Israel Matzav

Friday, May 23, 2014

Introducing Muslim Voice for Peace

More here.

Labels: humor, Jewish Voice for Peace, Muslim dream of Israel's destruction, two-state solution

Thursday, September 22, 2011

Obama's chevra

Chevra is a Hebrew/Yiddish slang (sometimes pronounced chevre) which means one's crowd or circle of friends (sorry, I don't have my official dictionary of Yeshivish language with me in the US. Here are some pictures of President Obama's day on Wednesday. Note the body language. With whom does he look happy and with whom does he not. Who is Obama's chevra (Hat Tip: Will)?

Hmmm.

Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Muslim dream of Israel's destruction, Obama's friends

Saturday, March 05, 2011

Priorities

J.E. Dyer tells us a bit about the priorities of Muslim Brotherhood Shiekh Yusuf al-Qaradawi. I'm sure you'll all be shocked to hear that they have nothing to do with rebuilding Egypt.

So it is informative about the Muslim Brotherhood’s Yusuf al-Qaradawi that at this delicate juncture, he’s heading to Khartoum for a conference. The conference in question is the annual gathering sponsored by al-Qaradawi’s al-Quds International Institute (“AQII,” also called the International Jerusalem Foundation in Western translations). AQII, launched in 2000, is dedicated to “preserving the character of Jerusalem,” which last year’s conference affirmed as the “permanent capital of Arab culture.” The annual conclave, featuring impassioned perorations against the “Judaization” of Jerusalem, has been hosted in capitals from Algiers to Sana’a, Yemen, to Istanbul. The 2010 conference in Beirut was attended by delegates from Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran, along with the national representatives of Muslim Brotherhood–affiliated organizations.

If the Arab Muslims weren't so obsessed with hating the Jews and Israel, maybe they could make something of themselves. Then again, there are certain Jews about whom we could say the same thing.

Read the whole thing.

Labels: Muslim dream of Israel's destruction, Muslim Jew hatred

Thursday, February 17, 2011

Betrayal: US to support Security Council condemnation of Israel

Among the quips of New York Yankees catcher Yogi Berra, perhaps the most famous is "it ain't over 'til it's over." The other day, it looked like it really was over for a UN Security Council condemnation of Israeli 'settlement' building. But following up on its betrayal of Egypt, the Obama administration has now decided to betray Israel for good measure. And given that the vote could take place as soon as Thursday night, it really might be over.

The U.S. informed Arab governments Tuesday that it will support a U.N. Security Council statement reaffirming that the 15-nation body "does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity," a move aimed at avoiding the prospect of having to veto a stronger Palestinian resolution calling the settlements illegal.

But the Palestinians rejected the American offer following a meeting late Wednesday of Arab representatives and said it is planning to press for a vote on its resolution on Friday, according to officials familar with the issue. The decision to reject the American offer raised the prospect that the Obama adminstration will cast its first ever veto in the U.N. Security Council.

Still, the U.S. offer signaled a renewed willingness to seek a way out of the current impasse, even if it requires breaking with Israel and joining others in the council in sending a strong message to its key ally to stop its construction of new settlements. The Palestinian delegation, along with Lebanon, the Security Council's only Arab member state, have asked the council's president this evening to schedule a meeting for Friday. But it remained unclear whether the Palestinian move today to reject the U.S. offer is simply a negotiating tactic aimed at extracting a better deal from Washington.

Susan E. Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, outlined the new U.S. offer in a closed door meeting on Tuesday with the Arab Group, a bloc of Arab countries from North Africa and the Middle East. In exchange for scuttling the Palestinian resolution, the United States would support the council statement, consider supporting a U.N. Security Council visit to the Middle East, the first since 1979, and commit to supporting strong language criticizing Israel's settlement policies in a future statement by the Middle East Quartet.

The U.S.-backed draft statement -- which was first reported by Al Hurra -- was obtained by Turtle Bay. In it, the Security Council "expresses its strong opposition to any unilateral actions by any party, which cannot prejudge the outcome of negotiations and will not be recognized by the international community, and reaffirms, that it does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity, which is a serious obstacle to the peace process." The statement also condemns "all forms of violence, including rocket fire from Gaza, and stresses the need for calm and security for both peoples."

U.S. officials were not available for comment, but two Security Council diplomats confirmed the proposal. The Arab Group was scheduled to meet this afternoon to formulate a formal response to the American offer. Council diplomats said that the discussions were fluid and that there was still the possibility that the U.S. draft would be subject to further negotiations. They said it was also not yet certain that the U.S. offer would satisfy the Arab Group, and that the U.S. may be forced to veto the Palestinian resolution.

I suppose that one could argue that there are some sticks in this proposal for the Arab side too. After all, the proposed statement says that it doesn't accept unilateral action by any party (which would presumably come out against the unilateral declaration of a 'Palestinian state'), it only relates to "continued Israeli settlement activity" (and doesn't declare all the 'settlements' illegal as the 'Palestinians' wanted) and it condemns all forms of violence "including rocket fire from Gaza."

But all of that is legalistic parsing, and the clear implication of this ~~resolution~~ statement would be that the US is abandoning Israel. Omri Ceren says that's natural in light of the way that the Obama administration handled Egypt.

In a way, this is a natural follow-up to the administration’s bumbling in Egypt, where they managed to alienate all parties in the Middle East except the Muslim Brotherhood, Iran, and Iran’s assorted proxies. This gesture won’t win us any lasting goodwill from Arab elites. WikiLeaks showed that they care far more about geopolitical stability than they do about the settlements, such that the spectacle of the White House abandoning a second ally for the second week in a row would be met with worried chagrin, regardless of what they say out loud.

More to the point, and by now out of genuine curiosity: who exactly does the Obama administration envision having as a Middle East ally, say, six months from now? Strategic administration leaks about the Egypt crisis have already signaled a renewed chill in the U.S.-Israeli relationship. U.S. backing for a UN resolution wouldn’t detonate the alliance — military-to-military ties are too strong for that — but it would be the end of cooperation between this White House and this Israeli government, a government that a militarily and now diplomatically besieged Israeli public would rally behind.

And that’s before we get to how our UN mission, representing the world’s only hyperpower, seems to believe that “bargaining” means “getting progressively closer to the other side’s position.” We’re negotiating with the likes of Libya and the Hezbollah-controlled Lebanon over whether we should protect one of our last Middle East allies against a biased UN lynch mob.

On Wednesday night, a couple of hours before this report broke, an Israeli Radio commentator expressed amazement that with all that's going on in the Arab world today, the Arabs are still aggressively pursuing this resolution. After watching what has happened in Egypt, my sense is that the Wikileaks disclosures to which Omri referred reflected the views of the elites and not those of the Arabs on the street. The Arabs may be trying to save their regimes by distracting them with Israel big time. The US is apparently willing to help them out, even at the expense of throwing its most loyal ally under the bus. And the Europeans, as always, are cheering them on.

Maybe the US is hoping the 'Palestinians' will once again not miss the opportunity to miss an opportunity by saying that the Council statement isn't good enough?

What could go wrong?

Labels: Arab democracy, Muslim anti-Semitism, Muslim dream of Israel's destruction, Muslim Jew hatred, Obama's obsession with Palestinians, UN Security Council

Tuesday, February 15, 2011

The risks of a 'two-state solution'

Those of you who still believe that Israel can give up 'most of' Judea and Samaria for a 'two-state solution,' please consider this:

Key US military officials expressed their assessments of Israel's security requirements in general and of the unique role played by the Judea & Samaria mountain ridges. For instance, Lt. General (ret.) Tom Kelly, Chief of Operations in the 1991 Gulf War: "I cannot defend this land (Israel) without that terrain (West Bank)...The West Bank mountains, and especially their 5 approaches, are the critical terrain. If an enemy secures those passes, Jerusalem and Israel become uncovered. Without the West Bank, Israel is only 8 miles wide at its narrowest point. That makes it indefensible."

...

General (ret.) Al Gray, former Commandant, US Marine Corps: “Missiles fly over any terrain feature, but they don't negate the strategic significance of territorial depth. The key threat to Israel will remain the invasion and occupation by armored forces. Military success requires more than a few hundred missiles. To defeat Israel would require the Arabs to deploy armor, infantry and artillery into Israel and destroy the IDF on the ground. That was true in 1948, 1967 and 1973, and it remains true in the era of modern missiles.”

The Judea & Samaria mountain ridges constitute the most effective tank obstacle (a 3,000ft steep slope over-towering the Jordan Valley, 40 miles away from Tel Aviv and pre-1967 Israel) and a dream platform of invasion to 9-15 miles wide pre-1967 Israel (a 2,000ft moderate slope) in the most conflict-ridden, unpredictable and treacherous neighborhood in the world. Israel's control of the Judea & Samaria mountain ridges provides Israel with the time, which is required to mobilize its active reservists (75% of the military force!) in face of a surprise offensive mounted by a few Arab countries.

The pre-1967 width of the Jewish State is equal to the distance between JFK and La Guardia airports, to distance between RFK Stadium and the Kennedy Center, the length of Dallas-Fort Worth airport, to the width of Washington, DC, San Francisco and Miami and to the distance between Wall Street and Columbia University. The pre-1967 sliver along the Mediterranean is less than the distance between downtown London and Heathrow Airport, equal to a roundtrip distance between Albert hall and the Tower of London and to the distance between Bois du Boulogne and La Place de la Bastille.

The Judea & Samaria mountain ridges constitute the "Golan Heights" of Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, Ben Gurion Airport and the entire pre-1967 coastal plain of the Jewish State, the core of its population and infrastructures.

The events of the last month make it more likely that Israel will face another war with the Arab world in the foreseeable future. Let's at least start out with defensible borders.

The picture is a plane taking off from Ben Gurion Airport (in the circle) with Tel Aviv in the background. It was taken from an Arab village in Samaria.

Labels: defensible borders, Muslim dream of Israel's destruction

Friday, February 04, 2011

Learning the right lessons from the Palestinian election of 2006

In Friday’s edition, the Wall Street Journal suggests that the lesson that ought to be learned from the Palestinian election of 2006 was that Hamas should not have been allowed to run without accepting past agreements and Israel’s right to exist, and eschewing violence. Instead, Hamas was allowed to run in that election without meeting those preconditions, and won the election, leading to the eventual split between Hamas and Fatah which leaves us with two de facto Palestinian polities to this day.

Get my take on the lessons of the Palestinian election of 2006 by reading my latest article on Newsreal's Right to Exist blog here.

Labels: Fatah, Hamas, Muslim dream of Israel's destruction, Palestinian elections, Palestinian terrorism

Wednesday, December 08, 2010

Still dreaming of Israel's destruction

Khaled Abu Toameh explains why there is no peace in the Middle East. The answer is really quite simple: Most Muslims still dream of Israel's destruction.

It is sad and abhorrent to see how many Arabs have rejoiced over the big forest fire in Northern Israel, calling it a "divine punishment" for Israelis and wishing that the blaze would spread to destroy all Jews.

The messages of hate are the result of decades of incitement against Israel and Jews in the Arab media and mosques throughout the Arab and Islamic world.

The comments serve as a reminder that many people in the Arab and Islamic countries still have not come to terms with Israel's right to exist in this part of the world. Even worse, many of the talkbacks show that many Arabs and Muslims would welcome another Holocaust.

These reactions were posted on Web sites of major Arab media outlets, such as the popular Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya TV networks, and the Saudi-owned Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper.

What is troubling is that these repugnant comments appeared on Web sites that are not necessarily associated with radical Islam.

Al-Arabiya and Asharq Al-Awsat are owned by members of the Saudi royal family, which, ironically, has been frequently targeted by Muslim fundamentalist groups like Al-Qaeda.

The overwhelming majority of talkbacks that appeared on the Web sites of these three powerful media organizations in the past few days showed how many Arabs and Muslim continue to dream about the destruction of Israel.

True, some readers and viewers did not join in the "celebration" of the fire that killed more than 40 people and destroyed hundreds of thousands of trees. Some even expressed sympathy with Israel, and some even criticized Arabs and Muslims who rejoiced over the fire.

But these "positive" comments reflected the opinion of a tiny minority. For example, out of 123 comments posted on one of the Web sites, less than 15 seemed to be rational.

The hateful postings did not only come from Arab and Islamic countries and the Palestinian Authority-controlled territories, but also from Arabs living in North America, Australia, Sweden and Europe.