Andrew Ian Dodge interviewed by Eric Dondero.
1 hour ago
21 March 2012
Israel's Biggest Book is completed
About the beginning of the project:
And now we are witnessing the happy end:
Photography by Andrea Brownstein
Israel’s biggest book, standing at two meters tall has been presented to the Ma'aleh Adumim community at a special event marking the close of this year’s seventh annual A.H.A.V.A English Read-a-thon.
The event held at the Eshkol Hapayis (lottery granted community building) in Ma'aleh Adumim was attended by hundreds of schoolchildren who participated in the five week Read-a-thon, along with their family members.
A.H.A.V.A opened this year’s Read-a-thon on January 12 with the unveiling of a two meter tall front cover of a book, entitled ‘The Giant’s Book’ with artwork donated by children’s illustrator Netanel Epstein. Children participating in the Read-a-thon were invited to help complete the book with each child illustrating a different word.
20 March 2012
Iranian nukes, POTUS, expectations and common sense
A day doesn't pass without all kinds of media (local and international) offering another deep insight on the subject of whether it will be wise for Israel to have a go at Iranian nuclear sites. As if it weren't enough, about a thousand of various experts and their mom in law have already offered various detailed scenarios of IDF attack, if and when. So detailed that the officers in IDF general staff responsible for planning of the affair don't have to strain their brains, where simply copying all these plans and combining them into a Godzilla of military planning will suffice. Here, for example, is another one of the mentioned scenarios, from CNN, that appeared as if by miracle a minute ago when I clicked on CNN site to check something unrelated.
And of course, the number of experts that deal with the aftermath of such attack is at least similar in number to that of the attack's "planners", if not exceeding the latter. The variety of ways our house here will be demolished by the downpour of Hamas, Hezbollah, Syrian and Iranian missiles, described in excruciating detail, almost caused me to hang a "For Sale" sign on the fence.
There is one point of agreement between the experts: the Israeli strike will happen, and it will happen soon. This comes from overwhelming majority, save one Philip Weiss who considers it prudent to claim that Israeli strike is coming and that it will never happen at the same time. But I mentioned him only as a (living) joke, albeit one in very poor taste.
The (almost) lonely voice of reason, that of prof. Barry Rubin, who considers that Neither Israel nor the US will attack Iran in 2012 and brings several good arguments in favor of this belief, drowns in the tumult of the above mentioned majority. Aside of his arguments, there is an explanation of seemingly irrational blabbing of Israeli talking heads:
So why are Israelis talking about a potential attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities? Because that’s a good way – indeed, the only way Israel has – to pressure Western countries to work harder on the issue, to increase sanction and diplomatic efforts. If one believes that somehow pushing Tehran into slowing down or stopping its nuclear weapons’ drive is the only alternative to war, that greatly concentrates policymakers’ minds. Personally, I don’t participate–consciously or as an instrument – in disinformation campaigns, even if they are for a good cause.Indeed, the pressure on Iran is stepped up, the recent disconnect of 30 Iranian banks from SWIFT being an excellent example of the tactics outlined by prof. Rubin working. In addition, the incessant noise of the various experts mentioned above causes no end of heartburn and headache to the Iranian intelligence, defense and other officials in charge of promoting and protecting the nuclear effort. Which is all to the good.
To sweep the question of the table: what do I personally believe in? Not that it matters, but.
- Does Iran strive to get its hands on nuclear weapons? Check.
- Do Iranian leaders aim to destroy Israel? Check.
- Will various sanctions against Iran, applied by the world, force Iran into cessation of its nuclear development? Hardly.
- Will application of high explosives to multiple Iranian nuclear facilities make the world a better place? Check.
- Will IDF, so instructed by our government, carry out the strike on Iran - whether this year or later? I just don't know and, as any other member of the public, will have to wait.
- Do I spend sleepless nights drawing arrows on the map and/or moving toy airplanes to and fro? Nope, I prefer to leave the matter to experts and have better things to do during the night.
- Do I pine for war with Iran - or any other people? Nope.
- Am I bothered by the feverish pitch of histrionics reached by the media on the subject? Yes, I try to switch off any appliance that attempts to bring another talking head babbling about it. Even our fridge that, unfortunately, carries an LCD panel and some buttons on its door, became somewhat of a menace to me lately. But I manage somehow.
Some people believe that Obama is a great friend of Israel. Just the other day Brian Goldfarb was quoting Jeffrey Goldberg who is quite unequivocally a believer in Obama's unwavering stand on Iranian nukes:
One of the most useful alliances President Obama has created with a foreign leader is the one with a person he ostensibly doesn't like very much at all. Both Barack Obama and Benjamin Netanyahu want to stop Iran from going nuclear (and yes, I'm among the people who believe Obama, for manifold reasons, some having to do with Israel, and many others not, is determined to keep Iran from crossing the nuclear threshold) and both have played key, and complementary, roles in the campaign.Some people, on the contrary, suspect Obama of very dark designs related to Iranian nukes, Israel and whatnot, to the tune of saying that Obama Wants a Nuclear Iran.
Obama's true education when it came to Israel is by radicals that hated Israel, and even left-wing Jews whose disdain for Israel's right to exist is their guiding force. He truly believes that the world's problems, and particularly the problems of the Middle East are caused by the existence of Israel. He views the Moslem world as having been put upon by the decision of the west to allow and support the reestablishment of the Jewish state.I wouldn't argue with the two points of view expressed above. After all, Obama stated quite forcefully that he is not going to abide a situation where US will have to deal with containment of nuclear Iran. On the face of it, this is as clear-cut declaration of intentions as anyone would hope to get from a leader of the superpower. Short of the said leader directing the Chief of Staff to sit down with the reporters and discuss the planning of Iran campaign in minute details.
But, on the other hand, Obama is a politician and, as his brilliant election campaign four years ago has shown, a consummate fantasist. Anyone who believes a politician must have his brain examined, I submit. More so when this anyone believes the word of a foreign politician - and I don't even believe a single word coming from the face of our own Bibi, so why should I take what Obama says as a given?
This is why I had a problem with the headline of Isi Leibler's article Can Obama be trusted? Because any serious discussion of such a critical issue as Iranian nukes that starts with the question of trust or lack thereof, is inherently flawed. To start with, some of us here in Israel tend to forget that we are talking about the head of another state. It shouldn't be beyond anyone's comprehension that the POTUS has his own list of problems to resolve and his own set of priorities to follow. Whether helping out Israel in its hour of need happens to a) match one or more of these priorities and b) isn't contrary to the American interest is not always that clear, unless we are pushing the discourse into the realm of friendship, tradition (not that old, stemming barely from 1967 or thereabout and not always that firm, let's not delude ourselves) and moral imperatives. Friendship, tradition and moral imperatives don't happen to belong to the list of criteria that comprise sensible realpolitik, unfortunately (or fortunately, who knows?).
Indeed, we should not forget that the POTUS - any POTUS - is first of all and above all the leader of United States, as such accountable to the Congress and to the people who have elected him to the post. Whether this or another act is matching American interests, is for him and his people to decide, and a POTUS who acts against these interests could, even should be charged with dereliction of duty and punished accordingly.
Isi Leibler, thankfully, does arrive to a right conclusion, in spite of the article as a whole dealing with doubts about Obama's position. After all is said, he states:
We would like to believe that the US would support us if we became engaged in a military conflict with the Iranians. However, notwithstanding the improved atmosphere in Washington, when one observes the indifference of the civilized world, including the Obama Administration, towards the current slaughter in Syria and recollects how, despite firm undertakings, the US and others failed to support Israel prior to the 1967 Six Day War, we require little persuasion to be convinced that ultimately we must rely on ourselves.We must rely on ourselves. And this is the main conclusion we should get out of the media storm. Stop expecting miraculous assistance (from the terrestrial entities, at least). Stop whining. Stop looking around for expressions of moral (or other) support. Just do what needs to be done when it needs to be done, because no one else would - or should - do it for you.
And, if you are religious, do that other thing, too. Cannot hurt.
P.S. As for the detailed scenarios of the IDF action, created by the uncounted armchair generals: keep them coming. I bet IDF general staff is grateful for the assistance.
Cross-posted on Yourish.com
19 March 2012
At least four dead in shooting at Jewish school in Toulouse
There is still too much noise in the media, but so far it's known that:
Four people were killed and another seriously wounded in a shooting at a Jewish high school in the southern French city of Toulouse, French media reported on Monday.At least three kids and one teacher are dead. Several others are wounded, although it's difficult to find numbers at this time.
Update: Children aged three, six and 10, and a religious education teacher have been killed in today's shooting at a Jewish school in southwestern France.
Update 2: The incident claimed the lives of Rabbi Jonathan Sandler, 30, his 3-year-old and 6-year-old sons Gabriel and Arieh and 8-year-old Miriam Monsonego, daughter of school headmaster Rabbi Yaacov Monsonego. A 17-year-old has been seriously injured.
An interesting detail came up in RT (Russian TV) report:
According to a preliminary investigation, the man opened fire with an automatic pistol before switching to another when it misfired. French police say the first automatic weapon employed had a caliber of 11.43, the same as the gun used to kill three French soldiers in the area last week.While 11.43 (mm) may sound an unusual caliber, it is actually a pretty standard 0.45 inch pistol, not rare at all. Still, not a typical European gun, and it could be that its use, together with the use of a motorcycle, points to the same terrorist who killed one soldier in Toulouse and two in Montauban.
Update. It was the same gun, apparently:The gun used to kill four people at a Jewish school in Toulouse on Monday morning was the same used in the slaying of three French soldiers in two separate incidents over the past eight days, French police said.
That's a doubtful package deal, ladies and gentlemen of SC GOP!
According to the news:
A county Republican group in South Carolina wants its candidates to promise to not cheat on their spouses and not watch pornography.Out of natural (yeah, yeah, I confess to it) interest in the subject, I read the whole article and even watched the clip. Apparently, there is a list of 28 (!) items in the pledge any aspiring SC GOP politician must sign to get further in the political race. Since the article is more focused on the sex-related items of the pledge, so are we* - in this post, at least.
It appears that there are more items related to sex/gender in the pledge than the two mentioned above (no cheating and not watching porn). Here they are, four all in all:
At the first glance, the whole deal looks like an end to any hopes and/or aspirations of non-political kind a person could nurture. Should one sign such a pledge, what venue - aside, of course, ATF (alcohol, tobacco and you know what) - remains open? I wouldn't mention controlled substances where a young Republican is concerned, surely.
So I would propose a gradual method of getting a candidate to embrace the full scope of that pledge. For instance, put a check box near every item in the form to be signed. Allow the signatory to leave one (or more) of the four items unchecked, the addition of the unchecked item(s) to be considered later: say closer to the pension edge or thereabout. That should make the whole process easier to accept. At least I am reasonably sure it would.
I have another remark, of a purely technical nature, about the proposed list above. If a person signs up for abstinence before marriage (item 1), how could the said person make sure she/he doesn't make a mistake with the gender of her/his chosen spouse (item 3)? After all, you cannot judge by appearance alone these days. I feel that this list needs more work. Or, possibly, an addendum that will resolve all related glitches... whatever.
But I am confident that, after a few hours of a brainstorming, all the issues could be resolved. And the life of the GOP candidate in SC will be made much purer. But not without a reasonable slack where some slack is in order.
(*) I sincerely hope you believe me at that and would vote for me when the time comes.
18 March 2012
The transparency of Mya Guarnieri
The article of Mya Guarnieri The killing of Zuhair al-Qaissi exposes Israel's attitude to its supreme court on CiF didn't attract my attention because of the name of the author, neither because of the contents. Ms Guarnieri has already appeared on this blog. There really isn't anything new or useful to add about her.
The contents, while being stale, require a reply, since they will be repeated again and again by the likes of the article's author. So - again and again:
- Ms Guarnieri doesn't have any new information on Zuhair al-Qaissi, the target of the IDF operation. She cannot disprove the IDF statement that implicated him in the kidnapping of Gilad Shalit, in being behind the murder of eight Israelis in the highway 12 shooting last year, in preparing another cross-border attack from Sinai, similar to the previous one.
- Ms Guarnieri claims that "Israel killed him on the basis of secret evidence – evidence that is not subject to legal or judicial review..." However, she doesn't know that there wasn't a legal review of the evidence, which is nowadays a part of the standard procedure before each targeted killing.
But of course, Ms Guarnieri has a few demands to make. The first one is a demand for "transparency":
But, without seeing the security forces' secret evidence, it's impossible to know if al-Qaissi was indeed planning an attack, and if the army was in line with the 2006 ruling. There's no transparency in this so-called democracy and, without transparency, there is no accountability to the state's highest court.I am not sure I will be able to explain to Ms Guarnieri the slight contradiction between the word "secret" and the word "transparency". Maybe you could, dear reader?
The other demand is expressed in a roundabout way, by quoting an Adalah attorney:
From the perspective of human rights law," el-Ajou adds, "assassinations are not legitimate … They should only be carried out if there is a 'ticking bomb.' [Suspects] should be brought to trial.Yeah. Pull the other one now. Of course it's the fault of Israeli judiciary and Israeli postal services that the late Zuhair al-Qaissi didn't receive the summons to appear in the Israeli court to discuss some of his er... misdemeanors, should we say? And of course, since the secret evidence is, at least by nature of being defined so, secret, it wasn't presented to Ms Guarnieri or Ms el-Ajou, so they can again disregard the IDF claim that the above mentioned late gentleman was a ticking bomb.
As for that inane "should be brought to trial" passage: I can only guess the consequences of sending into Gaza the number of troops required to bring out a single individual (in thousands), the number of innocent bystander casualties and the number of less innocent "colleagues" of Zuhair al-Qaissi IDF will have to pass on the way (both numbers in thousands)... But isn't this precisely what Ms Guarnieri and her ilk are pining for? Another opportunity to present us as butchers?
Too transparent, Ms Guarnieri.
P.S. It's interesting that the article has received much less of the usual anti-Israeli comments as such articles were used to. Does even the crowd of CiF regulars get tired of their own crapola?
More from CiF Watch.
Two from Jeffrey Goldberg on Obama
I know there are a lot of "simply" readers who aren't crazy about Obama, not only am I not one of them, neither is Goldberg. Frankly, Obama is preferable to any available Republican for all matters (except possibly Israel - that's an argument for another day), and these two pieces show why. The first is Goldberg's take on the Netanyahu/Obama relationship (which he calls a "partnership", not too sure about it being that close). Goldberg's convinced that it's for Israel's good. But given his take on I/P and the US, he would, wouldn't he?
The second piece is far more joky: Goldberg's own title is "Obama is such a traditional Jew, sometimes). Still, it makes a change from forever having to chew one's nails about what happens next.
By Brian Goldfarb.
Irish Artist Nicky Larkin. Against Useful Eejits.
By Terry Glavin in The Propagandist. And more on the subject in Terry Glavin's place.
Virgin Mary in bird dropping and other media
Biblical personae sometimes choose strange media to present their images to the public. This time wasn't an exception of the rule, unless you consider the media to be exceptionally foul:
An image of the Virgin Mary that appeared in a bird dropping on the side mirror of a Central Texas family’s truck is causing a neighborhood stir.
And this is just for starters. Now check out that one. Will the miracles ever cease?
17 March 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
