US Senate unanimously backs Israel

This came into my in-box on Friday 16 November, so "Thursday" below refers to yesterday. This is posted just in case non-US residents were wondering: http://www.timesofisrael.com/us-senate-unanimously-passes-resolution-supporting-israels-right-to-defend-itself/. They know who is in the right here, even if fellow Middle Easterners prefer to fool themselves.

And this is a quote from the article: "Also on Thursday, US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta talked to Minister of Defense Ehud Barak and told him Jerusalem has a right to defend its citizens. A US official confirmed the two leaders’ conversation to CNN. The spokesperson said they discussed Pillar of Defense and the “unacceptable attacks” used by Hamas and other groups in Gaza, and that Panetta reiterated the American position — that Israel has a right to protect itself."

By: Brian Goldfarb.

A Conservative MP speaks out for Israel

This is from today's (16 November) Commentator, and is by a Conservative MP and member of Conservative Friends of Israel. That I wouldn't vote for him is irrelevant; what is relevant is his support for Israel's right to exist in peace and security. This is typified by the following comment: "This week’s escalation did not start, as many have reported, with Israel’s attack on the Hamas military commander. It started with the abuse of the trust of the people of Gaza and the use of the strip as little more than a launching pad for an ideological war."

Read the rest of the article here. 

By: Brian Goldfarb

Hamas and cynical injured innocence

I've noted recently that I'm hardly on The Commentator's wavelength as far as UK (let alone US) domestic politics is concerned, but when it comes to Israel, we're foursquare together. The latest outbreak in the Israel/Gaza standoff brings an encouraging response for Zionists from the on-line newspaper. Here's an example of their current reporting (today into my inbox): "...these latest outrageous attacks are but the tip of the iceberg. Since the start of 2012, 797 rockets have been fired from Gaza, forcing approximately one million Israelis in towns across the south to flee to their nearest bomb shelter, with as little as 15 seconds to react." They are, of course, reporting on the fact that Israel managed to successfully target Al-Jabari, Hamas military chief (couldn't happen to a nicer terrorist), and the response to it, which is, of course, hardly understanding of the need of a legitimate state to defend its citizens.

Imagine such an attack on let's say New York from Long Island, and imagine any US government of any stripe standing still for it. But the Jewish state has to show a ludicrous degree of self-restraint that no other state would be expected to show. And Hamas can, apparently get away with blaming Israel for any further escalation. Talk about a looking-glass world where everything's a reverse image.

But then, it's only Jews were talking about.

It gets worse, as The Commentator notes: "Yet apparently, the low number of casualties (thanks to Israel's advanced technology and interception systems) is a total non-story. It is only when Israel ends its restraint and finally takes decisive action that suddenly the BBC screams of a dangerous escalation. They then have the temerity to suggest that the real reason for the Gaza operation lies hidden beneath a clever Israeli smokescreen. Rockets? What rockets?"

Their conclusion is starkly simply: "So in the next few days, Israel will be forced to fight two wars, one against Hamas and one against this ugly torrent of media bile. The madness looks set to continue." It now appears that Israel has begun moving troops towards Gaza, according to the latest news reports here in the UK at this time, about 22.00 GMT, 15 November. The full article is here.

'The FCO tweeted: "We continue to call on all sides to exercise restraint to prevent a dangerous escalation that would be in no one’s interests. It could have been worse, of course. It could have been a response from the BBC."'

By: Brian Goldfarb

Foreign Affairs journal says the US-Israel link is doing just fine.

Here's an item I don't recall seeing in the hard copy of the Foreign Affairs journal when we we're, just recently, in New York (as I've said in other recent postings). Foreign Affairs, for those who've never come across it, is a high quality intellectual monthly for that hoped for creature, the highly intelligent lay-person. The articles are not for the faint-hearted; they are often densely argued; but they are argued, not asserted. In other words, they provide evidence to (dis)agree with. This article is all about the relationship between the US and Israel and argues that the relationship is not only not one-sided, but actually benefits the US. And don't US politicians know it, those who aren't dyed-in-the-wool antisemites, that is. And it has nothing to do with any Lobby, Jewish or Israeli. Nor, come to that, which party holds the White House or control of Congress.

A sample quote: "U.S.-Israeli security cooperation dates back to heights of the Cold War, when the Jewish state came to be seen in Washington as a bulwark against Soviet influence in the Middle East and a counter to Arab nationalism. Although the world has changed since then, the strategic logic for the U.S.-Israeli alliance has not. Israel remains a counterweight against radical forces in the Middle East, including political Islam and violent extremism. It has also prevented the further proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in the region by thwarting Iraq and Syria’s nuclear programs."

Need more? Here are four sentences with about 6 reasons why the US-Israel link not only flourishes but is likely to remain strong: "The two countries share intelligence on terrorism, nuclear proliferation, and Middle Eastern politics. Israel’s military experiences have shaped the United States’ approach to counterterrorism and homeland security. The two governments work together to develop sophisticated military technology, such as the David’s Sling counter-rocket and Arrow missile defense systems, which may soon be ready for export to other U.S. allies. Israel has also emerged as an important niche defense supplier to the U.S. military, with sales growing from $300 million per year before September 11 to $1.1 billion in 2006, due to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Israel’s military research and development complex has pioneered many cutting-edge technologies that are transforming the face of modern war, including cyberweapons, unmanned vehicles (such as land robots and aerial drones), sensors and electronic warfare systems, and advanced defenses for military vehicles."

Thus, my argument is that it probably doesn't matter who the US President is, or what his rhetoric is, this link aian't gonna be broken any time soon. Don't (want to) believe me? Then read the article, and come up with your counter-arguments: http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/138422/michael-eisenstadt-and-david-pollock/friends-with-benefits

By: Brian Goldfarb

On the Golan Heights: have the Syrians really deliberately fired into Israel?

Until the incident related in the piece below from The Times of Israel, via The Tablet, the IDF has been stating that it believes the mortars and shells landing in Israeli-controlled/occupied (you choose your preferred term: I'm trying to be neutral here) Golan Heights have been accidental overshoots from the fighting between the Assad regime forces and the rebels. However, this time anonymous Israeli sources (anonymous, because there isn't yet an Israeli intelligence consensus on this) are claiming that they're no longer so sure it's accidental.

Mortar and other shells have landed both in the Demilitarized Zone [DMZ] and in one or more Israeli Moshavs on the Heights, without causing (yet) any Israeli casualties. The latest incident (to which the IDF responded) came through an engagement between rebel forces and Assad regime units in and around a DMZ village on the heights. Israel retaliated and "Israeli media reports indicated that the targets hit by Israeli tanks were Soviet-made D-30 howitzer pieces. Israeli officials said the vehicle was believed to belong to the Syrian government."

No-one on the Israeli side has yet suggested that it might be the rebels trying to pretend it's the Assad regime forces, in order to get the Israelis involved against the regular army; indeed, the rebels probably don't have this sort of ordnance. If those anonymous sources are right, Assad (or his minions) are playing a very dangerous game. They can't really want to bring the might of the IDF pouring down the road to Damascus. Can they?

Or is this one of those "oh shit" moments, when you say, "o.s., look what we've done now. They'll never believe it was an accident."

Read the whole Times story here.

By: Brian Goldfarb

Of mice and men

And you sort them out: I am too busy at the moment.

Vacation notice

Blogging will be very light for the duration of November, unless some people I could mention but wouldn't pick up the slack.

Behave, all of you out there.

Commentator editor refuses to admit wounded foot injury is self-inflicted

So, on Thursday, 8 November, the New York Times (yes, I know, I know, liberal, pinko, rag) has this article on page 8 of the special section of the paper on the 2012 election headlined "Election Result Proves a Victory for Pollsters and Other Data Devotees" (what school taught them to write headline sentences like that? All capital letters and truncated sentences. Oh well, it's the USA - no insult intended, Katie and Dick, honestly). I'm sorry that I can't give you a link: the NYT online version is behind a pay wall, and we picked a hard copy up at the airport on our way home. 

Anyway, what it's really about is the "battle" between those who believe that the facts give us at least some evidence to argue about, against those who believe that their accumulated knowledge and experience belies the need for facts. 

What brings this on (apart from my grump about The Commentator 2 days ago)? And, anyway, do we get any sort of apology from that online paper? No, of course not. I'll add a couple of links below to the current issue where writers appears to sidestep the issue of the comment made on 5 November as to who were the real believers in freedom, etc, etc. What brings this on is the NYT (gleefully? It is, after all, Karl Rove they're sticking their knife into) noting how Rove and other "pundits" (those who rely on accumulated wisdom, etc) got the election so wrong and how they were prepared to dismiss facts over "knowledge". 

Anyone in the USA on 6 November will know that this is about Rove, a Fox News commentator, who blew his top on air when the channel called Ohio for Obama (accurately, as it happened), shortly before the other channels committed themselves. He was talking (as a committed Republican and former Bush W., advisor, let alone Speaker of the House) to the Romney camp who were insisting that it was too soon to call. Well, media people have got it wrong before, doing that, but they've learned their lesson, and now crunch lots more numbers before they commit themselves. After hearing their reasoning, Rove backed down, and the following day graciously apologised for his doubts. 

Or, as the liberal, pinko, NYT has it, "The election results...left some well-know pundits, many of whom have a partisan bent, eating crow on Wednesday morning..." But they would put it like that, wouldn't they. What's interesting in all this is that the people we were with for the early part of the evening (before heading off to "Democracy Plaza", or, as it's more usually known, the Plaza of Rockerfeller Center to be with the real partisans) were all liberal, pinko, etc (c'mon now, this is NYC the bluest city in the bluest state in the Union), but determined to examine the data as it came in, not rely on instinct, gut feelings, accumulated experience, etc.

So, I'm not getting at the Republican sympathisers - and Rove's initial refusal to accept the number-crunchers' findings was entirely understandable - but at those who act as experts but prefer to let their prejudices override the evidence staring them in the face: the journalists at The Commentator who would claim some sort of expertise. The links that I promised are here, and here (actually, this one reads like sour grapes - after all, Obama won 25 states [with Florida, at the time of writing, still undeclared, even though he's marginally ahead], and has a 2 million lead in the popular vote - bet they wouldn't grouse if it was the other way round, with same slim margins). Actually, this one also reads like sour grapes:

But I'll keep looking at The Commentator, but I think I'll concentrate on their stuff on Israel and the Middle East. Less risk to my blood pressure!

By: Brian Goldfarb

Commentator editor shoots himself in the (ideological and possibly intellectual) foot

I know that certain types of professional are prone to a degree of certainty that the evidence doesn't allow,especially outside their speciality. Thus, I know medics who are always right, especially about politics or who owns what or who said what. The same is true of an educational specialist of my acquaintance who is supposed to be opening young people's minds to evaluating evidence who insists that Al Jazeera is a model of fair reporting on the Middle East.

So, when Raheem, editor-in-chief of The Commentator, insists that, in the words of the title to this piece, "Believers in the free world are backing Romney", he is seriously risking hubris. After all, this popped into my in-box on the day of the US election, long before the polls closed and while the latest polls were showing a continuing but fixed lead for Obama in the most vital of the swing states.

Before anyone out there gets too upset with me (and I know that some of you have very definite views as to who should be the next US President), this is not about the election, but about journalists thinking they know better than the US electorate. Should Romney win, Raheem and his fellows are wonderful prophets. Should Obama win,does he look foolishly. That, or the US voters are.

Further, I will argue till the cows come home that whatever else is wrong with it, the NHS is far from the worst health service in the world. Which is another hubristic comment and merely confirms where on the political spectrum The Commentator stands.

Its saving grace is that it is intensely pro-Israel.

By Brian Goldfarb.

Did Tzipi Livni have sex with Arabs when working for Mossad?

You can imagine I had me some laughs on account of this story.

A leading Egyptian daily falsely claimed that former foreign minister Tzipi Livni conducted sexual relations with Arab officials during her years as a Mossad agent in an attempt to entrap them, and used what it said was a 2009 interview with The Times of London as ostensible proof.

The article in Al-Masri Al-Youm, an independent and widely read Egyptian daily, was headlined: “Livni: I had sex with Arabs in return for ‘political concessions.’” It featured prominently in the paper’s Saturday print edition and was still leading its website on Sunday afternoon. The article went up on Al-Masry Al-Youm’s website Friday night and was its most widely read story over the weekend. It had garnered 20,000 Facebook shares and 1,800 tweets as of Sunday morning, and was quoted extensively in Egyptian and Arab media.

The overexcited Egyptian readers may not be sated yet with frisson they got imagining whatever they did, so here is another photo of Tsipi for them to peruse:

Oops, sorry, a printing error, here is the correct picture:

So go ahead, dear excited readers, peruse. But in moderation, please.

I thought that this could round up the whole story, but then I've stumbled on another article in the same ToI (Times of Israel). And, of course, it shows clearly that ToI are the guilty party, causing the whole uproar in Egypt by publishing that one, titled What the Mossad’s female agents do — and don’t do — for the sake of Israel. The article carries another picture that may be even more exciting to the same group of readers:

It shows the one and only Bar Refaeli playing a Mossad seductress... oy vey...
(I am really concerned now about the above mentioned group: please leave this photograph for tomorrow or something. Try to control yourself, anyway.)

Unfortunately, the article's thrust caused me a grave concern. It says, for example:

“We use our femininity because any means is valid,” confirmed Efrat, the most senior female operational commander in the Mossad. “But even if we think that the way to advance the mission is to sleep with [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad’s chief of staff, no one in the Mossad would allow us to do it. Women agents are not used for sexual purposes. We flirt, but the line is drawn at sex.”

It is bad. It is really very, very bad. I am sure that we shall see soon an article full of rage from the Haaretz' own Gideon Levy telling us that the female Mossad agents wouldn't have sex with Arabs because they (the female agents) dehumanize them (the Arabs) and thus don't see... well, you got the drift by now.

Methinks it's time to discuss the dire situation with the wannabe Elders from the Mossad and to tell these young upstarts that their operational manuals should be revised, having in mind the weight of the public opinion in general and Gideon Levy's opinion in particular.

So there.

Shifting From Israel, HRW Focuses on Syria

Or so it says in the hard copy of the Forward, which I picked up while strolling along Broadway here in the Big Apple. We're here to visit the family and, fortunately, being on the Upper West Side, they escaped any damage and kept power all the time. The worst thing that happened (and our daughter knows that it's small potatoes compared with the losses suffered by those who felt the full effects of Sandy) was keeping their two small children occupied.

Anyway, that Forward headline and article can be found only in the hard copy. I certainly haven't been able find it online, although someone out there may have better luck. The interesting part of the story (by one Josh Nathan-Kazis) is the argument that not many friends of Israel, critical or otherwise, will expect this focus elsewhere to have much of a lasting effect, with even the co-founder of Human Rights Watch, Robert Bernstein, publicly splitting with it some 3 years ago.

What may a bit more surprising is that even some of those on what might be considered to be the same side, such as Gerald Steinberg, Executive Director of NGO Watch, are "highly critical of HRW".

The rest of the article is a fascinating discussion of the dangers of attempting to discover just what is happening inside Syria, as the deaths of Marie Colvin and Anthony Shadid, among others, illustrates.

Hopefully, one of you will be able to provide a link to this piece, as it is very well worth reading.

By Brian Goldfarb.

Who didn't have sex with neanderthals?

I took personally these insinuations from Fox. I would have issued a strong protest, declaring that I never laid a finger or even thought about etc. But now, after reading this post by Texas Scribbler and, especially, after watching the lecture below, I prefer to stay silent and fix up a lawyer or two. You better watch it too, it's applicable to most countries in the world:

The Council Has Spoken!

Council Winners

• *First place with 3 1/3 votes! Joshuapundit –Obama Agonistes: The Fiction Cracks On Benghazi
• Second place with  1 2/3 votes – The Razor – Ending Radio Silence
• Third place *t* with 1 1/3 votes – The Noisy Room-Presidential Depraved Indifference
• Third place *t* with 1 1/3 vote – The Right Planet-Torches And Pitchforks
• Fourth place *t* with 1 vote – Bookworm Room-Found it on Facebook: Jon Stewart and the problem with modern political discourse
• Fourth place *t* with 1 vote – The Mellow Jihadi-Malala Yousufzai, the Martin Luther King Jr of Pakistan
• Fourth place *t* with 1 vote – The Independent Sentinel-What Four More Years of Obamacracy Will Look Like Pt. I
• Fourth place *t* with 1 vote – VA Right! – The (Political) Storm of the Century
• Fifth place *t* with 2/3 vote – Simply Jews –Speculating on Iran-Israel nuclear conflict: this way insanity waits
• Fifth place *t* with 2/3 vote – GrEaT sAtAn”S gIrLfRiEnD –Little Satan”s Sudan Raid
• Sixth place *t* with 1/3 vote – The Colossus of Rhodey – Delusion
• Sixth place *t* with 1/3 vote – Gay Patriot – The real problem with Obama’s 2008 race speech
• Sixth place *t* with 1/3 vote – The Political Commentator –  A must read psychological analysis of Barack Obama!

Non-Council Winners

Read more »

PETA requests sign to memorialize fish

Really:

An animal rights group is asking a California city to put up a sign acknowledging the suffering of fish that died in a traffic incident.

Irvine resident Dina Kourda wrote a letter to city officials on behalf of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals asking for a sign to be placed at the site of the October crash to recognize the suffering of hundreds of saltwater bass that died when a truck carrying the fish collided with two other vehicles Oct. 11, The Orange County Register reported Tuesday.

Kourda said she wants the sign to remind truck drivers of their responsibility to the animals who are "hauled to their deaths every day."

Tell you what, Dina:... aw, what the heck, better let it go...

And if not, this is my proposal for the sign.

Congrats to San Francisco Giants!

Still, guys, happiness and all things considered, maybe a shower first?

Just asking...