- Israel's Interests in Syria
Prof. Efraim Inbar
- Who Will Succeed Abbas? PA TV Station Holds a Contest
- Belgian Anti-Semitism
Dr. Manfred Gerstenfeld
- An Open Letter to the Arab League
Dr. Mordechai Kedar
Middle East 3:12 AM 5/21/2013
Middle East 6:15 AM 5/21/2013
News from America 5:14 AM 5/21/2013
Prof. Efraim Inbar
Dr. Manfred Gerstenfeld
Dr. Mordechai Kedar
Goldstein on Gelt
Ask the Rabbi
Tevet 15, 5768, 12/24/2007
Media reports indicate that Olmert is now considering doing away with yet another Israeli "red line" by releasing Palestinian terrorists with "blood on their hands".
Or, to put it somewhat less delicately, it seems the premier is ready to let murderers go free.
On the one hand, this move is hardly surprising. After all, the government has made clear just how desperate it is to get an agreement with the Palestinians, seemingly at any price. And if Olmert and his colleagues are ready to expel hundreds of thousands of innocent people from their homes, divide our capital city and forego our nation's historic heartland, then is anyone really shocked at their readiness to perpetrate still another moral outrage?
And yet - there is something so elementary, so fundamentally wrong about setting killers free that one would have hoped that at least on this issue some shred of humanity and decency would have prevailed.
Swinging open the jail cells and letting killers walk is not an act of compassion or even political savvy. It is showing kindness to the cruel, and broadcasting a dangerous message to all of our foes: namely, that they can act with virtual impunity.
What Mr. Olmert seems to have forgotten is that "Law and Order" is not just a television show - it is a building block of society. And it weakens us all when those who commit the most heinous of crimes are allowed to escape the punishment they so justly deserve.
Kislev 13, 5768, 11/23/2007
Are we really prepared to allow the tyrant of Teheran to threaten our very existence?
With Iran moving ever closer to obtaining nuclear weapons, there are some worrisome indications that the US and Israel may have suddenly developed cold feet about confronting the tyrant of Tehran.
But now is not the time for cowardice or even for hesitation. The fate of the world is at stake, and as I argue in the column below, there are five good reasons why military action must be taken - and soon - to prevent the would-be Hitler of Persia from threatening the future of Israel and the West.
Five Reasons to Bomb Iran Now
By Michael Freund
Have America and Israel suddenly gone soft on Iran's nefarious nuclear-weapons program?
Despite sanctions and UN Security Council resolutions, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is gleefully pressing forward with his efforts to build a bomb, which Israeli military intelligence now believes he will succeed in doing by 2009.
Indeed, just last Friday, the would-be Hitler of Persia boasted about how Teheran had "defied" Western opposition, and was now "moving toward the peaks of success step by step."
Yet even as Iran continues to progress down the dangerous road to an atomic arsenal, the tough talk emanating from Washington and Jerusalem in recent months has suddenly and inexplicably melted away.
And this should have us all very, very worried.
It was just last month that US President George W. Bush declared at an October 17 press conference that, "If you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them [Iran] from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon."
Bush's statement was followed four days later by an equally emphatic Vice President Dick Cheney, who told the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, "We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon. Our country, and the entire international community, cannot stand by as a terror-supporting state fulfills its grandest ambitions."
Now, though, something appears to have changed. Various reports in recent days seem to indicate that US policy may have taken a sharp and terribly treacherous U-turn in the direction of acquiescence.
According to the Britain's Sunday Telegraph, the US Defense Department has begun updating its deterrence policy based on the assumption that Iran will obtain nuclear weapons.
The paper quoted a Pentagon adviser as saying that while "military strikes [against Iran's nuclear facilities] might set the program back a couple of years… current thinking is that it is just not worth the risks."
Similarly, Admiral William Fallon, head of US Central Command, which oversees military operations in the Middle East, told the Financial Times last week (Nov. 12) that a preemptive attack against Iranian nuclear installations is not "in the offing."
And, as Reuters reported, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is said to have instructed cabinet officials to draft proposals for how to deal with "the day after" Iran obtains the bomb.
WHAT IS going on here? Are we really prepared to allow the tyrant of Teheran to threaten our very existence?
It is possible, of course, that these reports are merely part of the overall game-plan, and that they are aimed at lulling the Iranians into a false sense of security prior to a surprise attack on their nuclear installations.
Alternatively, it might reflect the shifting political realities in the US, where public opinion, goaded on by the mainstream liberal media, has turned against the war in neighboring Iraq.
But whatever the reality of the situation is, one thing should be clear: Iran can not and must not be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons.
This is not an issue with shades of grey - it is about as black and white as they come.
And here are five good reasons why:
It is the cold, hard reality staring us all squarely in the face, unless Washington or Jerusalem takes military action, and soon.
CRITICS ARGUE that an attack on Iran would be logistically difficult, politically dangerous, and would result in some very serious consequences.
But as former US ambassador to the UN John Bolton told the New York Times (November 9), "The choice is not between the world as it is today and the use of force. The choice is between the use of force and Iran with nuclear weapons." And when looked at in those terms, it becomes quite obvious that there really is no choice at all: the US and/or Israel must bomb Iran. They must act to remove the nuclear sword from the hand of the Persian executioner.
And they should do so now - before it is too late.
--- from the November 21 Jerusalem Post
Kislev 10, 5768, 11/20/2007
A spokesman for Fatah's Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade proudly claimed responsibility for the act of terror, boasting to journalists that it was "a response to Israeli crimes".
The attack, not surprisingly, came just hours after Prime Minister Ehud Olmert met with Mahmoud Abbas to offer him still more concessions prior to the upcoming Annapolis conference.
And so, once again, Israeli weakness has only served to encourage further Palestinian aggression. After all, the Palestinians see that they can resort to violence with impunity, and use the threat of terror to pressure the Jewish state into still further capitulation.
The government barely even reacted to the incident, mumbling something about the need for the Palestinians to fight terror - as if after 14 years of Oslo, there is any chance of that happening......
And that is perhaps the most disturbing aspect of all - namely, that it doesn't seem to occur to anyone in power that by giving away vital strategic assets, they are merely rewarding the murderers for their acts of violence, as well as setting the stage for still more to come.
Kislev 4, 5768, 11/14/2007
Unnamed government sources cited by the Ha'aretz newspaper say that in advance of the gathering, Israel will announce " a freeze on settlement construction... and will also declare its willingness to dismantle illegal West Bank settlement outposts".
These steps, according to the report, "are meant to make it clear that Israel does not intend to remain in the territories, and understands that its presence there is only temporary." Furthermore, Israel hopes that by making such a "gesture", it can convince Arab states such as Saudi Arabia to attend the conference.
Even if one puts aside for a moment the various ideological, historical and security reasons why Israel must retain control over Judea and Samaria, the Government's behavior is remarkably obtuse.
Who in their right mind walks into a tough negotiation having already conceded the other side's point? What possible logic is there in agreeing in advance to your foe's demands, without getting anything - anything! - in return?
It is this point which should disturb every single Israeli, regardless of where they are on the political spectrum, because it goes straight to the sheer incompetence and downright inanity of our current leadership. They are "negotiating the peace" the same way they handled the war in Lebanon: hastily, sloppily and ineptly.
And that most certainly does not bode well for the outcome.
Cheshvan 21, 5768, 11/2/2007
"Olmert seeks accord on 'core issues' within a year", says the paper, noting in its report that, "Prime Minister Ehud Olmert hopes to reach an agreement on all the core issues of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict within a year, the premier said in conversations with both Israeli officials and foreign diplomats over the last few days."
Behind the rather innocuous-sounding term "core issues", of course, lie various matters such as the future of Jerusalem and the fate of Palestinian refugees. If committed peace-processors such as Yossi Beilin, Shimon Peres and Ehud Barak were unable to solve the "core issues" in the decade after the Oslo Accords, then what makes Olmert think he can do so in just 12 months?
Moreover, it is astonishing just how Mr. Olmert's optimism is so radically disconnected from the reality on the ground. Even as he was busy having those conversations with Israeli and foreign officials, the Palestinians were ratcheting up their daily rocket attacks on Israel's southern cities.
And just with whom does Olmert plan to forge a deal? He is negotiating with Mahmoud Abbas, whose control over the Palestinians doesn't extend much beyond the desk of his secretary. So even if Olmert were to finalize matters with Abbas, what value would such a deal have in the first place?
Sometimes, it really, truly does seem that the Emperor has gone mad, as I'm sure many citizens of ancient Rome used to mutter to themselves from time to time. The only problem is that as he descends into madness, he runs the risk of taking the future of Israel with him.