IDF releases new app to warn of 'security incidents'
The IDF's Home Front command has released a new app to warn of 'security incidents.' The app is available for Android and iPhones, is free, but is only visible in Israel.
The application, detailed in a call with
reporters Monday, was developed by a staff of some 15 people in the Home
Front Command, which oversees civilian preparedness. It was launched
this month on Android and Apple devices.
Called “Home Front Command,” the application aims to improve on
several civilian-developed counterparts that alert Israelis to the
warning sirens that blare ahead of incoming missiles. Those applications
gained popularity during the 2014 war in Gaza, but alert users to every
siren across the country.
The IDF’s alternative will track users based on their GPS location,
and alert them only to threats in their immediate area. It will cover a
range of emergencies — from earthquakes to terror attacks to incoming
rockets. In addition to warning users of the threat, the application
will provide instructions on how to respond. It will be available in
four languages — Hebrew, English, Arabic and Russian — though it will
not be available for download outside Israel.
In addition to the sirens spread throughout the country, the Home
Front Command sends text message warnings to Israelis’ phones and
broadcasts them on the TV and radio. Lt. Col. Shlomi Maman, the Home
Front Command’s alert branch commander, said the army wants to localize
warnings as much as possible — even by neighborhood — so as to avoid
needlessly worrying civilians.
“We view a warning that reaches a citizen who didn’t need to receive
it just like someone who needed to receive [a warning] and did not,”
Maman said in the briefing. “This project is to make it more selective.”
I wonder how Israelis will feel about the IDF knowing their location all times (theoretically). Hmmm.
“There is a 47 mile long “Open Border” with Mexico. This makes It is
very convenient for terrorists because what they do is fly to Mexico
City, then fly to Ciudad Juarez. The beginning of the “open border zone”
is literally 11 miles from the Juarez airport.
...
So think for a second an open border within 11 miles of a major
international airport. How convenient is that for the terrorists, called
”Other than Mexican’s” to cross into the USA/ Your government tax
dollars at work. If you don’t want to get your feet too wet you continue
east and come across the border between Esperanza and Fort Hancock
where the river is less than 6 inches deep. We put almost 100
miles on our car criss-crossing this 47 mile long open zone and we did
not find one…..Not one Border Patrol agent guarding the border.
So we drove and drove and we drove some more; we looked and we
searched… We put almost 100 miles on our car criss crossing this 47 mile
long open zone and we did not find one…..Not one Border Patrol agent
guarding the border.
So a Border Patrol agent in El Paso told me a 75%
reduction in field staffing in East County (the open border zone). The
correct answer from our research is that there is 100% stand down of
border patrol agents allowing any and everyone to cross over the open
unsecured borders into the USA.
Regardless of your political affiliation you really have to wonder what is going on here. The people coming into Estados Undios/United States here are not Mexicans. They are categorized as OTM (Other than Mexican).
They routinely caught people from (the following countries)….
Iran
Iraq
Pakistan
Egypt
Syria
Yemen
Turkey
...
(Editor’s Note: This is a who’s who list of countries containing terrorists
who want to do harm to all Americans. It is also interesting to note
that many of the countries listed in the Barber Report include the same
countries that we see in Refugee/Resettlement
programs which are bringing tens of thousands of unscreened immigrants
into the U.S. Further, this reports casts the OTM invasion of the United
States, last summer, in a different light. Last summer’s border
invasion was a cover for ISIS to set up camps and prepare to strike at targets inside of the United States....)
“When we take a big ISIS hit and we will! You now
know where our government let them into this country. You will know how
they circumvented the internal Border Patrol checkpoints which are too
busy arresting legal Americans and seizing their cash… El Paso, which is
the only major city in the United States where you can not leave the
area without being checked at an internal Border Patrol checkpoint. It
is curious that the government says these checkpoints are to enforce
immigration laws yet over 84% of those arrested at these internal checkpoints are legal United States Citizens .
The fines from these arrests are a source of revenue for the Obama
administration. If you have over $1000 in cash on you that is legally
yours, “they” (your USA government) seizes/ your money…
Why did I mention Chicago in the title? Read it all to find out.
Congressman: 'I felt safer in Israel than in New York, Chicago... or Baltimore'
For those of you who fear visiting or moving to Israel because it's 'unsafe,' Representative Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga) has a message for you.
“The whole time we were there, of course, we had security with us,
but there was no restrictions on travel, we never felt threatened one
bit — unless you’re threatened by the merchants in the Old City trying
to get you to come in their shops,” Loudermilk told Washington Watch, the radio show of the conservative Family Research Council.
“In fact, I can say that we felt safer in Israel than we would in certain parts of New York City or Chicago,” Loudermilk said.
“Yeah — or Baltimore, I would think, as well,” interjected host Tony Perkins.
A senior official in Jerusalem said that the reason that the
minister's visa request was turned down was because he intended to pass
through Ben-Gurion International Airport for the purposes of visiting
the Palestinian Authority, rather than visiting Israel.
Another reason, the official said, was Nzimande's radically anti-Israel stance.
Nzimande is a communist who serves in the South
African parliament as a member of the ANC coalition. In the past he has
supported an academic boycott against Israel and on one occasion he
demanded the expulsion of the Israeli ambassador to Pretoria.
Nzimande was invited to Ramallah by his Palestinian
counterpart to promote research collaboration between the University of
Johannesburg and Palestinian institutions in Palestine. He was due to
be there from April 25 – 29.
The minister responded harshly to the decision not
to give him a visa. "The Israeli government is trying to use all the
means at its disposal to hide its atrocities against the Palestinians
and to ensure that only the smallest number of people see what is really
happening in the land under its control," he told the South African
media.
Nzimande added that he would call on all higher
education institutions in his country to immediately freeze their
contacts with Israeli universities.
At this stage, Nzimande has not received the
support of South African President Jacob Zuma or that country's foreign
ministry. Until now, no government minister has come to his defense.
But the South African Communist party came to Nzimande's defense and that drew a strong reaction from Israel's Foreign Minister, Avigdor Lieberman.
“The wild attacks by the South African Community Party against Israel
following our refusal to allow the higher education minister to pass
through Israel en route to the Palestinian Authority is hypocrisy,”
Liberman said.
“It was only a few days ago that a violent, racist
attack was perpetrated against foreigners in Johannesburg,” the foreign
minister said. “There was also vandalism and destruction of property.
The end result was many deaths and wounded.”
“As part of the
rioting, South African police fired rubber-coated bullets and stun
grenades at other migrants from neighboring African countries,” Liberman
said. “These events and others prove once again that South Africa
remains a country with serious problems of racism and violence.”
“That’s
why it would behoove the South African government and the Communist
Party to stop preaching morality and attacking Israel, which is a great
democracy that is exceptionally coping with threats and terrorist
elements while making maximal effort to preserve human rights and
international norms of behavior.”
If South Africa was forced to
contend with Israel’s security predicament, “blood would be awash in the
streets there,” Liberman said.
“In this light, it’s no surprise
that the Communist Party prefers the Palestinians over Israel,” he
said. “It is a case of like attracting like.”
I can think of some other politicians who think the same way as Nzimande. One of them is the President of the United States. But as I have said many times, no country is obligated to allow unfettered access to its borders. Certainly not Israel.
The exact location where the terrorist group has established its base
is around eight miles from the U.S. border in an area known as “Anapra”
situated just west of Ciudad Juárez in the Mexican state of Chihuahua.
Another ISIS cell to the west of Ciudad Juárez, in Puerto Palomas,
targets the New Mexico towns of Columbus and Deming for easy access to
the United States, the same knowledgeable sources confirm.
During the course of a joint operation last week, Mexican Army and
federal law enforcement officials discovered documents in Arabic and
Urdu, as well as “plans” of Fort Bliss – the sprawling military
installation that houses the US Army’s 1st Armored Division. Muslim prayer rugs were recovered with the documents during the operation.
Law enforcement and intelligence sources report the area around
Anapra is dominated by the Vicente Carrillo Fuentes Cartel (“Juárez
Cartel”), La Línea (the enforcement arm of the cartel) and the Barrio
Azteca (a gang originally formed in the jails of El Paso). Cartel
control of the Anapra area make it an extremely dangerous and hostile
operating environment for Mexican Army and Federal Police operations.
According to these same sources, “coyotes” engaged in human smuggling
– and working for Juárez Cartel – help move ISIS terrorists through the
desert and across the border between Santa Teresa and Sunland Park, New
Mexico. To the east of El Paso and Ciudad Juárez, cartel-backed
“coyotes” are also smuggling ISIS terrorists through the porous border
between Acala and Fort Hancock, Texas. These specific areas were
targeted for exploitation by ISIS because of their understaffed
municipal and county police forces, and the relative safe-havens the
areas provide for the unchecked large-scale drug smuggling that was
already ongoing.
Mexican intelligence sources report that ISIS intends to exploit the
railways and airport facilities in the vicinity of Santa Teresa, NM (a
US port-of-entry). The sources also say that ISIS has “spotters” located
in the East Potrillo Mountains of New Mexico (largely managed by the
Bureau of Land Management) to assist with terrorist border crossing
operations. ISIS is conducting reconnaissance of regional universities;
the White Sands Missile Range; government facilities in Alamogordo, NM;
Ft. Bliss; and the electrical power facilities near Anapra and
Chaparral, NM.
In the meanwhile, the Obama administration has legalized the presence of millions of illegal immigrants in the United States without any kind of background checks. Some of them are likely Islamist terrorists.
White House orders Netanyahu to condemn Yaalon comments on Kerry
In an earlier post, I reported on a Yedioth Aharonoth story that had Defense Minister Moshe "Boogie" Yaalon calling US Secretary of State John FN Kerry 'messianic and obsessive' (or perhaps in 'obsessive messianic'). Now, Prime Minister Netanyahu has been ordered by the White House to condemn or distance himself (the Hebrew word that Israel Radio used in its 11:00 pm broadcast was להסתייג which means to distance oneself) Yaalon's comments.
Washington reacted angrily Tuesday to the disparaging comments of
US Secretary of State John Kerry and his diplomatic efforts attributed
to Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon, saying the US expects more from "a
close ally."
The US, one senior US official said, expected Prime Minister Binyamin
Netanyahu to issue a statement distancing himself from the remarks.
...
A US State Department official responded by saying that [Yaalon's]remarks,
if accurate, "are offensive and inappropriate, especially given all that
the United States is doing to support Israel's security needs."
"Kerry
and his team, including General Allen, have been working day and night
to try to promote a secure peace for Israel because of the Secretary's
deep concern for Israel's future," the official said. "To question his
motives and distort his proposals is not something we would expect from
the Defense Minister of a close ally.'
Ya'alon, who came under a
barrage of criticism from various corners for his comments, including a
jab from Netanyahu from the Knesset podium, issued a statement pledging
to smooth over divisions with the US.
Relations between the US and
Israel are "intimate and of great significance for us. The US is our
greatest friend and most important ally, and when there are divisions we
work them over behind closed doors, including with Secretary of State
Kerry, with whom I hold many talks about the future of Israel," the
statement said.
The statement did not deny that Ya'alon made the remarks.
The bickering continues between the White House and Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon, as a Channel 2 report surfaces Tuesday states that Washington expects Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to publicly condemn Yaalon's criticism.
A "senior source" from Washington allegedly told the news outlet that
Netanyahu is expected to reject Yaalon's comments, which ripped apart
the security plan US Secretary of State John Kerry has laid out for the
Jordan Valley. Both the plan and the US itself are widely held, by analysts and the public
alike, to be distant from the reality of Israel's security needs and
the heart of the ongoing threat Israel faces from the Palestinian
Arabs.
The effect that such a rejection - or lack thereof - could have on
US-Israel relations remains unconfirmed at present, as does the report
itself.
Meanwhile, the US has expressed dismay at the spirit behind the comments.
"The remarks of the defense minister, if accurate, are offensive
and inappropriate especially given all that the United States is doing
to support Israel's security needs," spokeswoman Jennifer Psaki claimed to reporters
Tuesday. "To question his motives and distort his proposals is not
something we would expect from the defense minister of a close ally,"
she said.
Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon clarified on Tuesday evening that he
had no intention of offending U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry.
“Israel and the United states share a common goal to advance the
peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians led by Secretary Kerry,”
said a statement by Yaalon’s office.
“We appreciate Secretary Kerry's many efforts towards that end. The
defense minister had no intention to cause any offense to the secretary,
and he apologizes if the secretary was offended by words attributed to
the minister,” added the statement.
The 'secular branch' of the Jewish Home party produced this video preview (which has some parts that are Hebrew only but includes a lot of English). It's a parody about the American 'security plan' for the 'two-state solution.'
Maariv, a Hebrew-only daily, reports that the Defense Ministry has told the United States that it cannot accept the American 'security plan' for Israel and the 'Palestinians.'
The US's security plan
involves a slow transition from IDF patrols over the region to
Palestinian Authority (PA) forces, with an international presence,
according to reports. IDF drones would also be deployed over the area,
as a means of gathering information about any terrorist activity that
could potentially develop there.
The Israeli government has insisted that the region is of crucial
importance to Israel's future, and has been critical of plans to hand
over the area to the PA. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has insisted
that in the event that Israel withdrew from Judea and Samaria, as per Kerry's plans, the Jordan Valley be kept under Israeli control.
The US's plan is based on the 1967 "Allon Plan," which received wide
acclaim at the time. The plan insists that the Jordan Valley is the key
to Israel's security, even in the event of a withdrawal to 1949
Armistice Lines; however, analysts have noted that the rest of Judea and Samaria is actually more crucial to Israel's security than the Jordan Valley itself.
Despite this, the Israeli government has insisted that its only "red
line" would be maintaining its presence in the Valley. On Sunday, a
Ministerial Cabinet approved a bill to annex the Valley on that premise.
Read the last clause of the second sentence of the third paragraph again:
however, analysts have noted that the rest of Judea and Samaria is actually more crucial to Israel's security than the Jordan Valley itself.
If that's true - and one look at a topographical map makes it very obvious why that's true - why is Israel obsessing with the Jordan Valley. In my view, it's a gamble to kill the deal altogether. If Israel were insisting on the high ground of the Samarian mountains (which is what really is critical from a security perspective), then you could in theory reach a compromise on the borders.
But if we insist on the Jordan Valley - and on what would be a logistical nightmare of transiting people between Jerusalem and the Jordan Valley through the 'Palestinian state' on a regular basis - I believe that insistence is grounded in the hope (at least at the Defense Ministry - I believe that Netanyahu genuinely wants a deal) that it will cause the 'negotiations' to bog down and collapse.
Right now, that potential collapse of the 'negotiations' may be our best hope.
A great piece on building in Jerusalem by Nadav Shragai (who, incredibly, used to write for Haaretz!) in Israel HaYom.
We've
almost forgotten, but Zionism was formed in Zion. Building in Jerusalem
-- the manifestation of the Jewish right to return to the homeland -- is
Zionism. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and his European
counterparts may not applaud those sentiments, but its high time we got
used to that. More importantly -- Kerry has, for months, been speaking
to us in one language, the language of security and security
arrangements. We need to remind Kerry that Jews are living in Jerusalem
and other cities and towns in Israel because of our bond and right to
the land itself, not for the sake of security. We absolutely need to
hold a discussion with Kerry and his counterparts about Jewish rights.
That's what the Palestinians have done and that's what we need to do.
Security is indeed a goal in and of itself, but it's also a means, and
we tend to ignore that fact. Building in Jerusalem is the perfect
reminder that we are living here in Israel not simply thanks to our
might (which is extremely important), but more importantly by the might
of our right.
Whether or not we
release terrorists from prison, we must speed up our building in and
around Jerusalem for other reasons as well. There's a struggle in the
city and its environs that the public does not know about. That struggle
is going to determine whether Israel could divide Jerusalem -- as the
Left so desires -- or not. As Israelis and Palestinians compete to
develop various parts of the city (most Palestinian development is
illegal), urban contiguity is called into question.
Take,
for example, the Jewish neighborhood in Shimon Hatzadik-Sheikh Jarrah,
which is only half finished. The city, under government orders, has
halted construction. Once complete, the community would connect the
neighborhoods of Ramot Eshkol and Maalot Dafna with Mount Scopus, where
the Hadassah Medical Center and Hebrew University are located. If we
don't tighten our grip on Sheikh Jarrah-Shimon Hatzadik, the
Palestinians are going to do it themselves, bolstering their claims to
the area as part of a final arrangement. Disconnecting Mount Scopus from
the rest of Jerusalem -- before 1967 it was tiny enclave administered
by the U.N. -- is one of the possible outcomes of that scenario.
The picture is similar
over the hills between Jerusalem and Maaleh Adumim (inside the E1 zone).
The U.S. has so far prevented Israel from building there, but the
consequences of that decision are acute: Either there will be contiguous
Israeli development from west to east, connecting Maaleh Adumim to
Jerusalem, or contiguous Palestinian development from north to south,
which would sever Maaleh Adumim from the capital. In the meantime, the
Israelis have stopped building, while the Bedouin, encouraged by the
Palestinians to disregard the Israeli authorities, are continuing to
build. Even the fragile Israeli link between downtown Jerusalem and the
string of neighborhoods Israel built up after 1967 is not secure.
Between the two, there are swaths of land that, lacking Israeli
development, the Palestinians will utilize.
Housing in the capital is also a
pressing matter. Some 18,000 Jews leave the city every year. Prices have
skyrocketed because of the great demand and minimal supply. The Arabs
also use the demographic angle to their advantage -- the Jewish majority
is shrinking all the time. For these reasons and more, when Israel
decides to build, it needs to be in the direction of Jerusalem.
We will consider the strategic wisdom of his plans for defending
Israel from threats east of the Jordan River presently. But first we
need to ask whether a threat from across the border would really be the
only significant threat that Israel would face after surrendering Judea,
Samaria and much of Jerusalem to the PLO.
The answer to this question is obvious to every Israeli who has been
awake for the past 20 years, since Israel started down the “land for
peace” road with the PLO.
The greatest threat Israel will face in an era of “peace” with the
Palestinians will not come from east of the Jordan. It will come from
west of the Jordan – from the Jew-free Palestinian state.
The Palestinians don’t give us peace for land. They give us war for
land. Whether they support the PLO, Hamas or anything in between, the
Palestinians have used every centimeter of land that Israel has given
them as launching bases for terrorist and political attacks against
Israel.
There is no peace camp in Palestinian society. There are only
terrorist organizations that compete for power and turf. And to the
extent there are moderates in Palestinian society, they are empowered
when Israel is in control, and weakened when Israel transfers power to
the PLO.
More popcorn needed: 'Palestinians' accuse Kerry of 'appeasing Israel' over Iran
I don't think we're going to see John Kerry hugging Saeb Erekat or Yasser Abed Rabbo any time soon. Abed Rabbo attacked Kerry on Monday for seeking to appease Israel over Iran by his positions in the 'negotiations' with the 'Palestinians.'
But Abed Rabbo
told Voice of Palestine radio that Kerry had plunged the process into
crisis by seeking to "appease Israel through agreeing to its expansion
demands in the (Jordan) Valley under the pretext of security."
US
acquiescence to Israel's security demands was aimed at "silencing the
Israelis over the deal with Iran and achieving a fake progress in the
Palestinian-Israeli track at our expense", he said.
Abed Rabbo
was referring to the Nov. 24 interim accord reached in Geneva between
world powers and Iran, whereby it agreed to some curbs on its disputed
nuclear program in exchange for the easing of international sanctions.
"These
two issues concern both Israel's security and our security and the
interests of all the Middle East, that it be a more quiet and stable
region. But we do not see any linkage in which we seek to give on one
issue and receive on the other," Shapiro told Israel's Army Radio.
Shapiro's comment is pretty ironic given that the Obama administration has tried for the last five years to link Iran to the 'Palestinians,' claiming that Israel would never get the support of the Arab countries for an attack on Iran without their first being a 'Palestinian state.'
Israel
has not commented on the US proposals but cabinet minister Yaakov Peri
said on Sunday the government had not yet agreed to them.
That may well be true. But it's clear that the US position on the security proposals is closer to Israel's than to the 'Palestinians.'
"The Palestinian side rejected them
because they would only lead to prolonging and maintaining the
occupation," the official said, referring to Israel's hold on the West
Bank, among territories where Palestinians seek statehood.
...
One of the main obstacles in
the talks up until now is believed to be the issue of whether Israel
will retain a security presence along the Jordan River after any
agreement.
Kerry said that retired US general John Allen, who he
described as one of the best military minds in the US, has been charged
by US President Barack Obama with analyzing the security aspects of any
future agreement and "ensuring the security arrangement that we might
contemplate in the context of this process will provide for greater
security for Israel."
I would not hold my breath waiting for the Obama administration to conclude that it's the 'Palestinians' who are preventing an agreement. But a few more indicators like this one could push some members of Congress to start speaking out.
In
the past, the IDF’s Southern Command placed soldiers at the entrance to nine
towns and villages near the Gaza and Egypt borders, while the Northern Command
secured 13 frontier communities in this way.
Evaluations carried out at
IDF headquarters concluded that enhanced border security measures, such as
electronic sensors, patrols and lookout posts, combined with additional
components, meant that the practice of placing soldiers inside the communities
is no longer necessary.
“We know where the threats come from, what routes
threats could take, and we understand these measures are no longer needed,” the
source said. “The need to defend communities from the inside seems less
relevant,” he stated. Operational considerations rather than budgetary
constraints lay behind the move, he added.
But if this is really an operational decision, how do you explain this?
But Shlomo Vaknin,
in charge of security for the Council of Jewish Communities of Judea and Samaria
said that 20 West Bank settlements would also be impacted by the new security
arrangements.
The IDF has notified these settlements that 17 soldiers
will be removed from their security details by October 1, and that anywhere from
23 to 33 soldiers will be taken off the details as of January 1, Vaknin
said.
Soldiers will continue to guard the settlements, he said, but the
number in each settlement will now be reduced. He added that the move harms
smaller settlements that have less resources to make up the gap. Although the
settlements could sustain the cuts, Vaknin said, he was concerned by the
implications of the move, fearing they could lead to further
cutbacks.
Council spokesman Yigal Delmonti noted that 33 soldiers had
already been cut from security details in settlements in Judea and Samaria a few
months ago.
These communities are under threat of infiltration, Delmonti
said, and past experience has shown that such infiltration can have tragic
results.
The area around settlements in Judea and Samaria is not secured
by the same physical and technological barriers as are border communities and,
as a result, they are more reliant on IDF security details, he said.
This is a disaster waiting to happen, R"L (God save us).
As you may know from reading my blog, I was born and bred in Boston (in fact, so were both of my parents of blessed memory), and have lived in Israel for nearly 22 years. Due to circumstances, over the past six years or so, I have spent a lot of time in Boston, visiting the city more than 20 times. So despite the fact that I have not lived in Boston for nearly 40 years, I actually know the city quite well.
I also ran the Boston Marathon myself in 1991. My official time for that race was something around 3:34. It wasn't my best ever (and it took me about five minutes to get to the starting line - that's how it worked back then), but it was an amazing experience. I've run several marathons, so I know how the finish line works and I know how the finish line in Boston works. After loudly cheering me on Heartbreak Hill, my wife and kids (there were only three then) met me at the finish line, just like those people who had their legs blown off - God forbid - were trying to do yesterday.
As an Israeli, I am also too familiar with the trauma that you suffered yesterday. We Israelis went through a period from 1996 - and particularly from 2000 - until 2004, in which we never knew whether our loved ones would return when we bid them good bye in the morning. The worst part was the bus bombings and that often our kids chose to take the buses or had to take the buses. And then there were the bombings at popular hangouts like Ben Yehuda Street (I recently met someone who lost a son in that one) and the restaurants in the German Colony (one of my daughter's childhood friends was murdered in one of those the night before her wedding). But society had to go on functioning and so we did. I'd like to share with you how we functioned over those years - and how we continue to function to make sure that they don't return - so that you can learn from our experience.
First, you must acknowledge that there are people out there who want to kill you, or who at least want to take away your freedom. While it's possible to count your blessings in Monday's terror attack, and say that we are fortunate that 'only' three people died so far (God willing, all of the rest of the injured should have full and speedy recoveries), the fact of the matter is that you know and I know that you are going to find it more difficult than before to be in crowded places, at least for the foreseeable future. While terror attacks can happen anywhere, they are much more likely to happen in crowded places where they can get lots of publicity. Avoiding crowded places is almost impossible for urban dwellers in modern society. And so, you have to cope.
The way we cope here in Israel is that we have security guards that insist on not-so-random searches before you're able to access any crowded public area. That means open your bags and walk through the metal detector. It doesn't take that long, but for years we Israelis have been doing it each and every time we walk into a shopping mall or a movie theater and most of the times (not as often as before) that we walk into restaurants. The people doing the searching aren't high school dropouts. They're trained to do this. The army and the police train them in how to spot terrorists. And yes, despite what your government tells you, people who are trying to scare you with random killings are terrorists. We don't search 3-year olds in wheelchairs on their way to Disney World, but we do search people who look suspicious. Just the fact that they are going to be searched is enough to keep many terrorists away. They know that the odds are high that they will be caught before they can commit an act of terrorism.
In Israel, no one would have had access to that waiting area near the Marathon finish line without being searched and having their bags searched. No one.
I know that some of you are reading this and saying that you don't want
to be searched every time you go out in public and that the constitution
says you cannot be subjected to unreasonable search and seizure. I know
that your next door neighbor's motto is 'live free or die.' Like
everything else today, that's got to be read in a nuanced fashion. I'm
going to put it very bluntly: The small inconvenience of being searched
is worth it to avoid very permanent and complete death. After a while, you won't even notice it. But it can save your life and the lives of your loved ones.
Second, you must control your borders. Our government built a 'security fence' and continues to have the IDF operate within Judea and Samaria to find the terrorists before they try anything. Most of them no longer get near our major cities. Your government has to keep the terrorists away from you. We all know where they come from. 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were Saudi nationals. The rest were also from the Middle East, and they weren't Jews or Bahais or Zorostrians or Copts. Why is your government giving the Saudisfree access to the United States? You should at least run background checks before you let people into the country. You're not required to let anyone enter or stay who is not a US citizen. Why let people in whom you think might want to kill you? We don't.
My description is probably an oversimplification, but it's really all you need to do. Keep the bad guys out. Keep them out of your country, or if they're already in your country (because you've been letting them in for way too long), at least keep them away from target rich environments. Your police and the FBI know exactly how to do it... if only your government would let them.
If you agree with this letter, please send it to your elected representatives. I get chills every time I walk into a mall or a major store in Boston. All I think about is who else might be walking in with me. I will be back in Boston in the future. I'd rather not feel I'm risking my life from the moment I get off the plane. Please think about it.
US Secretary of State John FN Kerry doesn't get it, and until he does, he will not even be able to articulate the problem in this area, let alone work on solutions.
Kerry has adopted the 'Palestinian' narrative that it's all about borders and security. But Carlo Strenger points out that there's a much bigger problem, and that problem is existential.
[I]t's important to clearly state the main reasons
why simply getting Israel and Palestine to the negotiating table is
likely to lead to another resounding failure:
The
first is that no Israeli Prime Minister will be able to retreat to the
1967 lines in the foreseeable future without a dramatic change in
Israel’s security situation. Israelis are too traumatized by the second
intifada and the rocket attacks from Gaza that fell after Israel’s
withdrawal. They want assurances that Israel’s population centers will
not be subject to such rocket attacks in the future.
The
second reason is that no such assurances can be made as long as Hamas
is committed to the destruction of Israel. Israel’s position is that as
long as Hamas refuses to recognize Israel, no peace agreement with the
Palestinians is worth the paper on which it's written.
The
third is that Netanyahu and much of Israel’s right thinks that the
world misinterprets the Middle Eastern conflict as being about Israel
and Palestine, whereas it is really about the Arab world not accepting
Israel’s existence. Hence no peace agreement with the Palestinians truly
safeguards Israel’s long-term future.
Four:
Most observers in the Western world underestimate the power of the
Palestinian national ethos. Many Palestinians indeed do not see
establishing a state in the 1967 borders as the end of conflict. The
refugees’ right of return is deeply entrenched in the Palestinian ethos
and no Palestinian leader will have the legitimacy to renounce their
right of return. But without such renunciation, no Israeli Prime
Minister can sign anything. Israelis are afraid that after retreating to
the 1967 borders, Palestinians will begin a new process of demanding
the right of return into pre-1967 Israel, and that the retreat will have
done nothing to resolve the problem. This is why Netanyahu insists that
Palestinians must recognize Israel as a Jewish state, i.e. that they
renounce any rights to pre-1967 borders.
Five:
Kerry may be underestimating the strength of those in Israel who oppose
any Palestinian state west of the Jordan River. This is the official
position of Naftali Bennett’s Habayit Hayehudi party and at least half
of Likud MKs, all of whom openly reject the two-state solution.
But this is Obama's last term in office, and he really, really wants a solution.
Woman sues ISM'er before Judge Judy after being denied entry to Israel
This is rich.
A woman sued a former friend before television's Judge Judy (Sheindlin). The friend refused to pay the $900 cost of his ticket to Israel because the pair were denied entry into the country. They were denied entry because - you guessed it - they are pro-'Palestinian' 'activists.'
Here's Soccer Dad's Middle East Media Sampler for Friday, January 13.
1) Is Arthur Brisbane the Bernard Goetz of newspaper editors?
Arthur Brisbane is the public editor of the New York Times and his latest column, Should the Times be a truth vigilante, is causing quite a stir. Brisbane writes:
This message was typical of mail from some readers who, fed up with the distortions and evasions that are common in public life, look to The Times to set the record straight. They worry less about reporters imposing their judgment on what is false and what is true. Is that the prevailing view? And if so, how can The Times do this in a way that is objective and fair? Is it possible to be objective and fair when the reporter is choosing to correct one fact over another? Are there other problems that The Times would face that I haven’t mentioned here? Throughout the 2012 presidential campaign debates, The Times has employed a separate fact-check sidebar to assess the validity of the candidates’ statements. Do you like this feature, or would you rather it be incorporated into regular reporting? How should The Times continue a function like this when we move to the general campaign and there’s less time spent in debates and more time on the road?
Unsurprisingly the two targets of Brisbane's column are Republicans, whom the readers felt should have been fact checked on the spot. But my issue here is a different bias. A year ago, I wrote an e-mail to Brisbane's office about factual errors included in its Middle East reporting. I made three main points.
My first point was that the New York Times did not report that the IDF had exonerated its troops in the death of Jawaher Abu Rahma, who supposedly had been killed by tear gas. I pointed out that though both the paper's regular reporter Isabel Kershner and blogger Robert Mackey had reported on this story it was their duty to report the result of the investigation. Further, I pointed out that since there were no documented cases of anyone dying of tear gas inhalation in an open space, the charge should have been treated skeptically from the start and not accepted without questions.
My next question had to do with the results of Israel's inquiry into the Mavi Marmara raid. I noted that though the report was generally solid, it played up the international outrage over the raid and ignored until the very end, that video from the raid showed that the sailors boarding were indeed attacked, effectively confirming Israel's account regardless of outrage.
Finally, I asked why when reporting about the Palestine Papers that the reporter, Ethan Bronner wrote about the flexibility of Palestinian negotiators when their own public statements showed otherwise?
(I asked a fourth question, but it was about International Herald Tribune, which was outside of the purview of the public editor's office.) I got an e-mail back that said, in part, "[w]ith regards to points 1 -3 , Mr. Brisbane plans on writing a column at some point in the future over The Times coverage of the middle east."
Indeed, Brisbane addressed the New York Times coverage of the Middle East a few months later. It was full of platitudes, such as reporting on the Middle East is the "third rail" of journalism and that since both sides criticized the Times, they must be doing something right.
I'm not disagreeing that reporters should seek to tell the truth, but given that Brisbane wasn't willing to address my points (and do his job), I can't believe that the truth is his or his paper's objective. If this vigilantism is adopted, the New York Times bias will become even worse.
2) Security concerns is a euphemism for anti-Israel sentiment
Foreign Ministry spokesman Amr Roshdi said the decision to cancel Saturday’s event at the tomb of Jewish holy man Rabbi Yaakov Abu Hatzira had been relayed to Israeli officials and reflected a wish not to “provoke public discussion on the relationship with Israel.” The festival, which draws hundreds of Israeli pilgrims annually, has often sparked angry reactions from local villagers objecting to the intensive security arrangements. “The situation is not suitable to have it this year with all that’s going on in Egypt: the elections, the police trying to reassert control and the protests,” Roshdi said.
But then the article continues:
The government’s move underscores the changing relationship between Israel and post-Hosni Mubarak Egypt. The former president maintained relations with Israel, as laid out in the 1979 Camp David peace treaty, in part by curbing civil liberties with his expansive police force. Since his ouster last winter, anti-Israeli sentiment driven by Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians has risen to the surface, and Israeli-Egyptian tensions have grown.
This isn't a quote from an Egyptian activist, but stated as fact by two reporters that Mubarak maintained the peace treaty by "curbing civil liberties." This is outrageous. The peace treaty governed relations between Egypt and Israel; whatever Mubarak did to his own people is outside the scope of the treaty.
While the report mentions local villagers who were angry with the celebration, there is more to the story. Elder of Ziyon notes that there is more to the objections than security arrangements.
3) The Palestinians and the irony of the Arab spring
But what I found was not a man seeking to reach out the olive branch. It was a man who had seen how the Middle East had been reshaped and who now believed – or so he said – that his version of the Palestinians' destiny might now be on the point of being realised. "The Palestinian cause is winning," he told me. "With the Muslim Brotherhood part of the government [in Egypt], they [the Egyptians] will not besiege Gaza. They will not arrest Palestinians. They will not give cover to Israel to launch a war. Gaza was a main reason for the Arab Spring. It was people's anger at the regimes that co-operated with Israel and did not recognise the government here. "Israel is disturbed by this. It knows the strategic environment is changing. Iran is an enemy. Relations are deteriorating with Turkey. With Egypt, they are really cold. Israel is in a security situation they have never been in before. The Palestinians are winning more than anybody else due to what's happening in the Arab countries. That will come out clearly in the future."
Haniyeh definitely has a point; empowering the "Arab street" has had the effect of radicalizing the Middle East and making the Arab world even less sympathetic towards Israel. But as Hillel Frish points out (.pdf via Daily Alert blog):
Both Mahmoud Abbas’ Palestinian Authority and the Hamas government in Gaza are cut from the same cloth as the regimes of the old Arab order. They are one-party police-states whose main line of business is suppressing the opposition, incarcerating political prisoners, and denying media freedoms to the opposition. The rump parliaments in both the West Bank and Gaza have been moribund since the outbreak of Palestinian civil war in 2006. The PLO itself is the ultimate example of the old Arab order. The dozen or more factions that constitute the PLO are over forty years old; yet in none of them has leadership change taken place except through the natural or unnatural death of the leader. The same can be said of the relatively younger Islamist Jihad al-Islami and Hamas movements. There is no internal democracy in these groups. Remember: More than anything, the Arab upheavals of the past year are about instituting a change of leadership in the Arab world. The Palestinians are having none of that.
There are those who view Israeli/Palestinian peacemaking through the lens of the Arab spring. From that perspective Israel is not cooperating with the message of the Arab spring as it is denying the Palestinians their freedom. This is ridiculous. The only reason the Palestinians don't have greater independence now is because their leadership refuses to negotiate (in good faith) with Israel.
If there's any similarity between the Arab spring and the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, it could be the ongoing unity negotiations between Fatah and Hamas, which seem to be popular among Palestinians. However, as Dr. Frish points out, if one looks at the accountability aspect of the Arab spring, it has passed the Palestinians by, as their entrenched leadership is as entrenched as ever.
4) Ross's agenda
I wrote previously about Dennis Ross's recent op-ed in the Washington Post. I had only seen it as advocating a new "confidence building measure." Israel Matzav, however, believes that Ross's agenda has a different unsettling angle to it. Previously Israel Matzav had observed that the EU is trying to make Area C under the Oslo Accords, Palestinian territory.
The Europeans have decided that they are not going to let signed agreements between the parties get in the way of attempting to force Israel back to the indefensible 1967 borders 1949 armistice lines that resulted from British efforts to quash the nascent Jewish state. The Europeans are going to attempt to undermine Jewish sovereignty over Area C - which as noted was agreed to by the 'Palestinians' themselves as part of the Oslo accords - by undertaking 'Palestinian' projects in that area without Israeli cooperation or approval.
Reading over the earlier Israel Matzav post, a few things come to mind.
Even at the end of his life, Yitzchak Rabin never envisioned a Palestinian state. Now Binyamin Netanyahu has stated that he understands the necessity of one. For one thing, those who claim that Israel's government is extremely right wing, fail to acknowledge how far Israel has come politically in the past 18+ years. The position now held by Likud, was roughly the position of Peace Now in 1993.
A related points is that the Palestinian leadership has not changed significantly in the same time. The pretext for decriminalizing the PLO was that it had abandoned terror. Yet for at least a decade after signing Oslo, Yasser Arafat either turned a blind eye to terror or actively encouraged it. Even now "moderate" Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas seems more interested in reaching an accommodation with the unrepentant Hamas than with Israel. Furthermore, if reports are to be believed, the most popular Palestinian politician now is Marwan Barghouti currently in jail for his role in multiple fatal terror attacks. The same people who despair that Israel must make peace lest it have to choose between being a Jewish state and a democratic state, and possibly lose its legitimacy are not so concerned that the Palestinian continued embrace of terror somehow endangers the legitimacy of a prospective Palestinian state.
Finally, it's worth noting that over the years Israel has been pressured to engage in "confidence building measures." These measures have usually involved giving the Palestinians greater freedom of movement, freeing prisoners or freezing the building of "settlements." Rather than building confidence, these actions have hardened the Palestinian position. Usually there was no reciprocal demand made on the Palestinians and the Palestinians made the Israeli measures the new baseline for negotiations.
Israel agrees to submit proposal on borders and security within three months
Israel has acceded to a request by the Middle East quartet to submit a comprehensive proposal on borders and security within three months. The 'Palestinians' have agreed to do the same.
The statement, put out following separate meetings the Quartet envoys and Quartet representative Tony Blair held in Jerusalem with Israeli and Palestinian officials on Wednesday, said the parties agreed with the Quartet to "come forward with comprehensive proposals on territory and security within three months."
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has been very reticent about presenting a detailed map of where he envisions a future Palestinian state, wary of revealing a key negotiating card before knowing what he can expect in return from the Palestinians on issues such as refugees, Jerusalem and recognition of a Jewish state.
Blair, in an interview he gave earlier this week with the Los Angeles Times, was asked whether either side has provided the quartet with a detailed proposal yet on borders and security.
"The Palestinians, of course, did table a proposal in the last talks that they had in Annapolis [Maryland in 2008 during the Bush administration]. They were detailed, significant proposals, on borders at least, in and around land swaps. This Israeli government has not produced such a proposal, and that's obviously one thing we have to explore with them," he said.
I don't know what Blair means. This is from Soccer Dad's Middle East Media Sampler (which I don't have in html yet, so I need more time than I have now to post it).
What is Blair talking about? In 2008 Israel (PM Olmert) made a detailed offer to Abbas. Abbas rejected it. Is there another proposal that Blair is talking about or did he just reverse reality? (It seems that the proposal being referred to is one made to the Quartet directly. If that's indeed what Blair's talking about - and I've found no indication that such a proposal exists, though I haven't looked very hard - why should it have greater force than a proposal offered by one party to the other?
Good questions.... Back to the first link:
One Israeli government official, when asked about Israel's border proposals, said Jerusalem wanted to "facilitate" the Quartet's efforts to launch direct negotiations without preconditions. He stressed, however, that it was important that the Quartet meetings now don't become a substitute for direct negotiations between the sides, but only as a way to get those talks started.
Blair explained in his interview that what the Quartet was trying to do was get detailed proposals from both sides on borders and security to gauge how wide the gaps between the sides were, and whether there was a basis for negotiation.
What will they do if there is no 'basis for negotiation'? Or worse, what if they come out and say that we have an agreement on borders and security and then the 'Palestinians' say they demand the 'right of return' for millions of 'refugees'? What could go wrong?
Former Israeli ambassador to the United Nations Dore Gold rips an article in from The Economist that calls on the United States to impose a solution on Israel and the 'Palestinians.' In the process, Gold undercuts the whole idea that what happens with the 'peace process' has any influence on Israel's relations with Iran or its terrorist proxies (what's commonly known as 'linkage') as well as the current Obama administration proposal to discuss borders and security before anything else.
HISTORICALLY, RELATIONS with the Palestinians and tensions with Iran’s proxies, Hizbullah and Hamas, have been on two completely separate tracks. In April 1996, while prime minister Shimon Peres was negotiating with the Palestinians, the Israeli-Lebanese border deteriorated and Israel was forced to launch Operation Grapes of Wrath against Hizbullah.
Again in 2008, when prime minister Ehud Olmert was in advanced negotiations with both Abbas and the Syrians (through the Turks), there was a massive escalation of rocket fire by Hamas that resulted in Operation Cast Lead.
There was simply no correlation between Israeli-Palestinian diplomacy and the military escalation with organizations supported by Iran.
In fact, from the Iranian perspective if there was a link between the two, it was based on a logic which was the exact opposite of what The Economist proposed: Iran often sought to promote terrorism to prevent Israel and the Arabs from coming to any agreement. Thus, the more diplomacy progressed, the greater the motivation of Iran had to disrupt it.
The remedy of The Economist is as unrealistic as its analysis. It proposes new muscular American diplomacy based on the idea that by drawing a map as “a new starting point,” the parties can be pressured to finish the rest of the details. But what motivation will the Palestinians have to concede anything on security or refugees if they receive their territorial goals of the pre-1967 line on a silver platter? Israel will have lost all its territorial assets and have nothing to trade for concessions.
Finally, The Economist uses the worn argument that the outlines of an agreement are known: namely, the Clinton parameters, which were proposed after the failure of the Camp David and Taba negotiations. They were never signed and certainly cannot bind subsequent Israeli governments.
I am an Orthodox Jew - some would even call me 'ultra-Orthodox.' Born in Boston, I was a corporate and securities attorney in New York City for seven years before making aliya to Israel in 1991 (I don't look it but I really am that old :-). I have been happily married to the same woman for thirty-five years, and we have eight children (bli ayin hara) ranging in age from 13 to 33 years and nine grandchildren. Four of our children are married! Before I started blogging I was a heavy contributor on a number of email lists and ran an email list called the Matzav from 2000-2004. You can contact me at: IsraelMatzav at gmail dot com
