Israel Matzav

Saturday, December 19, 2009

Chanuka gelt 5770

Just a reminder to all of you that Chanuka runs from Friday night December 11 through Saturday evening December 19, and I hope that those of you who can will send me Chanuka gelt (Chanuka money, which is traditionally given out on the holiday).

If you'd like to leave me some Chanuka gelt, please click here.

This post will stay on top from Chanuka's start to end in Israel.

Friday, December 18, 2009

Sabbath music video

For the 8th night of Chanuka, we have Shloime Daskal singing al-HaNisim (For the Miracles) and SheHeCheyanu (He Who Has Made Us Live) at Yeshiva Darchei Torah's Chanuka party earlier this week.

Let's go to the videotape.

Shabbat Shalom - Have a wonderful Shabbos everyone.

'Arbet macht frei' sign stolen from Auschwitz: Next stop Tehran?

The well-known arbet macht frei (work makes you free) sign has been stolen from the entrance to the Auschwitz concentration camp in Poland.

Police spokeswoman Katarzyna Padlo said police believe it was stolen between 3:30 a.m. and 5 a.m. Friday morning, when museum guards noticed that it was missing and alerted police.

Padlo also said that the iron sign, which spanned a gate at the main entrance to the former Nazi death camp in southern Poland, was removed by being unscrewed on one side and pulled off on the other.

Police have launched an intensive search. According to Padlo, there are currently no suspects but police are pursuing several theories.

The museum curator at Auschwitz said that they have a replacement sign, which they immediately put up.

As you might imagine, a lot of people here are quite upset about this.

Noah Flug chairman of The Center of Organizations of Holocaust Survivors in Israel and president of the International Auschwitz Committee called on the Polish police and government to "make every concerted effort to track down the perpetrators and bring them to justice."

Flug said that the sign is "an item of both important symbolic and historical value."

Yad Vashem chairman Avner Shalev said he was "shocked" to learn of the theft of the sign, "which has come to symbolize the murder of 6 million Jews during the Holocaust. "

"While we don't yet know exactly who stole the sign, the theft of such a symbolic object is an attack on the memory of the Holocaust, and an escalation from those elements that would like to return us to darker days," he said in a statement. "I call on all enlightened forces in the world - who fight against anti-Semitism, racism, xenophobia and the hatred of the other, to join together to combat these trends."

Also speaking to Israel Radio, Tel Aviv-Yaffo Chief Rabbi Yisrael Meir Lau, a Holocaust survivor and chairman of the Yad Vashem Council, called the theft "frightening and painful." He said the sign was the one of the firmest proofs of the Holocaust, and was a huge contribution to the perpetuation of the victims' memory.

The thieves were not caught on security cameras.

Here's betting it shows up in Tehran.

Read the whole thing.

Congress votes 412-12 to sanction Iran. Guess who's opposed

I've probably run the picture at the top of this post dozens of times in the last year. Until now, it was arguably an exaggeration. Now, it's looking less like one.

This past week, the House passed the Iran Petroleum Sanctions Act by an overwhelming 412-12 vote. The 12 votes against included people like Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul - people who are clearly outside the American mainstream. The sanctions will now go to the Senate - probably not until after the first of the year because the Senate is so busy trying to bring about the collapse of the American economy by implementing Obamacare/Reidcare.

When the Senate takes up the Iran Petroleum Sanctions Act, we should be grateful that it no longer includes among its membership two Senators named Obama from Illinois and Clinton from New York. You see, it's quite likely that the two of them would vote against the bill.

Tehran finally came back with a counterproposal late last week, in which no uranium would leave Iranian soil. Even Hillary Clinton admits it's a nonstarter: "I don't think anyone can doubt that our outreach has produced very little in terms of any kind of positive response from the Iranians," the Secretary of State told reporters.

Given those remarks, we would have imagined that Mrs. Clinton would take it as good news that on Tuesday the House voted 412-12 in favor of a new round of unilateral sanctions on Iran. The Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act would forbid any company that does energy business with Iran from having access to U.S. markets.

Instead, last week Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg wrote to Foreign Relations Chairman John Kerry urging that the Senate postpone taking up the House bill. "I am concerned that this legislation, in its current form, might weaken rather than strengthen international unity and support for our efforts," wrote Mr. Steinberg.

So let's see: Iran spurns every overture from the U.S. and continues to develop WMD while abusing its neighbors. In response, the Administration, which had set a December deadline for diplomacy, now says it opposes precisely the kind of sanctions it once promised to impose if Iran didn't come clean, never mind overwhelming bipartisan support in Congress. For an explanation of why Iran's behavior remains unchanged, look no further.

Here's hoping the Senate makes one small change to the bill that just passed the House. Here's hoping that the Senate makes those sanctions mandatory. From what I recall of my Constitutional Law class in law school (where I argued obsessively with my Leftist professor), treason is still a high crime or misdemeanor, i.e. an impeachable offense. Failing to take action that would defend America (let alone Israel) from an Iranian nuclear threat without endangering American lives strikes me as about as treasonous as you can get.

What could go wrong?

Gaza, the Hillbilly Country of the Middle East

What happens when you marry close relatives? You perpetuate rare genetic diseases. That's what's going on in Gaza (Hat Tip: Memeorandum).

And we keep hearing that the 'Palestinians' are the smartest people in the Arab/Muslim world. Hmmm.

Tom Friedman calls for war?

David Hazony read that Tom Friedman article that I blogged on Thursday as a call for a conventional war and not just for a 'war of words.'

Friedman starts with the “war of ideas within Islam,” uses the American Civil War as an example, and then goes on to focus on which ideas are legitimate in the Arab-Muslim world and which are not, and on how many fatwas have been issued against al-Qaeda. As though he hadn’t just said anything shocking.

Hello? The American Civil War was not only a battle of ideas. The “ferocity” he refers to, the lingering antipathy against the North today, was not because Lincoln issued a fatwa or recruited columnists in the South over the Internet or wrote a bestselling book. There was horrific, physical destruction involved. Is he saying that Islam “needs” a moderate-Islamic General Sherman to scorch the earth of Saudi-funded madrasses? Literally?

Because if he doesn’t mean it literally, the metaphor suddenly makes no sense. Certain ideas are deemed illegitimate in the Muslim world because simply expressing them can get you killed. Violence is a crucial component in the equation — that’s what it means not to be part of the democratic world. So if moderate voices are to turn violent against the extremists — even if the violence is not literal but only in the form of condemnation, stopping their funding, pursuing a “war of ideas,” and so forth — first you need to remove the threat of literal violence and create a free environment in which ideas can be aired without fear. But for that you need a much bigger change than just calling for the voices of moderation to wake up. There’s a good reason why they’re asleep in the first place.

So, Mr. Friedman, which is it? A literal civil war, like the one America endured? Or a figurative one, which you call on others to wage, bravely and at high cost, with little hope of victory?

Friedman undoubtedly meant a war of words, but Hazony is right: A real war is the only way that anything is likely to change. Unfortunately, the Islamists are too busy murdering 'infidels' to engage in such a real war.

The Swedes pay attention

I'm sure you all recall the article by Michael Fenenbock that I posted earlier this week that argued that Israel's supporters ought to target the incumbent Swedish government in the upcoming Swedish election.

That article apparently got the attention of the Swedes. On Thursday, an op-ed was published in Stockholm’s largest daily – Svenska Dagbladet (Daily Blade). A number of other Swedish media have referenced Michael’s Ynet op-ed as well. For those of you who don't read Swedish, here's an English translation by Ilya Meyer with kind permission from Per Gudmundson and Svenska Dagbladet (SvD).

Why Carl Bildt is Driving the Israelis Up the Wall

September 19, 2010, that’s the target. Send the best political campaign professionals in the world into Sweden’s national elections. Make Reinfeldt and Bildt pay a price.”

That’s the suggestion of political consultant Michael Fenenbock in an op-ed in Israel’s largest daily, Yedioth Ahronoth. The reason is that the EU has once again proclaimed that Jerusalem should be the capital city of a future Palestinian state, something for which rotating EU president “Reinfeldt and his Rasputin-like partner Carl Bildt” ought to be punished.

“We have the means, the experience and skill to cause these guys political pain in Sweden,” writes Fenenbock, who has previously run campaigns for Ted Kennedy and others in the US.

That’s somewhat ironic. For decades now an anti-Semitic-tainted extreme Left has been mouthing off about a “pro-Israel Lobby” that is alleged to control the world’s political destiny. When finally someone turns up who claims to represent just such a lobby, it also turns out that he intends to bring down the non-socialist government. That’s going to lead to some really hard-to-reconcile internal conflicts in many quarters.

The fact, however, is that there is a tense relationship between Sweden and Israel right now. That’s on the political plane. As regards trade and cultural exchanges, on the other hand, the atmosphere has never been better.

Carl Bildt’s rather arrogant style (he recently claimed that Israel is trying to influence the EU through a policy of “divide and rule”) underscores some Israelis’ impression that Bildt did not merely convey the demands expected during his country’s EU presidency, but rather that he has taken on the task with a dedication bordering on fervour. As though he truly burns with enthusiasm to put Israel in its place.

This past autumn’s headline-making story in which this country’s biggest daily paper spread stories about Israeli organ harvesting, stories deeply rooted in anti-Jewish mythology, without being admonished by the Swedish government, has scarcely done anything to mend bridges.

In Israel, the EU’s and Sweden’s incessant demands are perceived as highly one-sided. And not without some justification.

Last week the Israeli media presented leaked details about what was probably the previous Israeli government’s proposal to the Palestinians: then-Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is reported to have made an offer for a future Palestinian state on 99.3% of the pre-1967 territory. As well as the partitioning of Jerusalem. The Palestinians declined. Yet again. So who exactly is being unreasonable?

The current Israeli government emerged as a response to the previous centre coalition, which received nothing in reply to its far-reaching concessions. If today we are hearing a sharp tone of voice from Prime Minister and others, it is not solely a cause of the situation we see today – it is in equal measure a response to Palestinian intransigence.

That a Swedish non-socialist government would be hostile to Israel is unthinkable. So how exactly are we to interpret Carl Bildt?

It’s that same old problem: trying to extract responsibility from the only party that has ever been shown to be capable of behaving responsibly, while never demanding responsibility from the one party that really should be shouldering it. Instead of perhaps using our immense financial aid to the Palestinians to persuade them in the appropriate direction.

The question is whether it would work. From the Israeli viewpoint, it is more convenient to bicker with Sweden, and to joke about rigging our election process, than it is to pursue an uncertain centrist policy that would require some extremely hazardous concessions. That makes Carl Bildt the Likud government’s excuse to shift its focus. And that may not have been the intention.

Michael Fenenbock adds:

For the record...

The18

The18 has no connection to the Israeli government. The18 has no connection to any NGO’s or institutional Jewish organizations. The18 is competely independent.

Indeed, The18 has precisely the same relationship to the Israeli government as Prime Minister Reinfeldt’s government has to the Swedish newspaper “Aftonbladet.”

As Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt put it in his August 2009 refusal to condemn the Swedish newspaper for accusing Israelis of organ harvesting, “Freedom of expression is a cornerstone of democracy.” (Associated Press, August 20, 2009)

The18 is free to act independent of any institutional, government, or NGO influence or control.

The18 Sweden

The18 Sweden does not advocate on behalf of any Swedish political party.

The18 Sweden is not tasked with persuading Swedes to vote one way or another. The18 Sweden does not endorse a candidate or party. The18 Sweden’s goal is to maintain focus on the issue of Reinfeldt and Bildt’s EU Jerusalem initiative. And its consequences for Swedes and Sweden.

To achieve that end, The18 Sweden will mount an independent public campaign.

The18 Sweden’s intention is to ask hard questions of Prime Minister Reinfeldt and Foreign Minister Bildt. And to ask them in Sweden, in the context of the September elections, via a public campaign mounted from a Swedish – not a Jewish – perspective.

Questions will be asked about the consequences of Sweden’s EU Jerusalem initiative for Swedes and Sweden. The18 Sweden public campaign will be directed at a Swedish audience and delivered by Swedes.

If there are any readers in Sweden who want to be in contact with Michael, or anyone else who thinks they can help out, please drop me a note.

Obama's geography lesson

The Hebrew caption reads "Where the hell is that country that keeps me busy all day long?"

Hat Tip: NR (daughter number 2, child number 4).

Maybe they should have bought Israeli drones

The Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday that the US has a problem with Iranian-backed terrorists intercepting the video feed from drones in Iraq.

Militants in Iraq have used $26 off-the-shelf software to intercept live video feeds from U.S. Predator drones, potentially providing them with information they need to evade or monitor U.S. military operations.

Senior defense and intelligence officials said Iranian-backed insurgents intercepted the video feeds by taking advantage of an unprotected communications link in some of the remotely flown planes' systems. Shiite fighters in Iraq used software programs such as SkyGrabber -- available for as little as $25.95 on the Internet -- to regularly capture drone video feeds, according to a person familiar with reports on the matter.

U.S. officials say there is no evidence that militants were able to take control of the drones or otherwise interfere with their flights. Still, the intercepts could give America's enemies battlefield advantages by removing the element of surprise from certain missions and making it easier for insurgents to determine which roads and buildings are under U.S. surveillance.

The drone intercepts mark the emergence of a shadow cyber war within the U.S.-led conflicts overseas. They also point to a potentially serious vulnerability in Washington's growing network of unmanned drones, which have become the American weapon of choice in both Afghanistan and Pakistan.

...

U.S. military personnel in Iraq discovered the problem late last year when they apprehended a Shiite militant whose laptop contained files of intercepted drone video feeds. In July, the U.S. military found pirated drone video feeds on other militant laptops, leading some officials to conclude that militant groups trained and funded by Iran were regularly intercepting feeds.

In the summer 2009 incident, the military found "days and days and hours and hours of proof" that the feeds were being intercepted and shared with multiple extremist groups, the person said. "It is part of their kit now."

...

Senior military and intelligence officials said the U.S. was working to encrypt all of its drone video feeds from Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, but said it wasn't yet clear if the problem had been completely resolved.

Some of the most detailed evidence of intercepted feeds has been discovered in Iraq, but adversaries have also intercepted drone video feeds in Afghanistan, according to people briefed on the matter. These intercept techniques could be employed in other locations where the U.S. is using pilotless planes, such as Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, they said.

Read the whole thing.

It's funny that we have never heard stories like this from Gaza. Are the 'Palestinians' less clever than the Iraqis? I doubt it. More likely Israel's communications - like those from the Israeli-made Heron drone pictured above - are encrypted and cannot be tapped so easily. Maybe the US should buy Israeli drones or at least the Israeli drones' communications systems.

Hmmm.

There is no peace partner

Writing in Haaretz - Haaretz! - Ari Shavit explains that there is no peace partner (Haaretz put the wrong headline on this).

The ultimate solution is not the total liberation of the Gaza Strip or a Palestinian state. It is the liberation of all of Palestine.

Haniyeh did not say so outright, but his words are clear. Hamas is demanding Ramle and Lod, Haifa and Jaffa, Abu Kabir and Sheikh Munis. It is also demanding the land on which this article was written and the land on which this article was printed - the land on which the editorial offices of Haaretz are located and the land on which the Haaretz printing plant is located. The land, the entire land. Greater Palestine.

In recent years, quite a number of experts have promised us that Hamas does not really mean it. Hamas is only playing tough, but its intentions are lofty: cease-fire, Green Line, coexistence. Live and let live. But no message conveyed by any senior Hamas member to any diplomat behind closed doors is equal in status to the message conveyed by Haniyeh to the masses. What counts is only the direct and open statement made by the Palestinian leader to his people. Palestine, all of Palestine. Every piece of Israeli land on which any Israeli citizen lives. His home, your home, our home. The land beneath our feet.

Ostensibly, Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas is an alternative to Hamas. Two days ago Abbas told Haaretz correspondent Avi Issacharoff that an agreement could be reached within six months. There's one small problem: Similar things were said to us when the Beilin-Abbas agreement was formulated in 1995. Similar things were said to us on the eve of Camp David 2000. Similar things were promised us when the Geneva Initiative was signed in 2003. Similar things were promised us when Israel went to Annapolis in 2007.

But every time an Israeli leader took another significant step toward Abbas, Abbas became evasive. To this day Abbas has not responded positively to the offer of 100 percent made to him by former prime minister Ehud Olmert 15 months ago.

Read the whole thing.

Haaretz headlines this Hamas still wants to liberate all of 'Palestine.' But that's not the headline here. The headline here is that Haaretz is finally admitting that Fatah wants to 'liberate' all of 'Palestine' too. There is no difference between them.

Shavit goes on to insist that there must be a solution and to advocate the 'Mofaz plan' (whatever that is this week) or a second 'disengagement' (since the first one just worked out so well). But the bottom line is that there is no peace partner and as much as many Israelis hate what they term an 'occupation,' they are not going to support unilaterally abandoning our assets to either a 'moderate' or an 'extreme' terror organization.

There is no peace partner. It's time to face that reality, stop evading it, and move on with our lives. There is a solution to this impasse: Pay the 'Palestinians' to leave voluntarily. A majority of them would take advantage it.

Thursday, December 17, 2009

Lawyers seething over British change to universal jurisdiction

This may be my last post for a while: Blogger just decided I'm a spam blog again and it's not allowing me to search this blog. In fact, it may not allow this post to go up for some period of time. Sorry.

Britain's Guardian is reporting that 'Palestinians' and their supporters are outraged at a new plan that would institute safeguards before arrest warrants can be issued against visiting foreign leaders.

The attorney general will be asked to approve warrants before suspected war criminals can be arrested in future under a plan being negotiated by the Foreign Office in response to the row over attempts to arrest Israel's former foreign minister.

The Guardian has learned that discussions have begun in Whitehall on creating "safeguards" in criminal cases against visiting foreign leaders – not just those from Israel. Lawyers involved said they were outraged by the proposed change.

...

"Livni supports a two-state solution. This attempt to secure her arrest has really set alarm bells ringing," said a senior Foreign Office source. "No one is talking about removing universal jurisdiction, but it's an anomaly that a magistrates court can issue an arrest warrant before a prosecutor has even said there is a case to prosecute. There need to be safeguards."

News of the prime minister's intervention provoked a furious response from lawyers and pro-Palestinian groups.

"I feel honest revulsion at the idea of a case where a judge has granted an arrest warrant and a politician gets on the phone and apologises," said Daniel Machover, a solicitor. "They have got to stay out of individual cases and legal decisions."

Actually, it's outrageous to think that anyone can be arrested on the say so of a private attorney without any government prosecutorial involvement.

For those who have forgotten, Machover is an Israeli.

Pentagon poo poos Iran's missile test

On Wednesday, I reported that Iran claimed to have tested a new, upgraded model of its Sejil-2 medium range missile. The New York Times is reporting that the Pentagon says that it didn't see anything new in the test.

“I’m not going to get into the particulars of what our intelligence shows other than to say I don’t think there was anything here that was particularly different than what we’ve seen in the past,” said Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon press secretary, Reuters reported.

Hmmm.

So why did Iran do it? Apparently, whenever it's under pressure, Iran makes noise.

Message to Obama: Iran's not feeling very isolated

If President Obama is trying to isolate Iran and its President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, he's going to have to try a lot harder says Claudia Rosett in Forbes.

But is Iran really isolated? Fresh from a meeting in Tehran with the head of the terrorist group Hamas, Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is free to rub shoulders at the United Nations climate conference in Copenhagen with a UN summit lineup that for the second time in four months includes President Barack Obama.

To list just a few highlights of Ahmadinejad's other interactions in recent times: Since Iran's June election, angrily and repeatedly protested by huge numbers of Iranians, Ahmadinejad has posed alongside Russian President Dmitry Medvedev at a regional security summit in the Urals, met with the president of Turkey, hosted the Emir of Qatar, dropped in on The Gambia and made plans to visit Turkmenistan. Last month he made the latest in a series of swings over the past five years through Latin America. There he dropped by Bolivia, Brazil and Venezuela. In Brazil he attended the signing of 13 Iranian-Brazilian cooperation agreements, in areas ranging from banking to technology to scholarships to the lifting of visa requirements. In Venezuela, he had a chance to follow up with his despotic chum, President Hugo Chavez, with whom he declared four months ago--during one of Chavez's many visits to Iran--joint plans to set up an Iranian-Venezuelan "nuclear village."

So busy has the Iranian president's office been that even Ahmadinejad's wife--who usually stays under wraps--took the UN stage in November, speaking at a summit of the Food and Agriculture Organization in Rome.

More broadly, while the Obama administration has been reaching out to Iran, the Iranian regime has continued its own outreach around the globe. In recent months this has run the gamut from multibillion-dollar deals for Chinese investment in Iranian oil refineries, to plans to run a bank and assemble Iranian cars in the despotic, weapons-mongering state of Belarus--as well as build an amusement park in the Belarusian capital of Minsk.

Ahmadinejad sounds like a very happy camper. What could go wrong?

Changing faces on Israel's currency

Israel will be changing the faces on all of its currency starting in 2012 (the current bills are pictured at left). Among those who will star on the new currency will be former Prime Ministers Yitzchak Rabin and Menachem Begin.

Israel's paper currency currently features historical figures who are not among Israel's most famous. Zalman Shazar, Israel's third president, is featured on the red, 200-shekel bill; he will be replaced by Yitzchak Rabin, the prime minister who was killed in 1995. The beige 100-shekel note currently features Yitzchak Ben-Tzvi, Israel's second president; he will give way to Menachem Begin, who served as Israel's sixth prime minister from 1977 until 1983.

The purple 50-shekel note is currently adorned with Nobel Literature Prize winner Shai Agnon; Israel's first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, will take his place. And the green, 20-shekel bill, which bears the image of Moshe Sharett, Israel's second prime minister, will soon be associated with Binyamin Ze'ev Herzl, considered the visionary of the State of Israel.

Herzl was on a bill once before - the famous 100-lira note, which has long been out of circulation. An item that cost 500 lirot, for instance, was popularly said to be worth "five Herzls."

Read the comments to that article. There are people who are not thrilled that Rabin, who brought the Oslo disaster on us, is getting prime billing. People are also asking sarcastically when Ehud Olmert and Ariel Sharon will appear on bills. I don't expect that to happen at all. Moshe Katzav won't appear on any bills either. But Shimon Peres might eventually.

In fact, I used to have some bills on which Peres appears already. They're from the 1996 election campaign. If I can find them, I will try to scan them in for you. Heh.

Tom Friedman looks for Muslims to fight war of ideas

The New York Times' Tom Friedman is bothered by the number of young Americans who are being recruited for jihad online.

Last week, five men from northern Virginia were arrested in Pakistan, where they went, they told Pakistani police, to join the jihad against U.S. troops in Afghanistan. They first made contact with two extremist organizations in Pakistan by e-mail in August. As The Washington Post reported on Sunday: “ ‘Online recruiting has exponentially increased, with Facebook, YouTube and the increasing sophistication of people online,’ a high-ranking Department of Homeland Security official said. ... ‘Increasingly, recruiters are taking less prominent roles in mosques and community centers because places like that are under scrutiny. So what these guys are doing is turning to the Internet,’ said Evan Kohlmann, a senior analyst with the U.S.-based NEFA Foundation, a private group that monitors extremist Web sites.”

Friedman believes that the way to fight this is through a 'war of ideas' within Islam.

The Obama team is fond of citing how many “allies” we have in the Afghan coalition. Sorry, but we don’t need more NATO allies to kill more Taliban and Al Qaeda. We need more Arab and Muslim allies to kill their extremist ideas, which, thanks to the Virtual Afghanistan, are now being spread farther than ever before.

Only Arabs and Muslims can fight the war of ideas within Islam. We had a civil war in America in the mid-19th century because we had a lot of people who believed bad things — namely that you could enslave people because of the color of their skin. We defeated those ideas and the individuals, leaders and institutions that propagated them, and we did it with such ferocity that five generations later some of their offspring still have not forgiven the North.

Islam needs the same civil war. It has a violent minority that believes bad things: that it is O.K. to not only murder non-Muslims — “infidels,” who do not submit to Muslim authority — but to murder Muslims as well who will not accept the most rigid Muslim lifestyle and submit to rule by a Muslim caliphate.

There's just one problem: He can't find any Muslims willing to fight. Not with ideas and not with weapons.

What is really scary is that this violent, jihadist minority seems to enjoy the most “legitimacy” in the Muslim world today. Few political and religious leaders dare to speak out against them in public. Secular Arab leaders wink at these groups, telling them: “We’ll arrest if you do it to us, but if you leave us alone and do it elsewhere, no problem.”

How many fatwas — religious edicts — have been issued by the leading bodies of Islam against Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda? Very few. Where was the outrage last week when, on the very day that Iraq’s Parliament agreed on a formula to hold free and fair multiparty elections — unprecedented in Iraq’s modern history — five explosions set off by suicide bombers hit ministries, a university and Baghdad’s Institute of Fine Arts, killing at least 127 people and wounding more than 400, many of them kids?

Tom's right about one thing.

A corrosive mind-set has taken hold since 9/11. It says that Arabs and Muslims are only objects, never responsible for anything in their world, and we are the only subjects, responsible for everything that happens in their world. We infantilize them.

Indeed. So what do we do?

Waiting for Arabs and Muslims to fight the jihadists among them (who, together with their sympathizers, may not be a minority) is a recipe for a centuries-long series of terror attacks in which we suffer the casualties. Instead, we must fight back. And not just with ideas - the only ideas that interest these people are those contained in the Koran and the Koran has some very violent and vile views of 'infidels.'

We also have to stop babying the Arabs and Muslims and hold them responsible for their own actions. Starting right here in Israel. When the West (including Tom Friedman) and Israel's Left wake up and stop pressuring Israel to capitulate to the fake 'people' known as 'Palestinians,' the West will be on its way to defeating the jihad.

'For me, France is the most anti-Semitic country'

Tundra Tabloids has an interview with Dr. Ami Cammarella, an Israeli-born French doctor (whose family has roots in France). Dr. Cammarella has recently become more aware of his Judaism - and of French anti-Semitism - and has decided to leave France. The interview is well-worth reading. Here's a small excerpt (Hat Tip: Atlas Shrugs).

Dr.Cammarella: Well the Gaza war is another wake up, what happened in Europe and what happened in France, the reaction was really strong. After that I was sure, absolutely sure that I had to leave France, because for me, France is the most anti-Semitic country in Europe . In particular during the Gaza war there were about 400 anti-Semitic attacks.

Three Synagogues were attacked with Molotov cocktails, about ten Jews were beaten (at least officially)*. I know of one guy, not personally, who was from Paris and he was beaten by ten Arabs in January of this year, in particular his nose was broken and he spent three days in the hospital...and that just because he was a Jew!

He was interviewed by YNET, an Israeli internet website, in which he stated that there is no longer a place for Jews in France and prepared for his immigrating to Israel. I don't know if he has left already or not. All my friends, my Jewish friends didn't want to believe what they saw, they said, "well that's the way it is, Jews being beaten because they are Jews, that's the history of the Jews through the centuries, no? It doesn't happen every day, and it's not Auschwitz so, you have to live with it." It's no problem if you hide your identity, to take off very quickly your kippa, immediately when you go out from the synagogue .

And why I wish to leave France, to answer your question , it has to do with the politics. In France they are very against Israel in the news, and for me, these very anti-Zionist positions are only anti-Semitic positions. Now since the birth of Israel, it's a new way of being anti-Semitic and very politically correct. I you are anti-Israel then you are for the poor Palestinians who are said to be very oppressed by the very bad Israeli people. So that's really what I feel with politics in Europe, and with France in particular. I can't stand anymore all this almost daily propaganda .

My grandmother was killed because of French people who gave her away to the Nazis. And today I can't stand to see Synagogues being attacked with Molotov cocktails and to listen to them say bad things about Israel and the Jews. 400 anti-Semitic attacks in France, like the one guy beaten up by ten Arabs just because he was a Jew, I can't take that any more. It's indefensible. That's my position of why I'm leaving France.

Read the whole thing.

I was last in Paris in November 2005 (for a business meeting), shortly before Ilan Halimi was kidnapped and murdered. The hatred for Jews in the streets was palpable. There had already been problems with 'youths' rioting and I was warned not to travel from the airport to Paris by subway. There was a demonstration on the Champs Elysees that Saturday night - I don't recall why but it had something to do with Israel. In the end, I avoided the subway altogether, unlike a vacation Mrs. Carl and I took to Paris in January 1998. I was only there from early Friday morning until Sunday afternoon.

My children's classes in school each have several immigrants from France who have arrived in the last few years. It's unfortunate that a sense of danger is the only thing that can convince many people that they belong in Israel.

Great communicator can't explain facts of life to China

Last month, President Obumbler was in China, where he told Chinese President Hu Jintao that he couldn't hold Israel off forever from attacking Iran's nuclear weapons program. It seemed that the Chinese had gotten the message when they voted to condemn Iran in the IAEA.

But it quickly became clear that the Chinese didn't get it. Just a few days later, the Chinese said that sanctions were not the goal of new UN pressure on Iran, and that the way to resolve Iran's nuclear weapons program was through 'dialogue.'

Until now, it was presumed that the Chinese opposed sanctions because Iran provides most of their oil. What is now clear is that, unlike the Obama administration's actions in most areas of the world, the Chinese are standing on principle. They're standing on the wrong principles, but they are standing on principle all the same.

The Chinese have even refused a Saudi-American initiative designed to end Chinese dependence on Iranian oil, which would allow China to agree to the sanctions, said the Israeli officials.

Saudi Arabia, which is also very worried about the Iranian nuclear program and keen to advance international steps against Iran, offered to supply the Chinese the same quantity of oil the Iranians now provide, and at much cheaper prices. But China rejected the deal.

What's worse is that the Chinese will be chairing the UN Security Council come January.

China's actions are particularly problematic because China will take over the presidency of the UN Security Council in January. Western diplomats say China would have no choice but to join in sanctions if Russia agrees to support them, but China could delay discussions and postpone any decision until February, when France becomes council president.

The Israeli officials say Russian President Dmitry Medvedev is showing a greater willingness for sanctions on Iran, despite hesitations by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.

So the Great Communicator cannot convey to the Chinese either the urgency or the moral correctness of imposing sanctions on Iran.

What could go wrong?

Can Israel be safe without Judea and Samaria?

The percentages of Judea and Samaria that Israel has been willing to give up for a fake 'peace' with the 'Palestinians' are overwhelming. 88%. 92%. 96%. 98%. But what does it all mean for Israel's security? That's a factor that most people outside Israel don't understand (except for vague references to those percentages endangering Ben Gurion Airport) and don't consider in deciding on our behalf that Israel should go back to the 1967 borders.

But giving up all of Judea and Samaria - or even giving up all of Judea and Samaria except for the 'settlement blocs' - would cause a clear and present danger to the rest of the country. And it's not 'just' a danger of rocket fire on the airport, although that would be bad enough. The 1949 armistice lines were nine miles wide at their narrowest point (near Netanya in the country's center). And the mountains act as a natural barrier to tanks attacking us from Jordan. Yoram Ettinger explains.

2. Judea and Samaria, the cradle of Jewish history, consists of two over-towering mountain ridges: A 3,000ft steep eastern slope above the Jordan Valley – the most effective tank barrier in the region; a 2,000ft gentle western slope – a dream platform of invasion to the 9-15 miles sliver along the Mediterranean (pre-1967 Israel). Judea and Samaria constitutes the "Golan Heights" of Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, the coastal plain and the 4 mile wide corridor between the coast and Jerusalem.

3. Israel's security predicament in perspective:

The width of pre-1967 Israel (without the over-towering mountain ridges of Judea and Samaria) is equal to 1/90 of the width of Texas, the distance between JFK and La Guardia airports, between Wall Street and Columbia University, between the Pentagon and Mt. Vernon, roundtrip between Kennedy Center and RFK Stadium, the length of DFW airport, less than the width of San Francisco, Miami and Washington DC, less than the distance between downtown London and Heathrow Airport, roundtrip between Albert Hall and the Tower of London and between Bois De Boulogne and La Place de la Bastille.

4. A 16 mile radius "killing zone" was established by the US Command in Bosnia, in order to safeguard the personal security of US servicemen. A 9-15 mile sliver along the Mediterranean, over-towered by the mountain ridges of Judea and Samaria in the Mideast context, cannot safeguard the national security of the Jewish State.

A study done by the United States Joint Chiefs of Staff shortly after the 1967 Six Day War concluded that Israel cannot give up much of Judea or Samaria without endangering the country's security.

In a report to the Secretary of Defense in 1967, the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff wrote that, at a minimum, "Israel would need a defense line generally along the Bardala-Tuba-Nablus-Bira-Jerusalem axis, and then to the northern part of the Dead Sea. This line would widen the narrow portion of Israel and provide additional terrain for the defense of Tel Aviv."

The report also provides support for a united Jerusalem under Israeli control. To defend Jerusalem, the Joint Chiefs concluded, Israel would need to have its border "positioned to the east of the city.

That's most of Judea and Samaria, and certainly would not leave space for a 'contiguous' 'Palestinian state.'

Keep that in mind the next time someone tells you that Israel should give the 'Palestinians' all the land outside the pre-1967 borders.

New Zealand linked to North Korean arms plane caught in Thailand?

Earlier this week, I reported on a North Korean jet that was carrying 35 tons of weapons that landed in Thailand and was caught. Now, the government of New Zealand is investigating whether an Auckland-based company was connected to that arms shipment.

Officials in Kazakhstan and the Republic of Georgia have said the aircraft, which is managed by Georgia-registered carrier Air West Ltd., was leased to carry the cargo by SP Trading Ltd., a New Zealand-registered company with offices in Auckland.

Air West director Nodar Kakabadze said he had no information about SP Trading.

"We signed a contract with SP Trading Nov. 4 this year to carry out some flights. That's it," Mr. Kakabadze said by phone from the freight company's base in the Black Sea port city of Batumi, Georgia. "I know nothing more about the company, and we'd never worked with them before," he said.

A copy of the lease agreement between Air West and SP Trading, obtained by Georgian aviation officials and viewed by The Wall Street Journal, lists a person named Lu Zhang as SP Trading's director. New Zealand government records indicate SP Trading was incorporated there in July of this year and also list Lu Zhang as its director.

"We are indeed aware of this issue and the alleged link to New Zealand," said a spokesman for New Zealand's Foreign Ministry. "We are urgently seeking more information," the spokesman said.

Attempts to locate Lu Zhang and contact SP Trading were unsuccessful Wednesday. A reporter who visited SP Trading's registered offices—located in a nine-story building across from Auckland's town hall—was unable to obtain access to the floor listed on the records.

Hmmm.

Overnight music video

Sorry about the long break. We had the entire family over (the two married kids came over with their spouses and the grandson, the son who is in yeshiva out of the city came home for the evening, and the daughter who is mother's helpering for the twin 2-year olds for the week came home for the evening) after which I crashed and burned for a while.

Here are the Kinderlach lighting Chanuka candles and singing afterward. Let's go to the videotape.

The military option goes mainstream

In the Wall Street Journal, former French intelligence specialist Olivier Debouzy argues that neither Israel nor the US can let Iran go nuclear and suggests how to stop them with military action short of all-out war.

Politically, no Israeli prime minister could survive the fact that Iran became a nuclear-armed state, officially or unofficially, on his watch. The pressure on the Israeli government to do something to counter Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons would be so strong that it could well be tempted to play a desperate gamble, regardless of any security guaranties that the U.S. might offer.

Similarly, no U.S. president (especially one endowed with a Nobel Prize) could escape blame for having let Iran become a nuclear-weapon state by consistently underestimating its ability to conceal its preparations. The intelligence community's credibility would be devastated, and the indecision by successive administrations (Clinton, Bush and now Obama) to quash a program that has been suspected for 15 years and openly known for seven would be seen as a failure of major proportions.

What's more, the message sent to all U.S. and Western allies in the Gulf region would be dire. For all the promises made to these allies, the West has been unable to prevent a rogue state—one intent on destabilizing their societies, the strategic balance in the Middle East and beyond, and the oil market—from acquiring nuclear weapons that will make it much more difficult to compel it to behave prudently.

Last but not least, the nuclear non-proliferation regime, which has been significantly weakened by the North Korean antics and the Iranian finessing, would be close to collapse: If Iran has nukes, the temptation for countries such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Turkey, among others, to equip themselves with such weapons would be almost irresistible. The 2010 review conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty would be rendered a feckless pantomime, with almost as little effect as those aimed, between the two world wars, at preventing armed conflict.

It is now necessary, therefore, to plan for the worst—some form of military constraint upon Iran. It is urgent that the U.S., Great Britain and France, together with Israel if possible (in a discreet and deniable way, of course), gather and try to reach agreement on how to terminate the Iranian nuclear program militarily. Those three permanent members of the U.N. Security Council should not be cowed by the argument—which has already been deployed repeatedly by Iranian advocates and idiots utiles—that such an endeavour would be akin to pitching "the West against the rest." They would actually be exercising an implicit mandate on behalf of all the states that have renounced nuclear weapons and do not accept being threatened and bullied by rogues.

How could this be done? The experience of the 1962 Cuban crisis provides an interesting precedent. Applying pressure on the Iranians by interdicting any imports or exports to and from Iran by sea and by air would send a message that would undoubtedly be perceived as demonstrative by Tehran. Additionally, reinforcing the Western naval presence inside or immediately outside the Gulf would make it clear to the Iranians, without infringing on their territorial waters, that they (and all states dealing with them) are entering a danger zone. In parallel to this slow strangulation, measures should be taken to deter Gulf states (such as Dubai) from engaging in any trade or financial transactions with Iran and to encourage them to freeze Iranian assets in their banks. This should not be too difficult, as the threat of disconnecting any renegade from the Swift system would be sufficiently persuasive in the current circumstances, in which Dubai sorely needs international financial assistance.

It might be necessary to go beyond that and actually resort to force to prevent the Iranians from achieving nuclear military capabilities. Planning for a massive air and missile attack on Iran's nuclear facilities (known and suspected) should be considered seriously, and this planning made public (at least partially) to convince Iran that the West can not only talk the talk, but also walk the walk. Such planning should also, to the extent possible, involve NATO, against the territory of which there is little doubt that the majority of Iranian missiles and nuclear weapons would be targeted (if only because they cannot yet reach the U.S.). The U.S., U.K., French and Israeli intelligence services should better co-ordinate what they know, and contributions from others should also be welcome, as well as any information that could be provided by internal opposition movements in Iran.

The idea here is simple, and has been expressed many times by theoreticians of deterrence: When one plans for war, when one deploys forces and rehearses military options, one actually conveys a message. Deterrence is about dialogue. Whether the Iranian government would listen to it is uncertain. But at least it would have been properly warned.

Read the whole thing. This is the best analysis that I have read of why the solution is military that was not written by John Bolton. Without a credible military threat against Iran, it will go nuclear. And 'containment' is not an option.