For those who are home, and for those who are on the way. For those who support the historic and just return of the land of Israel to its people, forever loyal to their inheritance, and its restoration.
In the early hours of Monday 31 May, Israeli naval commandos boarded a flotilla of vessels heading for Gaza. What happened next has created a major media storm as, according to reports, over a dozen anti-Israel activists have died and many more injured, including Israeli soldiers.
Israel's critics have been quick to condemn the incident, using it to inflame anti-Israel sentiment. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has already termed what is undoubtedly a serious incident as a "massacre". Will this be the latest in a long list of incidents that have been distorted and misrepresented to cause Israel the maximum amount of damage to its image?
Connected to Terror: Who is Behind the Flotilla?
The organizations and passengers behind the Gaza flotilla have been variously described as "peace activists" and "humanitarian organizations". This could not be further from the truth. The primary objective of this flotilla was not to deliver aid packages to Gaza but to spread anti-Israel propaganda in cooperation with Gaza's Hamas rulers.
If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page. .
I am posting updated links here for those who wish to follow. Top post will be the most recent. Yosef
I will be switching back to regular posts after this final Youtube.This one in particular is going to cause positions to be lost. How can you drop your chayalim one by one into a situation like this?
idfnadesk — May 31, 2010 — Early this morning, IDF Naval Forces boarded six ships attempting to break the maritime closure of the Gaza Strip. This happened after numerous warnings from Israel and the Israeli Navy that were issued prior to the action. The Israel Navy requested the ships to redirect toward Ashdod where they would be able to unload their aid supplies which would then be transferred over land after undergoing security inspections.
During the boarding of the ships, the demonstrators onboard attacked the IDF Naval personnel with live fire and light weaponry including knives and clubs. Additionally one of the weapons used was grabbed from an IDF soldier. The demonstrators had clearly prepared their weapons in advance for this specific purpose.
As a result of this life-threatening and violent activity, naval forces employed riot dispersal means, including live fire.
According to initial reports, these events resulted in over ten deaths among the demonstrators and numerous injured, in addition, more than four naval personnel were injured, some from gunfire and some from various other weapons. Two of the soldiers are moderately wounded and the remainder sustained light injuries. All of the injured, Israelis and foreigners are currently being evacuated by helicopter to hospitals in Israel.
Reports from IDF forces on the scene are that it seems as if part of the participants onboard the ships were planning to lynch the forces. The interception of the flotilla followed numerous warnings given to the organizers of the flotilla before leaving their ports as well as while sailing towards the Gaza Strip. In these warnings, it was made clear to the organizers that they could dock in the Ashdod sea port and unload the equipment they are carrying in order to deliver it to the Gaza Strip in an orderly manner, following the appropriate security checks. Upon expressing their unwillingness to cooperate and arrive at the port, it was decided to board the ships and lead them to Ashdod.
IDF naval personnel encountered severe violence, including use of weaponry prepared in advance in order to attack and to harm them. The forces operated in adherence with operational commands and took all necessary actions in order to avoid violence, but to no avail.
JPost: At least 15 activists dead, dozens hurt in flotilla clashes.IDF says soldiers were met by well-planned lynch, concealed handguns, knives, bats, metal pipes in Gaza flotilla raid; 5 Navy commandos wounded; Al Jazeera broadcasts footage. 12:56 P.M.
IDF Spokesperson: 5 soldiers injured during flotilla mission - 2 severely and 3 moderately. 12:35 PM
Intelligence and Terrorism Information CenterPortrait of IHH:IHH, which plays a central role in organizing the flotilla to the Gaza Strip, is a Turkish humanitarian relief fund with a radical Islamic anti-Western orientation. Besides its legitimate philanthropic activities, it supports radical Islamic networks, including Hamas, and at least in the past, even global jihad elements.
Ynet:Gaza flotilla ships transported to Ashdod. IDF spokesperson says fighters who raided vessels headed to Gaza 'attacked with clubs, long knives.' Army reports more than 10 passengers killed in operation. Dozens injured, including four soldiers 10:51 A.M.
IMRA: IDF: Soldiers were met by well-planned lynch six Navy commandos wounded Upon boarding the ships, the soldiers encountered fierce resistance from the passangers who were armed with knives, bats and metal pipes. The soldiers used non-lethal measures to disperse the crowd. The activists succeeded in stealing the weapon from one of the IDF’s soldiers and reportedly opened fire, leading to an escalation in violence.
idfnadesk — May 30, 2010 — The Israeli Navy addresses a ship nearing the Gaza shore , offering it to dock at the Ashdod Port and transfer its supplies under the ship's crew's supervision. The ship refused to comply.
If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
Do you remember the gallant rapist? The criminal who would offer his victims a ride home after the rape? He apparently thought that his "good manners" would make his crime seem less reprehensible. In the end he was apprehended and sentenced like all the other rapists.
Today, Israel is the gallant rapist. We declared to the entire world that Gaza is not ours, but theirs. The world was not particularly convinced, so we expelled all the Jews from Gush Katif in Gaza and destroyed their homes. We even dug up their dead for reburial "inside Israel." Let there be no mistake, dear world, Gaza is not ours. Look, we have even retreated from there – with sensitivity and determination, of course.
Now, the world is convinced. Gaza is really not ours. But just a minute: If Gaza is not really yours, why are you blockading it from the sea and the air, allowing entry only from your territory following your security checks? What are you trying to do? To gallantly rape the "Palestinians" and convince us that they consent?
If Gaza is yours – stay there and fight! If it is not yours, get out of there and do not interfere in their lives! You can't do both. You can't simultaneously rape and be well-mannered. Oh, you say that they are trying to smuggle weapons into Gaza? Well, what's the problem with that? Who are you to tell them what to bring into their territory? Aren't you constantly arming yourselves as you please? If the state of Gaza will declare war on you, then defend yourselves. But don't tell us that you left while you are still ruling there by remote control. What right do you have to prevent them from building their own army?
What? They actually did start a war and they are constantly shooting at you? OK, then re-conquer Gaza and administer a military government, like the Allies did in Germany. What? That's impossible because you convinced your citizens that it is good to disengage from Gaza? Hmmm.
We tried to fool the world, and first and foremost- ourselves. Now the entire house of cards is collapsing on our heads. The question is not who is more well mannered, us or them. The question is not how much violence was used to stop the flotilla. The question is who is the rapist. The question is who is just, who is the good-guy and who is the bad-guy in this story. Israel in flight from its identity lost justification for its existence – not just in the Land of Israel but on the face of the entire globe. It maneuvered itself into the position of the most despised nation on earth. Achmadinijad can travel Europe freely. Tzippy Livni and Bogi Ya'alon dare not land there.
If we would have adopted the stance of the just, we could have acted according to the maritime international laws that were determined by Great Britain when it ruled the seas. Call to stop. First shell in front of the ship's nose. Second shell into the ship, and the story is over. But this law is for legitimate ships, not pirate ships, like us. It will not help us to base our justness on good manners. We will always turn out to be rapists in the end. It won't work even if we enlist the most professional soldiers in the world for the mission.
If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page. .
It is clear to anyone with eyes in their head that the battle taking place off the Gaza shore is in fact a clash between an Islamist coalition which Turkey attempts to head – and which includes Iran, Hamas, and Hezbollah on one hand – and forces with a liberal Western orientation, represented by Israel, on the other hand.
This fight isn’t about Gaza. The battle is about the future of the Middle East: Will it be a future where the existing political order is maintained, or will radical Islamic forces rise and replace the current order, as already happened in Lebanon and in Turkey.
Muslim Terror President Obama is right / Yoram Ettinger Islam has indeed always been part of America’s story, when it comes to terror Full story The sail to Gaza is merely one event in this struggle of titans. If Israel wanted to stop the flotilla, it could have done it more elegantly – for example, by sabotaging the ships underwater. Another possibility was to block their path while declaring that only Gilad Shalit’s release will allow the vessels to continue. This way, Israel would have shifted this hot potato to Hamas.
Yet even such success would not have prompted a victory in respect to the big question: Who is the master of this region? It appears that Israel chose to tell the Islamisizing Turkey, which is ruled by a group that is ideologically identical to Hamas – no more. The forces of the Ottoman Empire, who aspire to again rule the Middle East as they did almost 500 years ago, will be stopped at Gaza’s shores.
The time has come to tell those who live near and far that this battle is not just about the Middle East; rather, it is a fight for the face of this world. At this time, Israel is located at a frontal outpost, where it fights the war of the enlightened, liberal, pluralist, open, and democratic world – in the huge struggle against the Islamic forces that threaten to take over the world and subjugate it to their green flag.
If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page. .
One of the organisers of the flotilla, which includes three vessels from Turkey, is IHH, a humanitarian aid group supported by Ankara. The Guardian ----- During the boarding of the ships, the demonstrators onboard attacked the IDF Naval personnel with live fire and light weaponry including knives and clubs. Additionally one of the weapons used was grabbed from an IDF soldier. The demonstrators had clearly prepared their weapons in advance for this specific purpose.
As a result of this life-threatening and violent activity, naval forces employed riot dispersal means, including live fire.
According to initial reports, these events resulted in over ten deaths among the demonstrators and numerous injured, in addition, more than four naval personnel were injured, some from gunfire and some from various other weapons. Two of the soldiers are moderately wounded and the remainder sustained light injuries. All of the injured, Israelis and foreigners are currently being evacuated by helicopter to hospitals in Israel.
Israel Defense Force Spokesperson
The IHH is a humanitarian group? Not by a long shot.
If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page. .
Over the last two weeks, a liberal scholar and pundit named Peter Beinart got a lot of attention by arguing that liberals could no longer be pro-Israel because the country and its people had moved too far to the right. The reality however is just the opposite. In every way, from national defense to the role of religion in public life, Israel has actually watered down its principles and liberalized. But it could not and cannot keep up with the pace at which liberals have slid far to the left.
The key factor in falling liberal support for Israel is not inside the country, but outside it. As liberals have become more radicalized, what used to be the left is now simply liberal. And the delegitimization of Israel is part of a larger package of radical beliefs which extends across the spectrum into every area of domestic and foreign policy. For example the anti-Communist liberal who was not at all hard to find in 1967 when Israel fought the Six Day War, is nearly extinct today. And liberals who support the War on Terror are an endangered species. And if they can't even support America's national defense, it's not surprising that they don't support Israel's own national defense.
Beinart like other left-wing Jewish critics insist that Israel needs to go further to accommodate their support. But how much further is there to go? Israel has worked for 17 years to cut a deal with the Muslim terrorist gangs who employ a constructed identity as Palestinians to leverage international support for their killing sprees. It has withdrawn from large amounts of territory, provided weapons to their militias and even lobbied on their behalf. Will the left suddenly begin supporting Israel, if after offering East Jerusalem to them, Fatah and Hamas still refuse to make peace? We know better than that. No offer Israel could make would suffice to demonstrate its goodwill and the intransigence of the terrorist gangs.
Beinart himself suggests that only when the Palestinian terrorists are happy, and Israel is transformed into an oasis of social justice, (and presumably all conservative parties are banned and the Russian immigrants who voted in Lieberman are deported back to Russia) will his compatriots possibly get on board with supporting Israel again. Which really means that their support for Israel is conditional on the Palestinian terrorists accepting Israel. That is not the way that people who actually ever have any intention of supporting Israel talk or think. It is the way that people who trying to strengthen the terrorists' hand argue. And of course that is the real aim of the left.
If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page. .
Despite the fact that the weather in Israel is either hot or even hotter, Simon Plosker, our Managing Editor, still likes to check out the forecast for Jerusalem on his iPhone using the pre-installed Yahoo Weather application.
But over the weekend he couldn't work out why the weather for Jerusalem simply wouldn't update. Turns out that the Weather application has unilaterally divided Jerusalem into "West Jerusalem" and "East Jerusalem, West Bank". Check out these two screen grabs:
If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page. .
What’s the latest fetish shared by all of the following?
Noam Chomsky, George Galloway, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), UNRWA and Code Pink.
Why of course! They are all cheerleaders for the flotilla of “peace activists” who have been steaming across the Mediterranean toward Gaza, nattering on about their dedication to non-violence, humanitarian aid and “freedom” — as in their grossly misnamed “freedom flotilla.”
Real freedom for Gaza would entail an end to local rule by the terrorists of Hamas, and an end to the endless violent attacks on Israel — which are the reason for the blockade that this flotilla proposes to break. But the “Free Gaza” crowd behind this stunt is apparently not bothered in the least that Gaza operates as a terrorist enclave, or that Hamas receives training and smuggled weapons from Iran. These folks are bothered — very bothered — that Israel does anything to defend itself.
As propaganda, this flotilla is clever stuff. It must be a hoot for the “peace activists,” now embarked on a springtime cruise of the Mediterranean, aiming for the thrill of an high-visibility encounter with the Israeli navy — while simultaneously relying on the skill of the Israelis in trying to thwart this stunt with minimal damage to all involved.
If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page. .
Tomorrow the so-called “Gaza Freedom Flotilla” is expected to reach the waters off the Gaza Strip. I am interested in what is in the heads of the ‘progressive activists’ that are on board or that support the goals of this operation.
They claim that it’s all about ‘humanitarian’ aid to break the ’siege’ and end the suffering of Gaza residents. It’s remarkably easy to show that there actually is no ’siege’ and no ‘humanitarian crisis’. A siege is not a siege when the besieger permits 15,000 tons of food, medicine and clothing a week into the besieged area. And the Hamas rulers of Gaza have options to ameliorate the minimal pressure that is being applied to them. Want the crossings open? Release Gilad Shalit, who’s been held hostage now for almost four years.
Update: Elder of Ziyon is on the job Twittering "#Flotilla of Fools".
Only the very dumb ones believe their own propaganda. The smarter ones would probably admit the above. But they would say that they are fighting a war against colonialism and racism. They would say that they are fighting on the side of freedom against oppression.
In other words, they are helping Hamas because Hamas represents freedom and opposes racism. Really?
The Western idea of freedom includes such things as freedom of speech, press, and religion. It includes the idea of equality between men and women, fairness to ethnic and religious minorities, gays, etc.
Hamas is violently (and I mean violently) opposed to those freedoms. It also believes that the land of Israel belongs only to Muslims, and that the proper behavior of a Muslim toward a Jew is to kill him (I call that racism, don’t you?)
If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page. .
We measure President Obama not by Jewish Heritage Week, meetings with rabbis, Jewish members of Congress, lunch with Elie Wiesel, all culminating with an invitation to Bibi (what Jeffrey Goldberg calls "Operation Desert Schmooze") - but by his actions.
And in his first test since his PR blitz to bring the Jews back into the fold (coinciding of course with the impending November elections, which by all indications look to be a disaster for the Democrats), Obama failed miserably, sacrificing Israel on the altar of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty conference. Yossi Melman writes in Ha'aretz why 2010 is different than even 1995, when President Clinton allowed Israel to be specifically mentioned in the document of the conference in order that the universality of the NPT would be agreed upon.
If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page. .
Yes, children, there is an Obama Doctrine. The administration has now produced a National Security Strategy.
I’m tempted to say that in this document the Obama Administration does a Dr. Kevorkian on U.S. power. The White House wants to prove most of all that it isn’t the George W. Bush Administration but in doing so it also proves it isn’t the Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Reagan, Bush I, or even Clinton administration, too.
Yes, the worldview looks good on paper, at least to those who put it together and the groupthink they represent. The main theme is that America is not a superpower. It is limited, and this circumscribed power requires bringing in lots of partners. Yet is this an accurate description of the situation or a unilateral dismantlement of American power and prestige? A throwing away of its ability to punish as well as reward, to deter enemies through intimidation?
Of course, every power has very distinct limits as to what it can do. The Vietnam and Iraq wars show that. But that has nothing to do with the need to show leadership. And leadership means putting forward a clear position that combines what a situation requires along with what it is possible to get others to support. To obtain the support of others sometimes requires pressure as well as empathy, flattery, and persuasion.
In a sense, the Obama Administration's strategy for getting sanctions against Iran did follow that pattern. But it also used too little pressure (look at how Turkey and Brazil behaved), too little speed, and a reluctance to move out in front and bid others to follow.
If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page. .
Khaled Meshaal, Hamas' "political" leader in Damascus, was on the Charlie Rose show where he put on a moderate face for his credulous inteviewer:
"We don't have a problem whatsoever with the United States or with American interests," Khaled Meshaal told PBS television in an interview. "America is a great state, a superpower," he continued.
"But its interest should not be at the expense of the interests of others and the peoples of in the region."
Rose, apparently, did not challenge Meshal on his newfound love of America. If he would have, he could have asked Meshal about something else he said a few years ago, in Arabic, that slightly contradicts his smiling statements to Americans:
If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page. .
Writing in Haaretz, Amos Harel and Avi Issacharoff point to an aspect of the Free Gaza Flotilla that hasn’t received the attention it should,
In the approaching clash, the complex system of alliances and counter-alliances of the Middle East is beginning to emerge. It does not appear to be coincidental that the Islamist governing party in Turkey is involved, behind the scenes, in dispatching the flotilla, in coordination with Hamas in the Gaza Strip. At the same time it is doubtful that it is coincidental that the Israel Air Force held this week exercises with Greece, the traditional rival of Turkey, of the sort that two years ago were carried out mostly in Turkey.
2.
The editorial writer of the same paper shows no interest in the strategy of other actors in the conflict and goes for a simpler approach,
… the Israeli government knows exactly the price it must pay to free Shalit. It has already conducted indirect negotiations with Hamas and even announced that it was willing to release a large number of prisoners who are members of the Islamic group. The deal has been held up due to a number of prisoners who committed extremely serious crimes whom Israel refuses to release. Israel’s firm refusal to free those prisoners is becoming its most costly move so far.
There seems to me to be a basic misunderstanding about the meaning of the term “negotiation” here. While most people understand it to refer to a process with an uncertain outcome in which both parties attempt to make the fewest concessions possible while extracting the most from their rival, Haaretz seems to understand it as one in which Israel receives its enemy’s wish list and immediately concedes to it in full. Any other approach is seen as a sign of intransigence and bad faith on Israel’s part.
If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page. .
The aid is supposed to prepare the Palestinians for a peace treaty with Israel that will give them their own state, but "if that isn't coming then I can see a number of questions," said Christian Berger, the EU's representative in Jerusalem. … A delegation from the European Parliament is visiting Israel and the Palestinian territories this week and would certainly be asking "if at the end of the day we don't have a state, then what are we doing with the money," Berger added.
Much hangs on the "proximity talks" arranged by George Mitchell: "If there's a breakthrough then I guess there's a likelihood that our support will be increased," Berger told reporters. Of note: the EU already donates more aid on a per-capita basis to the PA than to any other recipient.
If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page. .
A polite reminder to those head-in-clouds pollyannas who preach to us Israelis from a safe distance away about the right ways to think about terrorists and their actions. Case in point: an article posted in the past hour on a popular current affairs blogsite: Gaza Freedom Flotilla Shows Awesome Power of Nonviolent Resistance
Last night (Saturday), another two Qassam rockets were fired into Israel by jihadists in the northern Gaza Strip, adding to a talley that exceeds 60 for 2010 alone.
One exploded within the jurisdiction of the Hof Ashkelon Regional Council (Israeli reports generally avoid mentioning specific loations to minimize the intelligence value to the terrorists). The other landed short, crashing into an unknown location within the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip.
If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page. .
The Prime Minister’s office on Saturday called the resolution adopted by the NPT Review Conference on a nuclear free Middle East in 2012 “deeply flawed and hypocritical,” saying it “ignores the realities of the Middle East and the real threats facing the region and the entire world.”
The resolution singles out Israel, calling on it to accede to the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and to allow inspection of its nuclear sites…
“As a non-signatory state of the NPT, Israel is not obligated by the decisions of this Conference, which has no authority over Israel. Given the distorted nature of this resolution, Israel will not be able to take part in its implementation,” the statement concluded.
If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page. .
Ha'aretz's Amos Harel and Avi Issacharoff correctly note that the pro-Palestinian activists attempting to sail to Gaza are engaged mostly in "a battle of public relations that is meant to strike a blow at Israel."
The flotilla is organized to a large extent by prominent members of the International Solidarity Movement, including ISM co-founder Huwaida Arraf, who has described suicide bombings as "noble" and argued that Palestinian so-called resistance "must" include violence.
Despite this, the Wall Street Journal's Charles Levinson refers to the anti-Israel activist's ships as a "flotilla of peace activists." This language is not only prejudicial and subjective, but, in light of the above, is also grossly misleading to readers.
In fact, although Levinson, like Harel and Issacharoff, refers to the PR implications of the voyage, his reference to the group as "peace activists" is, in effect, an abandonment of impartiality in favor of participation in the very PR he describes in the article.
If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page. .
Last Sunday was the tenth anniversary of Israel's withdrawal from what was used to be known as the "security zone." That day, following the instructions of then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barack, all Israeli units operating north of the borders inside Lebanese territories were pulled back inside Israeli territories. According to Barack, it was in implementation of the UNSCR 425, issued in 1978 after an Israeli incursion into Lebanon in response to PLO attacks across the borders then. So in the year 2000, 23 years after it entered the country to fight its enemies, Israel's government decided to pull its troops back from Lebanon abruptly. Barack at the time said he was complying with U.N. resolutions and that he expected that no threat will come from Lebanon anymore. That was the Israeli version of the Labor Government then.
But as IDF forces were pulling back, Iranian-backed Hezb'allah militias were entering every single village and town evacuated by the Israelis. According to Hassan Nasrallah, the commander of Hezb'allah, Israel withdrew because of the strikes by the so-called "resistance," which in fact was the Iranian-backed militia. The Hezb'allah story is that southern Lebanon was occupied by the Israelis, who had a proxy militia known as South Lebanon Army. And that Hezb'allah struggled to liberate the land from its Zionist occupiers.
However, there is a third version. It rejects the first two, and it claims it represents the struggle of the people of southern Lebanon, who struggled against Terror and were removed from their ancestral lands -- because of Ehud Barack's policies on the one hand and the abandonment of the West of Lebanon last resisting free people against the hordes of Hezb'allah and their Iranian and Syrian backers on the other. Unfortunately, the third story has no tellers these days. Barack has Israel's media at his service so that he can boast about his betrayal of southern Lebanon and his own Israeli people, and Nasrallah has his Iranian-funded media to claim his victories against the populations who resisted him in southern Lebanon.
If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page. .
North Korean spokesmen reacted furiously last week to claims by Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman that Pyongyang is supplying weapons technology to Iran and Syria. Representatives of the regime of Kim Jong-Il described Lieberman as an "imbecile." The official Korean Central News Agency in a memorable phrase accused the foreign minister in an official statement of "faking up sheer lies."
The indignant denials notwithstanding, recent studies indicate that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, as North Korea is officially known, is indeed playing a crucial but little remarked upon role in facilitating the arming of the Iran-led regional axis, including in the area of weapons of mass destruction. The North Korean role is multifaceted, and evidence has emerged of direct links to terror organizations such as Hizbullah and extensive strategic relations with both Iran and Syria.
A recent study by Christina Lin, a former US Department Defense official and specialist on China, looked into North Korea's strategic partnership with Iran. Lin noted that North Korea has been described as the "the most important single leak" in the international anti-proliferation effort in the Middle East.
Iranian-North Korean strategic cooperation dates back to the first days of the Islamic Republic. Its basis is clear. Iran needs access to advanced military technology to underwrite its regional ambitions. Its main suppliers are Russia and China. But both these countries are active members of the international system, and hence are to some degree constrained by international pressures. North Korea, on the other hand, is an isolated country, indifferent to Western attempts to control the access of Middle East radicals to advanced armaments.
North Korean assistance plays a vital role in the Iranian missile program. Its flagship Shihab missile project is a product of the relationship. The Shihab is based on North Korea's Nodong missile series. Iran is reported to have purchased 12 Nodong missile engines from North Korea in 1999, beginning the development of the Shihab-3. The Shihab-3, which has a range of 1,300-1,500 kilometers, places Israel within range.
More recently, Iranian officials were present at the testing of the advanced Taepodong-2 missile in North Korea in July 2006. This missile is the basis for the Iranian development of the Shihab-6, which has not yet been tested. These are intercontinental, nuclear capable ballistic missile systems, thought to have a range of 5,000-6,000 kilometers.
If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page. .
While working on documents at the Carter Center, a researcher from the Menachem Begin Heritage Center came across a declassified action memorandum from William Quandt, Middle East specialist on the National Security Council, to his boss, Zbigniew Brzezinski. (Click here for the document in full.) Dated May 18, 1977, it was written just one day after Begin's breakthrough victory over Labor, the first time any other party had beaten Labor since the State of Israel had been founded 29 years earlier.
The memo makes for deliciously instructive reading. Count the mistakes in Quandt's opening analysis:
Much of our strategy toward the Arab-Israeli conflict has been predicated on the assumption that a strong and moderate Israeli government would at some point be able to make difficult decisions on territory and on the Palestinians. Now we face the prospect of a very weak coalition, a prolonged period of uncertainty, and an Israeli leadership which may be significantly more assertive in its policies concerning the West Bank, Palestinians, settlements, and nuclear weapons.
The Arabs will no doubt read the Israeli election results as signifying an end to the chance of getting to Geneva this year, and possibly the end of any hope for a political settlement, and we may see them begin to take out insurance by patching up quarrels with the Soviets, digging in their heels on peace terms , and acting more belligerently on oil prices.
In fact, Begin's government made the difficult decisions Labor had not taken, his coalition endured, the Egyptians became more forthcoming, their rift from the Soviets deepened, and oil prices were not affected (until the fall of the shah shot them up).
If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page. .
Let me second Ted Bromund’s praise for Noah Pollak’s extraordinary essay on the liberal desertion of Israel — and offer a comment on Ted’s suggestion that the retreat dates from the 1967 war rather than the failure of the 1993 Oslo peace process.
In 1992, Ruth Wisse published a landmark book, entitled If I Am Not for Myself … The Liberal Betrayal of the Jews, in which she argued that the attempt by Jews to prove themselves moral behind the banner of liberalism could not succeed but that liberalism itself would “assuredly be judged by whether it can protect the Jews.” A year later, the peace process began with the famous White House handshake between Israel’s prime minister and the head of a terrorist group.
It was a liberal dream come true – the “peace of the brave,” as future Nobel Peace Prize winner Yasir Arafat would repeatedly call it, requiring only sufficient courage by Israel to take the risks necessary to produce it. To those skeptical about turning over land to an organization devoted to Israel’s destruction, Amos Oz observed that one made peace with one’s enemies, not with one’s friends. It was considered a brilliant response.
Seven years later, Arafat was offered a Palestinian state on substantially all the West Bank and Gaza, with a capital in Jerusalem — and turned it down in favor of a new terror war. Reflecting later on the Oslo accords, Professor Wisse observed that they had “made Israel the first sovereign nation in memory to arm its declared enemy with the expectation of gaining security.” Five years later, Israel would do it all over again, turning over Gaza to its enemies after removing every settler and soldier, in the expectation of gaining (in Ehud Olmert’s words) “more security … [and] a new pattern of relations.” The result was a new rocket war.
If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page. .
The Left has a habit of downplaying, deriding and denigrating opposing convictions; and denying them resonance, it then portrays its own viewpoints as the majority’s article of faith.
Sarah Honig Another Tack/JPost 28 May '10
It was sweet solace for the soul to learn that some on the entrenched Left still retain a smidgeon of hankering for the Zionist fold. It was comforting to conclude that maybe the more progressive self-appointed guardians of other people’s consciences have noticed, albeit belatedly, that they had strayed too close to the loony fringe. So it was with genuine joy that many of us received the news of initiatives to purportedly back away from postmodern/post-Zionist excesses and return to the patriotic middle ground that was historically the solid power base of this country’s Labor-Left.
We sincerely yearned to applaud the renascent National Left (Smol Leumi), not least because our entire body politic must be able to count on two responsible mainstream mainstay alternatives. It must be able to count on alternatives which place Israeli security and self-preservation above all trendy inclinations and which do not observe our reality through deliberately distortive enemy lenses.
But then came the pitifully under-attended but grossly over-hyped rally in Jerusalem which let the mangy cat out of the bag. These Peace Now/Labor/Meretz activists weren’t changing course. Like classic front organizations, they just wanted to hoodwink us and get us to believe they were. The goal was to convince the Zionist majority that the Left is its sole true expression. The idea was to parade leftist dogmas as indispensable Zionist creeds.
Subtext: If you don’t adhere to the Left’s latest ideological transmutations, you are perforce ejected from the Zionist camp. These supposedly Zionist leftists weren’t joining the Zionist majority; they were out to transform that majority in their image. Anyone who dissents from their compulsory definition of Zionism – a far cry from Berl Katznelson, David Ben-Gurion and even Meir Ya’ari and Ya’acov Hazan – is pilloried as a heretic.
If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page. .
Why was Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin (Bibi) Netanyahu suddenly invited to meet with President Barack Obama next week? There are three very different reasons.
One is the Obama Administration’s realization that its harsh policy toward Israel has been mistaken and has yielded it no diplomatic benefit. Another is the knowledge that this policy is very unpopular among Americans in general as well as American Jews in particular. With November elections coming up, the White House wants to cut its losses.
There is also, however, a third reason which relates to substantive issues. The White House wants to hear from Netanyahu what his views and plans are regarding negotiations with the Palestinians. The Obama Administration is eager for progress on indirect talks, hopeful of moving to direct talks (which Netanyahu very much wants to do), and is also looking at longer-range possibilities.
My view is that Netanyahu should stress the following: Israel wants peace and is willing to agree to a two-state solution. But here’s what we want in return, so go to the Palestinians and see what they are willing to give in exchange for an independent state.
At this point, he explains the need to recognize Israel as a Jewish state; demilitarization of any Palestinian state (which I would call “nonmilitarization,” meaning that it keeps existing security forces but doesn’t build separate, conventional armed forces); that any agreement will permanently end the conflict and all Palestinian claims; and that all refugees must be resettled in the state of Palestine. He must also explain in detail what Israel wants in terms of security guarantees.
If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page. .
You've got 1:49 to describe Gaza and what to do about it. Here is one man's attempt.
If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page. . .
All this week, the media have been saying that the Flotilla of Fools aiming towards Gaza is bringing in some 10,000 tons of aid. For example, in Business Week:
The eight ships, organized by an international group called the Free Gaza Movement, are carrying about 10,000 tons of cargo, including cement for rebuilding homes destroyed by war in Gaza, medical equipment and school supplies.
Yet last week, the amount that the organizers publicized was 5000 tons. From the Palestine Chronicle" on May 21:
The ships are carrying 5,000 tons of construction materials, medical equipment, and school supplies, as well as around 600 people from 40 countries. "
From the Irish Times on May 19th:
The nine boats are due to arrive in Gaza next week with 5,000 tons of reconstruction material, medical equipment and school supplies.
That is a remarkable increase in cargo for the week.
It gets even weirder. Clearly, the heaviest part of the aid is the construction material, and according to the media reports and the Free Gaza folks, they are bringing in only 500 tons of cement. So are they bringing in 9,500 tons of paper, schoolbooks and medical supplies? There are some six tons of paper from Norway, so that can't be it.
Even if they are bringing in prefabricated houses, as some reports say, prefab houses weigh only about 1.5 tons each- and I didn't see any pictures of thousands of houses on the ships that would be needed to fill out 10,000 tons.
If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page. .
“Relations are too cold right now to get the president to release Pollard. Let’s wait for them to warm up.”
“Relations with Washington are finally getting warmer. Let’s not jeopardize the situation by raising the Pollard issue.”
But there is another angle to this story that is worthy of consideration: how are we perceived by American leaders, at the end of the day, when they see the priority – or more accurately lack of priority – we give to gaining the release of Jonathan Pollard.
What genuine gesture can President Obama give to Israel that doesn’t require some kind of offsetting American gesture to the Arabs. An offsetting move that could very well make it counterproductive for Israel to get Obama’s gesture in the first place?
That’s right.
Releasing Jonathan Pollard.
And it’s a move that requires no more than a pen stroke.
No committees.
No votes.
No reviews.
Just President Obama’s signature and Jonathan Pollard can join Netanyahu’s entourage on the flight back from Washington.
If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page. .
The consensus of opinion is that the sanctions to be applied against Iran’s nuclear project will not stop it. Even if they were truly ‘biting’ (to use one of our President’s favorite expressions), one has only to consider the importance of nuclear weapons to Iran’s overall goal to realize that they would have to bite really, really hard to outweigh this.
And these sanctions barely nip. Now the talk is about the best way to ‘contain’ the nuclear Iran.
Israel’s position seems to be that the costs for it to strike Iran will be so high and the benefits so temporary that it will not do so unless there is a clear and present danger of a weapon being used against it. This may well be correct.
To be honest, although the outcome is vital for Israel, Israel is only a minor player in the game, which is about the expulsion of Western influence from the Middle East, representing the defeat of the United States of America by the Islamic Republic of Iran.
It seems to me that we are at one of those watershed moments. Future historians will point to it and say “this is when the Pax Americana ended and the Second Islamic Conquest began.”
If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page. .
Israel’s Supreme Court lambasted the government this week for disobeying a temporary injunction to stop work on a West Bank road. This isn’t the first time the court has complained of governmental noncompliance with its orders; as various commentators have noted (here and here, for instance), noncompliance is rapidly becoming routine. Yet both court and commentators tend to overlook the court’s own responsibility for this problem.
In March, Haaretz published a list (Hebrew only) of nine court orders the government had yet to obey. They included orders to build 245 new classrooms in East Jerusalem, to reinforce every school within rocket range of Gaza against rockets, to build a high school in an Arab village, to relocate the security fence near the West Bank village of Bili’in, and to do the same near the village of Azzoun.
These rulings have one thing in common: each would cost hundreds of millions of shekels to implement; collectively, they would cost billions. Thus to obey them, the government would have to slash billions of shekels from other parts of the budget. And while I favor budget-cutting, most quick and easy big cuts would have disastrous consequences: slashing welfare, say, or canceling all army training exercises. Productive cuts, such as eliminating unnecessary layers of civil-service bureaucracy, are neither quick nor easy, as they would entail major fights with powerful government unions. Thus in the real world, there is no practical way to promptly obey all the court’s rulings.
But aside from the practical problem, these rulings embody a more fundamental problem: the judicial usurpation of government prerogatives. Clearly, such rulings reduce the government’s ability to set its own budgetary priorities, but the problem goes way beyond budgets.
If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page. .
Netanyahu must not permit Obama’s public relations campaign to divert him from this mission.
Caroline Glick Column One/JPost 28 May '10 Posted before Shabbat
The Democratic Party is feeling the heat for US President Barack Obama’s hostility towards Israel. In an interview with Channel 10 earlier this month, Democratic Party mega-donor Haim Saban characterized the Obama administration as ideologically aligned with the radical Left and harshly criticized its treatment of Israel.
Both Ma’ariv and Yediot Aharonot reported this week that Democratic congressmen and senators are deeply concerned that the administration’s harsh treatment of Israel has convinced many American Jews not to contribute to their campaigns or to the Democratic Party ahead of November 2’s mid-term elections. They also fear that American Jews will vote for Republican challengers in large numbers.
It is these concerns, rather than a decision to alter his positions on Israel specifically and the Middle East generally, that now drive Obama’s relentless courtship of the American Jewish community. His latest move in this sphere was his sudden invitation to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to visit him at the White House for a “warm reception” in front of television cameras next Tuesday.
It is clear that electoral worries rather than policy concerns are behind what the White House has described as a “charm offensive,” because since launching this offensive a few weeks ago, Obama not changed any of his policies towards Israel and the wider Middle East. In fact, he has ratcheted up these policies to Israel’s detriment.
TAKE HIS goal of ridding the world of nuclear weapons. On Friday, the UN’s month long Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference is scheduled to adopt a consensual resolution before adjourning. According to multiple media reports, Israel is set to be the focus of the draft resolution that will likely be adopted.
The draft resolutions being circulated by both Egypt and the US adopt Egypt’s demand for a nuclear-free Middle East. They call for a conference involving all countries in the region to discuss denuclearization. The only difference between the Egyptian draft and the US draft on the issue is that the Egyptians call for the conference to be held in 2011 while the US calls for the convening of the conference in 2012-2013. The draft resolution also calls for all states that are not members of the NPT – Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea – to join the NPT as non-nuclear powers.
So while Iran is not mentioned in the draft resolution – which must be adopted by consensus – in two separate places, Israel’s purported nuclear arsenal is the target of an international diplomatic stampede.
If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page. .
Since the Middle East is so important nowadays it is all the more necessary to explain basic concepts about the region. Here's an introduction to some key issues.
What is the use, at least potentially, of sanctions on Iran? We all know that any sanctions the world, or even the U.S. government, is likely to apply won’t stop Iran’s nuclear program. But there are many other potential goals for having sanctions. These include:
Making it harder for Iran to build these weapons and the missiles to carry them, slowing down the program, reducing Iran’s economic assets which can be used for military spending, denying Iran other weapons, intimidating Iran into greater caution in its actual behavior, and encouraging factions (both within the establishment and in the opposition) to conclude that the current Tehran regime is leading them to disaster and must be displaced.
Of these six goals, the plan largely accomplishes one of them—barring the sale of most conventional weapons (but not anti-aircraft missiles)—and does a small amount toward reducing Iran’s assets and slowing down the project. In general, though, it is a question of too little too late.
Again, the problem is not that the sanctions proposed (and which might still be watered down further) aren’t so huge as to make Iran stop but that they will not make Iran more cautious, promote internal conflict due to their high cost, or really put on economic pressure to reduce military spending and increase internal unrest.
If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page. .
A. Savyon MEMRI Report#614 27 May '10 Posted before Shabbat H/T to Bruce
(One can only imagine that Ahmadinijad has become so accustomed to his dealings with the West, that he momentarily forgot himself. Y.)
Introduction
In the past 24 hours, there has been an exchange of harsh words between Iran and Russia. When Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad threatened Russia by saying that its policy was turning it into an enemy of Iran, the Russians responded by calling Ahmadinejad a demagogue, and by issuing an unprecedented warning to Tehran while reminding it of the historic power balance between the two countries – under which Russia took for itself lands from the 19th-century Persian empire and forced it to sign humiliating agreements accepting these terms.
The following are the details of the interchange:
Ahmadinejad: Russia's Position Against the Tehran Declaration Could "Place Russia in the Ranks of [Iran's] Historic Enemies"
In a May 26, 2010 speech in Kerman, Iran, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad warned Russia that its position against the Tehran Declaration could turn it into "an enemy of the Iranian people." He said:
"Russian leaders should not create a situation that makes [the] Iranian people place Russia in the ranks of their historic enemies. Today, it has become difficult for us to explain [Russian President Dmitry] Medvedev's behavior to the Iranian nation. The [Iranian] people don't know whether they [i.e. Russian officials] are our friends or are after something else."
He continued, "If I were the Russian president, when taking decisions on subjects related to the great Iranian nation, I would think things through more."[1]
If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page. .
Facts speak for themselves: Arabs don’t accept vision of two sovereign states
Dan Calic Israel Opinion/Ynet 27 May '10 Posted before Shabbat
Twenty five years after the British gave away 76% of the land they promised as a homeland for the Jewish people the United Nations voted to partition the remaining 24% into two states, one Arab, one Jewish. This gave the Jews a mere 12% of what they were originally promised. Nevertheless, the Jews said “yes” to the deal.
The Arab answer was an ominous “no.” One day after Israel declared independence the Arabs attacked intending to destroy it.
Yet here we are more than 60 years later and we are led to believe the answer to the conflict is another two-state “solution,” albeit with the land sacrifices coming from only one side - Israel.
And what are the Arabs offering? In a word, nothing. Unless you consider their vague promises and poor track record on curbing terror as enough.
The repeated Arab failure to live up to promises of curbing terror forced Israel to take the matter into its own hands by constructing the security barrier. This has proven to be a highly effective deterrent, saving untold innocent lives. Since its construction terror attacks from these areas have been all but eliminated.
Another matter Israel took upon itself was a voluntary withdrawal from the Gaza Strip in 2005. The “thank you” it received was approximately 8,000 rocket and mortar attacks until it finally had to take action against Hamas in Jan. ’09.
Does Hamas support a two-state solution? Group leader Khaled Mashaal said “has not and will not recognize Israel.” Hamas’ charter calls for Israel’s destruction. This puts them in the “no” column. Mahmoud Abbas is already on record refusing to accept Israel as a Jewish state. His party’s constitution likewise calls for the destruction of Israel. This puts Fatah in the “no” column.
If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page. .
Amnesty International’s ideological bias and double standards were exposed by the suspension of senior staff member Gita Saghal, after she condemned Amnesty’s alliance with an alleged Taliban supporter. “Like all tyrants - whether of the right and left, Amnesty International raised the spectre of an assault on human rights to avoid answering questions and to imply that Amnesty International was under attack.”
Longtime Secretary General Irene Khan left Amnesty in December 2009. Her interim replacement, Claudio Cordone, was centrally involved in the Gita Saghal controversy including the response that “jihad in self-defence” is not “antithetical to human rights.”
In the Middle East, while Amnesty’s main focus in 2009 was Iran’s post-election crisis, arrests, and executions, Israel and the January 2009 Gaza war were given disproportionate and distorted attention.
During the war, AI led NGO campaigns accusing Israel of “unlawful,” “disproportionate,” and “indiscriminate” attacks against Palestinian civilians, releasing more than 20 statements criticizing Israel.
After the war, AI called for an arms embargo against Israel, continued to promote “lawfare” against Israeli officials, and labeled Israel’s treatment of Gaza as “collective punishment under international law.”
Analysis of AI’s 2009 Middle East activities reflects a disproportionate and unjustified focus on Israel. AI issued more in-depth reports (seven) on Israel than on any other country in the region.
The data indicate that ideology, rather than universal human rights, continues to propel AI’s resource allocation. With the exception of Iran, AI devotes little coverage to other chronic Mideast human rights abusers.
AI’s October 2009 report “Troubled Waters – Palestinians Denied Fair Access to Water,” coincided with a campaign alleging that “Israel’s Control of Water [is] a Tool of Apartheid and a Means of Ethnic Cleansing.”
The sections in AI’s Annual Report for 2009 on the Palestinians include token mentions of kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit and condemnation of indiscriminate missile attacks from Gaza, without significant “action items,” in contrast to the targeting of Israel.
This analysis of Amnesty’s 2009 activities demonstrates the continued exploitation of human rights principles, and the degradation of these moral values.
While Amnesty International’s (AI) main Middle East focus in 2009 was Iran’s post-election crisis, arrests, and executions, it also allotted a disproportionate amount of attention and resources to the January 2009 Gaza war.
Israel’s military operation in Gaza was a major and disproportionate focal point for Amnesty International (AI) in 2009. AI virtually erased the context of terrorism in the Gaza war, the continuing violation of Gilad Shalit’s rights, and minimized Hamas rocket attacks on Israeli civilians. Its reports consistently accused Israel of “collective punishment” and promoted international isolation of Israel, including a call for an arms embargo.
NGO Monitor’s analysis shows that AI’s reports alleging Israeli violations and “war crimes” lack credible evidence, distort international legal terms, use data selectively, and function as part of a larger demonization campaign.
If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page. .
I visited Hevron in November 2000 after the outbreak of the Rosh Hashanah War to see what could be done to assist in the face of the growing daily attacks on the community. After returning to work for the community in the summer of 2001, a bond and a love was forged that grows to this day. My wife Melody and I merited to be married at Ma'arat HaMachpela and now host visitors from throughout the world every Shabbat as well as during the week. Our goal, "Time to come Home!"
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Posts
