran

Good news: Hariri to visit Iran

Hot off his visit to Damascus, Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri has announced that he will visit Tehran in the weeks ahead.

According to Lebanese newspaper al-Akhbar, Lebanese Prime Minister Saad al-Hariri will soon leave for an official state visit to Iran. It was also reported that al-Hariri recently expressed that he is interested “in cooling the tense fronts between him and a number of countries.”

Sounds like the Barack Obama apology tour to me.

Israel Matzav: Good news: Hariri to visit Iran

Love of the Land: Apartheid Week - Hypocrisy at its Best

Apartheid Week - Hypocrisy at its Best

Jonathan Dahoah Haevi
Shalomlife.com
02 March '10

Five hundred artists from Montreal have recently signed a statement “to support the international campaign for Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions against Israeli apartheid.” The Canadian artists blame Israel for intentionally harassing and bringing disaster to the peaceful Palestinian people during more than 60 years and fail to mention the word “terrorism” even once.

Their account of the historical events as they appear in the statement is to say the least distorted. One paragraph within the long list of “crimes” accuses Israel of deliberately oppressing the Palestinian cultural activity as follows:

“During the first and second intifadas, Israel invaded, ransacked, and even closed down cinemas, theatres and cultural centers in the occupied territories. These deliberate attempts to stifle the Palestinian cultural voice have failed and will continue to fail.” [1]

The five hundred Canadian artists virtually portray Israel as a pinnacle of human evil and their basic premise assumes, as it may be understood, that without Israeli “crimes,” the pluralist and liberal Palestinian culture in the Gaza Strip would be flourishing with cinemas, theatres and cultural centres.

This thesis has one little weakness. Not a single cinema house exists in the Gaza Strip and Hamas – NOT Israel – is responsible for "stifling the Palestinian cultural voice". Saud Abu Ramadan, a Palestinian reporter working for the Chinese newswire Xinhua, published an article on July 26, 2009 reviewing the history of cinemas in the Gaza Strip while interviewing 57-year old Adnan Abu Beid, who used to run the most famous and biggest movie house in downtown Gaza city called al-Nasser, and today makes his living as a greengrocer. [2]

Abu Ramadan notes that “after Israel signed Oslo accords with the Palestinians, when the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) was established after the Israeli army withdrew from Gaza city, al-Nasser movie house was reopened for a few months, but later it was burned and destroyed by angry Islamic Hamas demonstrators in 1995.” Abu Beid told Xinhua that after al-Nasser movie house was burned and destroyed, “I hid my film archives and decided to become a vegetable vendor.” He added that his archives "are the only that remained after all the movie houses had either shut down, or been destroyed by Hamas activists during demonstrations in Gaza city in 1995."

(Read full article)

Love of the Land: Apartheid Week - Hypocrisy at its Best

Israel Matzav: Where is the red line on Iran?

Where is the red line on Iran?

No, this post isn't about President Obama's red line on Iran - we already know he doesn't have one. It's about Prime Minister Netanyahu's red line. He has one, but no one knows yet where it is.

The truth is that Iran has already crossed the first potential red line and is now able to produce a nuclear weapon within a few months. Israel must attack now or gamble that sanctions will be placed on Iran that deter or stop it from making a bomb, and that if a decision to make a bomb is made, Israel’s intelligence is good enough to detect it with enough time for it to quickly stop Iran.

As the significance of Iran’s technical achievements becomes realized by the Israelis and the West in general, expect the argument to shift. It will be repeatedly stated that even if Iran develops a bomb, it lacks the ability to fit it onto a warhead for effective delivery. But waiting for this red line to be approached is another unwise gamble.

...

Ironically, as I’ve written before, it is very possible that the Iranians are deliberately trying to cross that red line so as to provoke a limited strike that gives them an excuse to pull out of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and announce that they will begin building nukes. For Israel, it’s a Catch-22 of the deadliest kind and it is the hardest decision any leader of that country has had to make.

The only way to prevent this horrid scenario from being actualized is for the Obama administration to take tough measures as suggested by members of Congress. Jonathan Schanzer and Mark Dubowitz point out that the threat of sanctions on Iran’s energy sector is already causing banks and major companies to back out of investing in Iran. The Chinese are trying to come to the rescue by building refineries, but those will take years to finish. Senators McCain and Lieberman have proposed legislation forcing the president to publish a list of human rights violators in Iran so they can be personally sanctioned. Senators Brownback and Cornyn have presented the Iran Democratic Transition Act that paves the way to support the democratic opposition and actively support a transitional government. These bills must be immediately passed and enforced.

The Israelis are preparing for the worst. It is no coincidence that Israel revealed a fleet of unmanned aerial drones that can fly for an entire day and reach Iran shortly following the regime’s latest announcement. Only immediate, concrete, aggressive action can convince the Israelis to wait. Should such a strike commence, the international outcry against Israel will be misplaced. It will be the lack of action by the U.S. and its allies that, more than anyone aside from Ahmadinejad and Khamanei, will have forced Israel’s hand.

Read it all. It sounds like the red line is fast approaching.

Israel Matzav: Where is the red line on Iran?

Israel Matzav: Overnight music video

Overnight music video

This song was apparently written in opposition to the Mormon mission that is just east of the Old City (and they do try to convert Jews...). But the song could just as well be sent to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and George Mitchell. Yerushalayim is not for sale!

Let's go to the videotape. This is Mordechai Ben David.



Here are the words:

Overnight - a massive construction,
On top of Jerusalem mountains.
At campus luring innocent souls,
To drink from the forbidden fountain.
Like many before,
They've come here for war,
We're warning them now; It won't pay.

Jerusalem - her holiness crying,
Defiling her dearest location,
Politics blinding sense of pride.
Are we not the Chosen Nation?
Together as one,
We will overcome,
Bringing her freedom today.

Yerusholaim is not for sale,
Voices crying,
Thundering throughout our cities.
You better run for your life,
Back to Utah overnight,
Before the mountain top opens wide,
And swallows you inside.

Yerusholaim your foes will fail,
Senseless trying.
He's guarding his holy city,
He's punishing all its intruders so awfully.
They have perished, tier names are history.

The wars, the pain,
Brought masses returning,
Back to their roots more than ever.
The leftists fiercely fighting truth,
To dampen the sparks still burning.
So wake up my friend,
This is the very end,
The arrows are pointing our way!

Yerusholaim is not for sale,
Voices crying,
Thundering throughout our cities.
You better run for your life,
Back to Utah overnight,
Before the mountain top opens wide,
And swallows you inside.

Yerusholaim your foes will fail,
Senseless trying.
He's guarding his holy city,
He's punishing all its intruders so awfully.
They have perished, tier names are history.

Yerushamaim is not for sale...

Israel Matzav: Overnight music video

Love of the Land: An ethnocracy or multiethnic democracy?

An ethnocracy or multiethnic democracy?

Seth Frantzman
Op-Ed/JPost
02 March '10

One of the newest code words for condemning Israel is describing the state as an “ethnocracy” or “ethnocratic settler state.” According to a widespread definition, an ethnocracy is “a form of government where representatives of a particular ethnic group hold a number of government posts disproportionately large to the percentage of the total... and use them to advance the position of their particular ethnic group(s) to the detriment of others.”

Israel, according to those who accuse the state of fitting this description, joins apartheid South Africa, Uganda under Idi Amin, Sudan, Rwanda, Estonia, Latvia, Serbia and Malaysia. It also joins former “settler regimes” such as Canada, New Zealand, Australia and French Algeria. Unsurprisingly Israel is set alongside regimes that ceased to exist, apartheid South Africa being one example, but Australia during the period of the “white Australia policy” (when preferred immigrants were confined to Europeans) being another.

Those who speak of Israel as an ethnocracy therefore insinuate that the current manifestation of the Jewish state will soon be abolished or destroyed, like French Algeria, or repent for its racist sins like South Africa.

THE NEW ethnocratic slander appears to have its origins, sadly, in grants given by the Israel Academy of Sciences. In 2002 Alexander (Sandy) Kedar of the University of Haifa received a grant from the Israeli Science Foundation which was founded by the Israel Academy of Sciences. His proposal was for research into “The Rise of a New Land Regime: Changes in Israeli Legal Geography 1992-2002” and he received the grant for four years with Prof. Oren Yiftachel of Ben-Gurion University. In the same year he received a grant from the French Embassy’s Center for Cultural Cooperation for research comparing Israel to the French regime in Algeria.

(Read full article)

Love of the Land: An ethnocracy or multiethnic democracy?

Israel Matzav: The real reason for Dubai's anger

The real reason for Dubai's anger

Laura Rozen discovers the real reason why Dubai is so furious over Mahmoud al-Mabhouh's liquidation.

But in fact, am told that one reason UAE authorities are so ticked off about the assassination is because they were quietly cooperating with Israel on Iran intelligence. Indeed, an Israeli minister was in the UAE the day the assassination took place.

UPDATE: "Israeli National Infrastructure Minister Uzi Landau visited the UAE, to attend the IRENA (Int’l Renewable Energy Association) meeting for that purpose around January 17th, 2010, ... in Abu Dhabi, not Dubai," a source says. "This was first visit by an Israeli minister to UAE and met UAE commitment when they won IRENA HQ in Abu Dhabi."

Well, we knew about Uzi Landau (and in fact, from the outset, there were claims that people in Landau's entourage were involved - those claims have been dropped). But as noted, he was in Abu Dhabi.

As to the Iran story, that's believable. Hmmm.

Israel Matzav: The real reason for Dubai's anger

Israel Matzav: Israelis in Dubai: Inspector Tamim is full of hot air

Israelis in Dubai: Inspector Tamim is full of hot air

The more I hear about Dubai police chief Dubai police chief Lt.-Gen. Dahi Khalfan Tamim, the more I believe that my quip that he reminds me of Baghdad Bob was spot on. With apologies to Allah and Ed and their new owners, the Israelis in Dubai say that Tamim is full of - well - hot air.

A day after Dubai police chief Lt.-Gen. Dahi Khalfan Tamim said travelers suspected of being Israeli would not be allowed into the country, Israeli businesspeople who visit there regularly said his statement was mostly hot air.

...

While not rushing to come forth and identify themselves in the media, frequent Israeli visitors to Dubai responded nonchalantly to questions about the threat posed to their business dealings, and said they thought the episode would soon blow over.

“The bottom line is that the whole world wants Israeli hi-tech, agricultural and medical products, and that includes the residents of the United Arab Emirates,” said S., an Israeli-American trade promoter who travels to Dubai several times a year. “If they need the product, they quickly learn to ignore its origin.”

S. noted, “The police chief said that they will bar the entrance of people with dual citizenship, but there is no way they can find out if someone carries an Israeli passport aside from the one they present at the border patrol. He, like many other anti-Semites, seems to think he can sniff out Jews or Israelis, but really there is no way of knowing. He knows that, too, but because of the pervasive anti-Israel sentiment in the country at the moment, he has to at least pretend that he can do something. Otherwise, he won’t be around much longer.”

According to S., being anti-Semitic or anti-Israel in the Gulf is more a matter of appearance than reality.

“The problem isn’t if you purchase an Israeli product, the problem is what happens if your neighbor finds out you purchased it,” he said.

S. said he found that the anti-Israel sentiment seemed to lessen among the younger generation.

“Many younger people don’t like the strict civil and religious dictates and choose to ignore the mind-set disseminated by the authorities. For them, buying Israeli products may be a way of sticking it to the man,” he suggested.

“I once attended a trade show in Dubai where a man wearing a long jalabiya, a checkered keffiyeh, and sporting a long Wahhabi-style beard approached me,” S. recalled. “We started talking business, and he mentioned that he wanted to buy products from my country. Since I was there representing an American company, I assumed he was talking about the United States, but then he pointed to my business card and said it again: ‘I want to buy products from your country.’ He was pointing at the Israeli cellphone number on my business card.”

Read the whole thing. For those of you who don't know how (or who didn't know that) Israelis do business in Arab countries, it will be a real eye opener.

Israel Matzav: Israelis in Dubai: Inspector Tamim is full of hot air

Israel Matzav: Maureen Dowd goes off the deep end

Maureen Dowd goes off the deep end

New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd sings the 'progressive' praises of Saudi Arabia, a country where it's still illegal to believe in any faith other than Islam, a country in which pre-pubescent girls are married off by their families with no say in the matter, and a country in which a woman seen talking to a strange man can be gang-raped, whipped for being promiscuous and then murdered for impugning upon her family's 'honor' (Hat Tip: David F).

Instead, Dowd attacks Israel for being a country in which 'some Orthodox men' (everyone that I know) thank God every morning for not making them women (if she had bothered to ask, she would have discovered that we make that blessing because men are required to fulfill more religious commandments than are women and we are thankful to God for having the opportunity to do so - women make a parallel blessing in which they thank God for making them as He wished).

Here's a sample of Dowd:

Yet by the Saudis’ premodern standards, the 85-year-old King Abdullah, with a harem of wives, is a social revolutionary. The kingdom just announced a new law that will allow female lawyers to appear in court for the first time, if only for female clients on family cases. Last month, the king appointed the first woman to the council of ministers. Last year, he opened the first co-ed university. He has encouraged housing developments with architecture that allows families, and boys and girls within families, to communicate more freely.

Young Saudi women whom I interviewed said that the popular king has relaxed the grip of the bullying mutawa, the bearded religious police officers who patrol the streets ready to throw you in the clink at the first sign of fun or skin. Their low point came in 2002 when they notoriously stopped teenage girls without head scarves from fleeing a fire at a school in Mecca; 15 girls died. Two years ago, they arrested an American woman living here while she was sitting in a Starbucks with her male business partner, even though she was in a curtained booth in the “family” section designated for men and women.

“It is not allowed for any woman to travel alone and sit with a strange man and talk and laugh and drink coffee together like they are married,” the religious police said.

The attempts at more tolerance are belated baby steps to the outside world but in this veiled, curtained and obscured fortress, they are ’60s-style cataclysmic social changes. Last week, Sheik Abdul Rahman al-Barrak, a pugnacious cleric, shocked Saudis by issuing a fatwa against those who facilitate the mixing of men and women. Given that such a fatwa clearly would include the king, Prince Saud dismissed it.

“I think the trend for reform is set, and there is no looking back,” he told me. “Clerics who every now and then come with statements in the opposite direction are releasing frustration rather than believing that they can stop the trend and turn back the clock.”

Jennifer Rubin rips Dowd.

She gets in her swipe at Israel, sniffing that it is “growing less secular with religious militants and the chief rabbinate that would like to impose a harsh and exclusive interpretation of Judaism upon the entire society” and hissing that in “Orthodox synagogues, some men still say a morning prayer thanking God for not making them a woman.” And then she proceeds to assure us that while Gloria Steinem wouldn’t applaud Saudi Arabia as a feminist paradise, “I can confirm that, at their own galactically glacial pace, they are chipping away at gender apartheid and cultural repression.”

Oh really? Perhaps she had not heard about or was not permitted a peak at the real Saudi Arabia.

Well, you can bet she wasn't allowed to go left at the fork in the road to Mecca. Read the whole thing.

Israel Matzav: Maureen Dowd goes off the deep end

Love of the Land: Dowd Goes Around the Bend

Dowd Goes Around the Bend

Jennifer Rubin
Contentions/Commentary
03 March '10

Goodness knows whether Maureen Dowd’s latest column — a noxious propaganda brew on behalf of the Kingdom of Saud and its foreign minister’s ludicrous moral relativism – was born of abject ignorance or whether she was sent trolling for Saudi money to help her employer’s bottom line. Or maybe she’s trying to out-Friedman her colleague when it comes to ingratiating herself with despotic abusers of human rights. Doesn’t really matter. From Dowd we hear unfiltered this argument:

The Middle Eastern foreign minister was talking about enlightened “liberal” trends in his country, contrasting that with the benighted “extreme” conservative religious movement in a neighboring state.

But the wild thing was that the minister was Prince Saud al-Faisal of Saudi Arabia — an absolute Muslim monarchy ruling over one of the most religiously and socially intolerant places on earth — and the country he deemed too “religiously determined” and regressive was the democracy of Israel.

“We are breaking away from the shackles of the past,” the prince said, sitting in his sprawling, glinting ranch house with its stable of Arabian horses and one oversized white bunny. “We are moving in the direction of a liberal society. What is happening in Israel is the opposite; you are moving into a more religiously oriented culture and into a more religiously determined politics and to a very extreme sense of nationhood,” which was coming “to a boiling point.”

She gets in her swipe at Israel, sniffing that it is “growing less secular with religious militants and the chief rabbinate that would like to impose a harsh and exclusive interpretation of Judaism upon the entire society” and hissing that in “Orthodox synagogues, some men still say a morning prayer thanking God for not making them a woman.” And then she proceeds to assure us that while Gloria Steinem wouldn’t applaud Saudi Arabia as a feminist paradise, “I can confirm that, at their own galactically glacial pace, they are chipping away at gender apartheid and cultural repression.”

Oh really? Perhaps she had not heard about or was not permitted a peak at the real Saudi Arabia. From a more discerning eye, another perspective is in order:

(Read full post)

Love of the Land: Dowd Goes Around the Bend

Love of the Land: Dinner in Damascus: What Did Iran Ask of Hizballah?

Dinner in Damascus: What Did Iran Ask of Hizballah?

David Schenker/Matthew Levitt
Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Policy Watch #1637
02 March '10

On February 26, Syrian president Bashar al-Asad hosted Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinezhad and Hizballah leader Hassan Nasrallah for a dinner in Damascus. Nasrallah is a routine guest in the capital, but the timing of this high-profile trip -- just a week after the United States dispatched Undersecretary of State William Burns to Damascus and nominated its first new ambassador in five years -- seemed calculated not only to irritate Washington, but also to highlight the central role Hizballah plays in Iran and Syria's strategic planning. Apart from serving as a pivot between Tehran and Damascus, however, the group also holds the power to engulf Lebanon and perhaps the entire region into another war through actions of its own.

Unfulfilled Promise of Retaliation

Two years after Hizballah military commander Imad Mughniyah was assassinated in Damascus -- prompting Nasrallah to declare an "open war" on Israel, the presumed perpetrator -- the group has yet to successfully retaliate. But it is not for lack of trying: in 2008, two Hizballah operatives and several Azerbaijani nationals were convicted of plotting attacks against the Israeli and U.S. embassies in Baku and sentenced to fifteen years in prison. The same year, Turkish authorities foiled as many as six possible Hizballah terrorist plots targeting Israelis and possibly the local Jewish community. Iranian intelligence agents were reportedly helping the group establish a network of operatives posing as tourists.

(Read full article)

Love of the Land: Dinner in Damascus: What Did Iran Ask of Hizballah?

Love of the Land: Dubai's Mossad Videos: The Mother of All Distractions

Dubai's Mossad Videos: The Mother of All Distractions

Honest Reporting/Backspin
03 March '10

Is Dubai’s police chief playing the media like a fiddle? I don’t rule it out after reading this NY Times snippet:

For the moment, Dubai’s aggressive response has interrupted the steady stream of negative news coverage about the city’s continuing struggles with debt, and — perhaps not coincidentally — shifted attention to its crime-fighting prowess. That may partly reflect the priorities of Mr. Tamim, who has strong ties to the city’s ruler and enjoys greater latitude than almost any other public official here.

(Read full post)

Love of the Land: Dubai's Mossad Videos: The Mother of All Distractions

Love of the Land: The Vision Thing

The Vision Thing

Emmanuel Navon
For The Sake Of Zion
03 March '10

The man whom George W. Bush used to dismissingly call “The Eye Doctor” seems to be doing fine without glasses. Bashar al-Assad, an ophthalmologist who inherited his father’s hereditary job only because his older brother was killed in a car accident, has turned the tables on the United States. Five years ago, he complied with the American injunction to pull his troops out of Lebanon. Today, he is publicly humiliating the United States.

In February 2005, the US withdrew its ambassador to Syria following the assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri. Assad’s involvement in Hariri’s murder was so obvious that former French President Jacques Chirac, a personal friend of Hariri (and long-term guest in his Paris apartment), has been boycotting Assad ever since. By recalling its ambassador, the US was also expressing its discontent with the fact that Syria hosts and shields Palestinian terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad, transfers weapons from Iran to Hezbollah in Lebanon, lets terrorists crossing into Iraq, supports Iran’s foreign policy goals, and cooperates with Iran and North Korea to develop nuclear capabilities (concerns about Syria’s suspected nuclear program were brought to the world’s attention by the Israeli bombing of an alleged nuclear facility in eastern Syria in 2007).

Last month, five years exactly after the scolding of the Bush Administration, President Obama nominated Robert Ford as the new US Ambassador to Syria. The rationale of the current US Administration is that Assad can be sweet-talked into trading his alliance with Iran for a deal with America. Obama’s gamble has produced immediate results, but not the expected ones. Shortly after the nomination of Ambassador Ford, Ahmadinejad paid an official and pompous visit to Damascus (where he also met with Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah). Baffled, Hillary Clinton asked Assad why he was doing the opposite of what her government’s policy was supposed to produce. Assad responded as follows: “We have a hard time understanding Clinton, either because of a translation problem or because of our limited capabilities.” Hillary Clinton is being pushed around by Middle Eastern machos and America is being ridiculed.

(Read full post)

Love of the Land: The Vision Thing

Love of the Land: What a hutzpa

What a hutzpa

Ben-Dror Yemini
Op-Ed/JPost
03 March '10

THE REUT report has already generated a significant buzz and a wide range of incredible responses.

One of the most important documents about the delegitimization process against Israel was recently published by the Reut Institute. It reported that over the past year, Israel has been the subject of a campaign of unprecendented force – which reached its peak with the Goldstone Report – against it in North America and Europe, “where Israel is slowly becoming a ‘state beyond the pale’ as its right to exist is challenged.”

It describes two types of networks – the “resistance network” comprised of nations, NGOs and individulals who reject Israel’s right to exist on the basis of ideology, and the “delegitimization network” comprised of those who reject its right to exist based on a combination of political objections, including branding Israel as the ultimate “human rights violator.”

The report states that these networks have devised seemingly effective strategies to advance their claims and that their success “stems from their ability to engage and mobilize others.”

The report goes on to mention that Israel has presented an “inadequate systemic response” and offers counter-strategies and proposes policy changes for fighting back against the posed “existential threat.”

THE REUT report has yet to be translated into English (but an executive summary is available in English on the Reut Web site) but has already generated a significant buzz and a wide range of incredible responses.

One of these responses is that of Bouthaina Shaaban, a former minister in the Syrian government, who currently serves as a senior adviser to President Bashar Assad.

The text, titled “The Decade of the Victory for Freedom and Justice,” published in CounterPunch magazine, is incredible because it confirms the report’s claim: The struggle against Israel has shifted to the arena of “human rights,” in whose name the campaign to delegitimize Israel is waged.

(Read full article)

Love of the Land: What a hutzpa

Love of the Land: Another Hit Job By The Financial Times

Another Hit Job By The Financial Times

Marty Peretz
The New Republic
02 March '10

Hardly a day goes by that the Financial Times doesn’t do a hit job on Israel. The otherwise sober pink sheet has such an obsession with the Jewish state that I’ve come to wonder what its views were on the rescue of Jewish children into England during the Nazi onslaught on them and on their parents.

Tobias Buck is virtually on call full time to twist Israeli reality into his own jaundiced view of Zionism. Last week in the FT, he came to conclusions about Israel’s diplomatic isolation which he himself had trumpeted. Since Buck is the paper’s Israel correspondent, all you have to do is pick up the daily or log on to its web site, and you’re almost sure to find the same story he wrote yesterday or last week and will surely write tomorrow.

Sometimes the FT sinks so low that it will even ask Henry Siegman, a dreary old Jewish bureaucrat who found glory in being asked to speak at gentile soirees and left-wing “getting-to-yes” talkfests, to write. So, on the very same day, Siegman picked up Buck’s theme and argued that “for Israel, defiance comes at the cost of legitimacy.”

(Read full post)

Love of the Land: Another Hit Job By The Financial Times

Love of the Land: So You Want to Boycott Israel

So You Want to Boycott Israel

(As this has been declared to be "Israel Apartheid Week" I didn't want to feel left out.This is truly an oldie but goodie! Y.)

Get the secret tips you won't find anywhere else! Guaranteed to end the occupation now!



Maker's note: This vido was originally posted by me in Spring of 2008. After over 170000 views and well over a thousand comments, it was deleted for being offensive. Whether the whistle-blower was a Palestinian who got the joke or an Israeli who didn't, I don't know. Therefore I must break character and say the following: IT'S A SATIRE! It's all sarcastic! IDFco12

Excellent resource: Divest This!

Love of the Land: So You Want to Boycott Israel

Love of the Land: Dubai Killing: Curiouser and curiouser

Dubai Killing: Curiouser and curiouser

Clarice Feldman
The American Thinker
02 March '10

(It would seem from the Reuters account that he made friends wherever he traveled. This could serve as a case of true "Middle East Peace" cooperation. Y.)

Over the past few days the number of suspects in the Dubai assassination of an Hamas murderer has jumped to 27, two of whom the Dubai authorities traced to an escape to Iran. Dubai officials are now quoted as having offered up at least four different accounts and contradictory accounts of the means of the assassination adding to the notion that this is looking more like Murder on the Orient Express than some streamlined "Mossad" operation as they first claimed.

Adding to the murky nature of all this, Reuters reports:

"Hamas suspects the security forces of an Arab state were behind the assassination of a senior group operative in Dubai earlier this year, the Al-Quds Al-Araby daily reported on Tuesday. Mahmoud Nasser, a member of Hamas' political bureau, told the newspaper that slain commander Mahmoud al-Mabhouh was likely being tracked by agents from Jordan and Egypt prior to the January 19 killing."

Love of the Land: Dubai Killing: Curiouser and curiouser