With the civil war in Syria, civil strife in Egypt and Sunni Moslems opposing Shiite Moslems in Lebanon, the Middle East is looking like a disaster area. The so-called “peace process” was almost out of the headlines, as most of last week’s events were overshadowed and by the use of non-conventional means of warfare in Syria. Pictures of the victims of the chemical weapons filled internet sites around the world and the media replayed the photos several times with each news report. There was almost world-wide outrage over the use of chemical weapons against Syrian civilians and as of this writing, the talk of international military involvement in Syria, and related maneuvers, is creating a war of nerves between the superpowers. With everyone focused on Syria, the turmoil in Egypt was almost overlooked, with little attention having been given to release from prison of Hosni Mubarak, the deposed President of Egypt, who remains under house arrest pending his retrial on various charges.

Use of Chemical Weapons in Syria – did Assad kill his own people?
The media continue to jump all over the story of the use of chemical weapons in Syria, where Assad is accused of using the same and killing over a thousand civilians. Assad, for his part, has repeatedly said that he would not use such weapons against his own people. As noted in TWTW of last week:

“As expected, Syrian state television denied the reports and officials of Assad’s government said that if they had such chemical weapons, they would never use them against Syrians. This, of course, leads to the question: Against whom would Syria be willing to use deadly nerve gas? It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand that Israel is within the target range. Syria is not a signatory to the international treaty that bans chemical weapons, and it is widely believed that it has caches of undeclared mustard gas, sarin and VX nerve agents.”

Some question the logic of such use, particularly so close to Damascus, where there is also a heavy concentration of government forces. If Assad did order the use of chemical agents against his own population, he could always blame the rebels, who want to overthrow his regime. On the other hand, if the insurgents managed to get their hands on the gas and used it to blame Assad’s government, the likelihood is that it would be with the goal of getting the international community sufficiently aroused and angered that it would intervene militarily and help the anti-government forces to topple Assad’s regime. Still others claim that the entire “use of chemical weapons” argument is a sham, as the victims, particularly the children, did not display the normal “evidence” of vomit, urine, feces, convulsions and facial contortions, or bloodshot and terrified eyes, all of which would be consistent with exposure to a lethal nerve gas. Indeed, the media’s depiction of mothers placing their children into clean, white sheets, showed them doing so without emotion, no tears and no wailing, which is usually what we see on television screens following the sudden death of family members as a result of armed conflict. Add to this the fact that some of the photos were supposed to have been posted on YouTube on August 20th, when the alleged chemical attack was said to have occurred the following day, and we have a major question mark whether such weapons were used and, if so, by whom?

It appears, however, that chemical agents were, in fact, used. Despite what appear to be staged clips from one of the body-collection areas, other videos from the street indicate that at least the victims depicted there, whose bodies were being carried by others, were suffering from a chemical attack. Whether the use of the gas was authorized by Assad, or a senior member of his regime, or whether it was used by those seeking to overthrow him, the fact is that only a madman with no conscience, and therefore no scruples, was behind its use.

Apparently, the widespread use of the chemical agent was enough for the U.S. to get its engine in gear and start to move. After allowing his “red lines” to be blatantly crossed, President Obama has finally given instructions to four warships stationed in the Mediterranean, as part of the U.S. Sixth Fleet, to be prepared for battle, while a fifth battleship is also being sent to this region.

While the U.S. is trying to coordinate with various allies for a potential, joint military endeavor, Syrian President Assad remains confident, particularly with the backing from Russia, who opposes a military strike against Syria and urges the U.S. and its allies to exercise restraint. It is to be remembered that Russia, along with China, has repeatedly prevented the U.N. Security Council from acting against Assad, asserting that the West should not interfere in Syria’s civil war.

Assad and members of his regime, for their part, continue to increase their threats of immediate retaliation against Israel, in the event that Syria is attacked by the U.S. and other countries. As stated by Kahalf al-Muftah, a senior member of Syria’s Ba’ath party, who until recently served as the country’s deputy information minister: “***[If] the U.S. or any West national launches a military campaign against Syria, then Israel will find itself under an extensive Syrian attack”. He added that Syria has “advanced weapons aimed  at several strategic Israeli targets. Israel is standing behind the belligerence against Syria and whoever encourages belligerence should not be surprised when he comes under fire…The Middle East will become engulfed in never-ending flames if Israel and the United States use chemical weapons as a pretext for their aggressions. We won’t sit with our arms crossed while aggression against Syria becomes dangerous, affecting the security of the whole world, not just the Middle East. It’s possible to say unambiguously that a process of war against Syria could lead to an all-out world war. The responsibility for that will rest on the U.S. and the Zionist entity’s shoulders.“  (emphasis, my emphasis)

Although Israel has made every effort to remain out of the fighting in Syria, nevertheless, it is clearly to our advantage if Assad falls, so that the center piece of the unholy triumvirate of Tehran, Damascus and Beirut (Hizb’allah) is removed. Still, as noted, whether we are in or whether we stay out of any military involvement, Assad will seek to hold us accountable and, if he believes that he is going down, he will have nothing to lose by unleashing Syria’s vast missile supply in our direction. The expressed concern is over Syria’s possible missile launch against Israel.  But, no one is expressing, at least not openly, the possibility that Syria’s allies, like the Hizb’allah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza and the mullahs in Tehran, will join Damascus in a missile bombardment against us. Also, we should not rule out the potential involvement of Russia and China in a face-off against the U.S. and its allies, who will cooperate in a joint attack against Syria. Then, of course, the question would be whether a joint military effort against Syria would be with the intention to remove Assad from power, or to strike various locations where the cache of weapons are located. Would it be an air assault only, or would allied forces be foolish enough to send in ground troops, in the middle of a religiously-motivated, civil war? But, the threshold question is whether there is concrete evidence that Assad was the one who is responsible for the use of chemical agents against his own people. Without an affirmative answer, any attack upon Syria, however well-intentioned, could generate more problems than it would solve.

Israel began a pre-arranged, two-day military exercise in the Golan Heights today, Tuesday, and has placed Patriot anti-missile batteries in Haifa on alert. With the threat of military involvement against Syria looming larger each day, there has been a significant increase in the number of Israeli requests for gas masks. It is reported that to date, over 5 millions gas masks have been distributed to Israelis.

Peace negotiations – continuing despite violence by “Palestinians”
This past Monday, elite, undercover Border Police units went into Qalandiya, which is near Jerusalem, to arrest a “Palestinian” terror suspect, who was freed as part of the deal to release Gilad Shalit. When the Israeli armored jeeps entered the camp, they were attacked by rocks and firebombs by more than 1,500 “Palestinians”. The undercover unit called for back-up cover and evacuation. At first, the Border Police fired rubber bullets and tear gas canisters at the mob, but when the situation seriously deteriorated and their lives were endangered, they fired live rounds, resulting in the deaths of 3 rioters and some 15 others who were injured.

As a result of this incident, it was first reported that the “Palestinian” delegation hinted that “peace negotiations” would be suspended, but no official announcement to that effect was made. On the same day that the above incident took place, the 4th round of negotiations took place. No details were released and the veil of secrecy continues over the meetings. I have this gnawing feeling that we are going to wake up one morning to a not-surprising “surprise” announcement that an agreement has been reached to give away the heartland of Israel and that we need to uproot and relocate hundreds of thousands of Israelis. The liberal, mainstream media is the first to jump on a story where the government withholds information which the leftist media thinks the public should have. But, when it comes to dividing the State of Israel and giving Judea and Samaria to our enemies to set up an enemy state in our midst, the media has little or nothing to say about negotiations that are kept secret from the public.

Then, there is the turmoil in Egypt, the threat of Iran becoming nuclear, the struggles of the Hizb’allah in Lebanon and Nasrallah’s continued threats to blanket Israel with missiles “from Dan to Beersheva”. We’ll leave these for next time.

Bomb-proof backpack for children?
The new Israeli school year started today, Tuesday. Tens of thousands of new backpacks were purchased. But, with the various tensions in the region, an Israeli designer has created a “bomb-proof” backpack, which is intended to act as a personal shelter in the event of a terror strike or other emergency. that can also function as a protective vest against explosions.

And THAT Was The Week That Was.

“Then Asa called to the LORD his God and said, “LORD, there is no one besides You to help in the battle between the powerful and those who have no strength; so help us, O LORD our God, for we trust in You…” (2 Chronicles 14:11)

“Pray for the peace of Jerusalem. ‘May they prosper who love you’.” (Psalm 122:6)
Be blessed and be a blessing.

Have a simply great week.

Marvin
p.s.: In case anyone missed prior updates of The Week That Was, copies of updates that were sent out from the end of January, 2013, until now, can be viewed at: http://www.twtw.co.il

נשלח מה-iPad שלי

Last week was a bit of a difficult week. The Prime Minister underwent surgery to repair a hernia and while he was recuperating, a special ministerial team decided on the release of 26 terrorists, all with blood on their hands, who either killed or assisted in the killing of 35 Israelis. “Under Cover of Darkness” was the front-page caption of Yediot Aharonot, one of Israel’s major Hebrew dailies, on Tuesday morning. It referred to the release of those terrorists, at night and in sealed vehicles so as to prevent photos of victory by the “Palestinian” Authority. The same front page showed pictures of some of the victims, while their families claimed that freeing the terrorists was a betrayal of those who were murdered. Of those who were released, 14 were sent to the Gaza Strip and 12 to the “West Bank” (i.e., that part of Judea and Samaria that is under the control of the “Palestinian” Authority). In the shadow of the raging controversy, negotiations were set to be resumed Tuesday morning.

The pain and sense of loss that do not go away.
Our nation has been attacked. Families have been torn apart by the sudden and violent taking of the lives of our loved ones by terrorists, cold-blooded killers, whose ideology compels them to repeat their crimes. And the perpetrators are being released to return to their families and continue their lives, which were interrupted for a season, while they were accommodated by Israel’s prison system. Israel’s Security Service revealed that more than 60% of them will continue to pursue terrorist activities against Israel.

Although it is said that “time heals all wounds”, many, like Rose Kennedy, disagree: “The wounds remain. In time, the mind, protecting its sanity, covers them with scar tissue and the pain lessens. but it is never gone.” Indeed, the scars that remain are a constant reminder of the damage that took place. Some of the scars are visible, while some remain seared on the hearts and in the minds of the families whose lives were forever disrupted by the untimely deaths of their loved ones, brought about by the hatred of those with whom we are now trying to reach a another peace agreement. A desperate, spur-of-the-moment, last-minute protest took place on Monday in Tel-Aviv, opposite the Ministry of Defense, to prevent the release of the terrorists. One of the protesters expressed the anguish of the families, stating: “These are people who murdered a Holocaust survivor with an axe, who stabbed soldiers to death with pitchforks like stacks of wheat. Their release is a yielding to terror.”

Proponents of the release of the terrorists claim that although the terrorists were sentenced to life imprisonment, they are what is referred to as lower-echelon terrorists, who are not the leaders or masterminds behind the incidents that resulted in the deaths of the victims. They added that most of them are now senior citizens and they are just a light shadow and that their release is in keeping with the government’s good-will gesture towards the “Palestinians”, as promised. Is this supposed to comfort the families of the victims? A slightly closer examination may reveal just how truly empty this so-called “gesture” really is, causing the pain to be even greater for the bereaved families. With the prisoners being released under cover of night was obviously intended to minimize celebrating a “Palestinian” victory in “Israeli territory”. This would not warm the cockles of the heart of “Palestinian” Authority President, Mahmoud Abbas. But, with more than half of them being transferred to the Gaza Strip, any celebration in Gaza over the release of those who were there would be to the benefit of Mahmoud Abbas, at the expense of Hamas. So, on the one hand, Israel still tries to bolster Abbas, while on the other hand, it tries its best to put a damper on his “victory” of getting these terrorists released. In order words, he’ll have to work a bit to celebrate this “victory”. This move, at this time, does nothing to draw the two sides closer, nor does it serve to encourage the population of Israel to stand behind the present peace initiative.

A more realistic appraisal of the release is that it is a political ploy to gain time for the “peace talks” to fail honorably, rather than to bring about a situation where the diplomatic efforts of Secretary of State John Kerry would fail immediately. This scenario would boost Israel’s position vis-a-vis the U.S. and the Quartet, as not being the one who blocked the peace efforts from getting off the ground. It saves face for Kerry and, of course, for U.S. President Obama, as well as P.M. Netanyahu. If, in fact, that is the case, then the choice of these particular terrorists does not serve to demonstrate either support for Abbas or optimism regarding the outcome of the talks. Instead, it constitutes nothing more than a crude political game, where the immediate losers are, again, the bereaved families of the victims. Yes, the scars remain, but they are also a reminder that we continue to survive.

Of the many stories of the victims and their families, I chose to briefly share the following:
1.  Mofir Canaan was 49 years old, married and the father of six children, five of whom are sons. He was also a Druze from the Village of Archah. He served in the I.D.F. as a Border Policeman and after being discharged, worked for the Prison Service. After he retired, he was stabbed to death in a nearby village. His murderer was apprehended, tried and convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. The then Prime Minister, Yitzhak Shamir, wrote a letter of condolence to the family, in which he praised Mofir and said that “there is no forgiveness and no pardon”. When they grew up, Mofir’s sons followed in their father’s footsteps and served in various special units in the I.D.F. One of his sons, Fahad, said that Netanyahu, who at the time of his father’s death was serving as Deputy Foreign Minister, promised the family that his father’s killer would be caught and would remain In jail for the rest of his days. Fahad added: “We all love the country and are proud of it. But why are killers being released? They should rot in jail. Is this the compensation for a mother who raised us by her own strength? To release dad’s killer?” Another son, Keinan, wrote a letter to Netanyahu requesting that he keep his promise and not release his father’s killer. Another son, Forsan, was only 4 when his father was murdered. He said: “The murderer will be able to walk free in the street. I served 5 years in the I.D.F., this is the reward for my contribution to the State?”

To close out this story, last Monday, Yair Shamir, the Minister of Agriculture and the son of the late P.M. Yitzhak Shamir, said: “The moving letter of my father only strengthens what was and remains my position in principle that the negotiations with the “Palestinians” must be without preconditions and there was no basis for freeing the terrorists.  The decision that was reached obligates me along with the other members of the government.”
Actually, the issue is of such importance that power politics should not come into play and each Member of the Knesset should have been given a green light to vote his conscience. To force an MK to vote against his conscience is unconscionable.

2.  When Gilad Shalit was released in exchange for a thousand-plus terrorists, the nation took a hard swallow. Among those who were released were three terrorists, who were responsible for the planning, preparation and carrying out of bus bombing in Haifa in 2004, which took the lives of 17 people, many of them students on their way home from school. The fourth terrorist blew himself up along with the bus and the victims. One of those students who was killed was only 14 and a friend of our two oldest children, who were then 15 and 13. They were all in the same school and the night before the bombing, they were all together, with others, in a special group activity. Her parents are friends of ours and we mourned with them as they mourned. The government granted the family permanent residence status (which up to that point they did not have), as a result of being victims of terror. But, that could never compensate them, as they daughter would not return to their home. The wound was re-opened when their daughter’s murderers were set free. It is difficult to put into words the renewed pain and anguish that they suffered and continue to suffer.

Another victim of that terrorist incident was Smadar, a 17-year-old student. Her mother stated the situation this way:

“All of Israel rejoiced together with the Shalit family [when Gilad was released], but for us it was a jolt…We had lost everything, and there was a small comfort in the knowledge that at least the perpetrators would never see the light of day. Their release went against any possible perception of justice. When your child dies it sentences you to life without any possibility of parole. You remain a grieving parent for the rest of your life, without any possibility of relief. A more accurate statement than ‘would I had died for thee’ (2 Samuel 19:1) has not yet been written. For nine years [following the bus bombing], [my husband] was dying. He didn’t want to go to the ninth anniversary of Smadar’s death while the terrorists were free and she was not.” She added that during his last nine years of life, “He was in deep mourning. When people asked him, ‘How’s life?’ he would say, ‘We’re just breathing, not living’.” When his daughter’s murderers were released, “It finished him. He took it very hard… He wasn’t angry at Shalit, but at the government and the state for releasing murderers.” After he visited his daughter’s grave, the next night he suffered a heart attack and passed away.

At least Shalit was returned home as part if the prisoner release. This time, we received nothing, except a willingness to sit down and talk. The blood of the victims of these terrorists cries out from the ground. Even as the polls here show that close to 80% of the people are opposed to the release of the terrorists, the will of the people is ignored and the cries of the victims and the pleadings of their families go unheeded. “Now the LORD saw and it was displeasing in His sight that there was no justice.” (Isaiah 59:15)

Can we imagine the United States releasing terrorists as a “good will gesture” to make peace with its enemies? Or Norway releasing mass murderer, Anders Breivik, who took the lives of 77 Norwegians and injured 242 others, many of whom were teenagers? Or any other so-called civilized country voluntarily releasing its enemies, who killed and butchered men, women and children in cold blood? Of course not! While no civilized country in the world would consider releasing terrorists and murderers as a “good will gesture”, we are expected to do so. And we are also expected to uproot our own citizenry and give away our territory to our enemies to live in our midst. Apparently, when it comes to Israel, the double standard is the only standard.

Bloodbath in Egypt
It appears that the news regarding what is happening in Egypt is being covered fairly well my the main-stream media. People are not only being killed, they are being slaughtered by extremists, who want to restore Mohammed Morsi to power and, along with him, the Muslim Brotherhood. While most of the media emphasis is on the mayhem and murder taking place, little attention is being given to the fact that the millions who took to the streets did so to protest the take-over and attempt to create a state ruled by Islamist extremism.

At least 900 people, including 100 soldiers and police, have been killed in a crackdown on Morsi’s Muslim Brotherhood during the past week alone, making it Egypt’s bloodiest civil episode in decades.

Erdogan is a strong backer of Morsi as an example of a democratically elected Islamic leader. But, he either fails to understand, or chooses to ignore, the fact that democracy means more than having an election. It means that after the election is over, there is a responsibility to behave in a democratic fashion and not to immediately turn into a dictator, as happened with Morsi. What is Erdoğan’s real concern? If the people in Egypt could remove their leader and take him directly “from the palace to prison”, it could happen in Turkey as well. He probably doesn’t sleep as well these days as he did before the military coup in Egypt.

Before we leave the subject of Egypt, a brief word about former President Hosni Mubarak. It is to be recalled that Mubarak, 85, was sentenced to life in prison last year for failing to prevent the killing of demonstrators. An appeal’s court overturned his conviction and ordered a new trial. News reports today indicated that an Egyptian court released him from custody and he could be released as early as tomorrow, Thursday. There are concerns, however, that Mubarak’s release could spark a new wave of protests that would cause millions to take to the streets again and once again, a move that could cause Egypt to plummet into chaos and instability.

Syria continues to suffer
The forces of President Bashar Assad’s were accused by opposition activists of launching a nerve gas attack that killed at least 650 people, a situation, if confirmed, would be the worst use of poison gas in the Syrian civil war, that is now two and a half years running. According to the opposition activists,

Activists said rockets with chemical agents were fired into the suburbs of Damascus just before dawn. According to a report from one emergency medical facility: “Many of the casualties are women and children. They arrived with their pupils dilated, cold limbs and foam in their mouths. The doctors say these are typical symptoms of nerve gas victims.” Photos of victims were widely disseminated on the Internet, with many of them being children.

As expected, Syrian state television denied the reports and officials of Assad’s government said that if they had such chemical weapons, they would never use them against Syrians. This, of course, leads to the question: Against whom would Syria be willing to use deadly nerve gas? It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand that Israel is within the target range. Syria is not a signatory to the international treaty that bans chemical weapons, and it is widely believed that it has caches of undeclared mustard gas, sarin and VX nerve agents.

There are conflicting opinions regarding the logic of using such chemical weapons at this time, namely, only three days after U.N. chemical experts arrived in Damascus. But, given the heavy concentration of Sunni Islamist rebels in the area that was attacked, who are allied to al-Qaida, the use of such weapons should not be dismissed for reasons of “logic”. Fanatics do not operate on the basis of logic. That is one of great failings of the West, which likes to think that terrorists operate out of reason.

Peace Talks “Under the Radar”?
The French news agency AFP reported that according to “Palestinian” sources, negotiators were meeting “secretly” for additional talks. After meeting twice in Jerusalem, another meeting is scheduled to take place in a few days in Jericho.

The official position of Yair Lapid, the Treasury Secretary and head of the Yesh Atid Party, is that Jerusalem should not be divided. But, not everyone in his party agrees with him. MK Ofer Shelah expressed his opposition this way: “I don’t see an agreement in which the Arabs of Judea and Samaria won’t be able to call east Jerusalem their capital…There won’t be an agreement — and every intelligent person knows this — that isn’t based on the 1967 borders.” The fall-out from that statement has yet to be seen, although with the attitude of our chief negotiator, it might be the handwriting on the wall.

Israeli Minister of Justice, Tzipi Livni, who is also the chief negotiator for Israel, expressed that she would prefer that the Labor Party replace Habayit HaYehudi, which is headed up by Naftali Bennett. In her opinion, “If Labor replaced Habayit Hayehudi, there would be broader support for the negotiations within the government.” Bennett responded to her comments on his Facebook page saying, “Get over it.” Short, simple and to the point.

And, surprisingly, Dalia Rabin, the daughter of assassinated Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, said she would “not rule out the possibility” that in retrospect, her father might have viewed the Oslo Accords as a mistake. Now, that is a statement worth mulling over.

Turkey and Latkes – Giving thanks on the Festival of Lights
The prophet Micah stated: “Though I dwell in darkness, the LORD is a light for me.” (Micah 7:8)

Despite his circumstances, Micah focused his thoughts on the light that only God can provide. Clearly, he was thankful in the midst of a difficult situation, surrounded by spiritual darkness. Can we find something for which to be thankful? Certainly!

There is the yearly, worldly Festival of Thanksgiving and a yearly, more spiritual Festival of Lights. On both occasions, we take time to reflect and to be thankful. On rare occasions, the solar cycle and the lunar cycle allow for celebrations to take place in proper sequence (such as Passover preceding Easter, rather than the other way around). Then, there are the exceptional moments, that happen once and, in all probability, will not happen again. Such is the situation with the following, which was received from a long-time friend, who lives in the U.S.:

Hanukkah and Thanksgiving… Turkey and Latkes…

What a great combination!

Hanukkah will be on Thanksgiving this year, for the first time ever, and never again!

We will be celebrating the first night of Chanukah on Thanksgiving, so expect turkey and latkes on the table.

This is the only time it will ever happen, read below to see the explanation!!!

Thanksgiving is set as the fourth Thursday in November, meaning the latest it can be is 11/28.

11/28 is also the earliest Hanukkah can be.

The Jewish calendar repeats on a 19 year cycle, and Thanksgiving repeats on a 7 year cycle. You would therefore expect them to coincide roughly every 19×7 = 133 years.

Looking back, this is approximately correct the last time it would have happened is 1861.

However, Thanksgiving was only formally established by President Lincoln in 1863.

So, it has never happened before. Why won’t it ever happen again?

The reason is because the Jewish calendar is very slowly getting out of sync with the solar calendar, at a rate of 4 days per 1000 years! This means that while presently Hanukkah can be as early as 11/28, over the years the calendar will drift forward, such that the earliest Hanukkah can be is 11/29. The next time Hanukkah falls on 11/28 is 2146, which is a Monday. Therefore, 2013 is the only time Hanukkah will ever overlap with Thanksgiving!!!

Of course, if the Jewish calendar is never modified in any way, then it will slowly move forward through the Gregorian calendar, until it loops all the way back to where it is now.

So, Chanukah would again fall on Thursday, 11/28…in the year 79,811.

Given our trajectory with global warming, it is fair to say humans wont be here then. And if there are no humans, the holidays will be cancelled.

So on November 28th 2013, enjoy your turkey and your latkes. It has never happened before, and it will never happen again.

And That Was The Week that Was.

“The people who walk in darkness will see a great light; those who live in a dark land, the light will shine on them. (Isaiah 9:2)

“It is too small a thing that You should be My Servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to restore the preserved ones of Israel; I will also make You a light to the nations so that My salvation may reach to the end of the earth.” (Isaiah 49:6)

Be blessed and be a blessing.

Have a simply great week.

Marvin
p.s.: In case anyone missed prior updates of The Week That Was, copies of updates that were sent out from the end of January, 2013, until now, can be viewed at: http://www.twtw.co.il

נשלח מה-iPad שלי

Every now and then, we need to step back and take a break from the daily grind. It helps us to gain a fresh perspective regarding the things that are going on around us and often enables us to get a handle on how those things impact our lives. So it was for me these last few weeks. So much was happening in and around the Middle East, I decided to watch things unfold and observe how so many news columnists wanted to express their opinions about almost everything that related to the renewed “peace talks”. In their frenzy to fill their word quota, many were verbally tripping over one another, but most of them, in my opinion, missed the big picture concerning the so-called “peace talks”, Israel and the Jewish people.

Pressure Politics, the “Peace Process” and Israel, blind and deaf
Over the last three weeks, I watched the news, read the newspapers and saw a strong, independent nation, established in line with Biblical prophecy, once again yield to outside pressure. I watched as our nation’s leadership caved in to the pleadings and threatenings of the international  community, particularly the United States, and almost beg those who hate us to talk with us, so that we could give them a huge chunk of our land. We were the ones with the “upper hand”, yet we pleaded to be allowed to cut ourselves open and give away our heart, thinking that the rest of our body will be able to function properly and effectively without it. And, if that were not enough, we were willing to release many terrorists, whom we captured, convicted and sentenced to lengthy jail terms for their willful murder of our people and attempts to destroy us as a nation, all as part of still another “goodwill gesture”. The major difference from similar “gestures” in the past is that this time, we did it for the singular purpose of getting our enemies to agree to sit down and talk with us, so that we could do even more to create national, self-inflicted wounds. A form of blindness, deafness and madness has taken hold of the upper echelons of our national leadership.

“You have seen many things, but you do not observe them; Your ears are open, but none hears.”  (Isa. 42:20) These words of the prophet Isaiah are as valid for us today, as the day that they were written. We could ask the simple question: “Is anyone here paying attention?”

Before the first round of talks, which took place in Washington two weeks ago, and even before the cabinet vote concerning the resumption of the so-called peace talks with the “Palestinians”, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu issued an open letter to the citizens of Israel, with these words:

“From time to time, prime ministers are called on to make decisions that go against public opinion — when the matter is important for the country’s well-being.

Benjamin Netanyahu”

In all fairness, let me give credit where credit is due. Netanyahu (for whom I voted more than once) has been responsible for a number of diplomatic achievements, as he indicated. However, like the true politician that he is, the above “open letter” leaves open many questions. For example, in the language emphasized above, we are left to wonder what the possibilities would be after the nine months are up and there is still no agreement. Will we be expected, or will it be demanded of us, that we extend the time to give birth to an agreement for peace that will cut pieces from the State of Israel, because by then “we will be so close”? That question was answered on August 1st by Tzipi Livni (chairperson of the HaTnuah Party), Israel’s left-wing Minister of Justice and chief negotiator with the “Palestinians”: “All the parties involved have an interest in reaching a settlement”, adding: “Time is less important. If we require more than nine months, of course we’ll continue, and if the negotiations will not be serious – then even nine months will not necessary. My impression is that the ‘Palestinians’ are serious, this is a test for them. Anyone who enters the negotiating room knows more or less how it should end.”

And, how will our entering into negotiations “establish Israel’s position in the complex international reality around us”?  Could it be that Israel is trying to buy time to finalize taking military action against Iran, with or without assistance, which cannot be counted upon, of the U.S.? If so, we need to remember that with all of the worry and concern about the possibilities of a nuclear Iran, with the uprisings in Syria and in Egypt and the turmoil and oppressive regimes in other places around the world, most countries, particularly those in the European Union, are fixated over the resolution of the Arab and “Palestinian” – Israeli conflict. They are operating under the delusion that bringing this issue to an end, one way or another, would also bring an end to the multitude of other problems now facing the world. Blowing Israel off the face of the map is only one of the desires of Tehran. Another is its expansionist vision to reclaim the territory and the glory of the former Persian Empire. Resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict will not end the fighting between Shiite and Sunni Moslems. Nor will it end the public revolt in Egypt, or remove the threat of a nuclear North Korea, or provides jobs or economic security or wipe out diseases, or end the desire of Islamists for Islamic supremacy over the rest of the world, and so on.

The release of prisoners with “blood on their hands”, just to get the “Palestinians” to sit down with us in the same room and talk, is not only immoral, it is also setting an extremely dangerous precedent. Let’s think for a moment how assured this really is. In order for the “Palestinians” to be willing to talk peace, they want us to release murderers, whom they were responsible for sending out to kill us. But, they not only want “Palestinian” murderers released, they also want Israeli Arabs released from prison with them. Agreeing to this request gives a tacit understanding and approval to allow the “Palestinian Authority” to be the legitimate representative of Israeli Arabs, as well as those from their own community. We have released some 10,000 terrorists over the years in exchange for a total of a handful of Israeli soldiers, some of whom were returned to us dead, within the framework of a peace agreement. Many of them continued their terrorist activities, because their ideology demands it. And, as expected, many return to try their terrorists stills again.

Over the years, from the time when Arafat would say one thing, in English, for the international press and another thing, in Arabic, for the “Palestinian” people, Israeli politicians made considerable efforts to pass off comments in Arabic as meaning something other than what was really said. Nothing has really changed. The “Palestinian” mindset remains the same as it was. Releasing murderers is viewed as a victory for them and a clear message that terrorism is a valid means to achieve their ends, namely, the destruction of Israel. Their release allows them to pursue their goals with more terrorism and even to use the issue of release of terrorists as a means of affecting the “peace process”.

A senior “Palestinian” official said that the peace talks will further the goal of establishing a “Palestinian” state, which will be the first step of completing the program of defeating the enemy – Israel. Mahmoud Abbas said that when the “Palestinian” state will be established, “we will not see the presence of a single Israeli – civilian or soldier – on our lands.” So much for a “peace partner”. And yet, our leadership continues to press on with “peace talks”, turning a blind eye and a deaf ear to the realities on the ground.

Let’s take this one step further: for the sake of discussion only, let’s presume that a “peace agreement” is reached with the “Palestinians”. Then what? According to Netanyahu, he will submit it to a public referendum for the people to decide, because it is too great an issue to be decided by politicians. Based on what has been offered by previous Israeli governments, and rejected by the “Palestinians”, the heart of Israel would be given away. That would entail, in very simple numbers, the uprooting of over 100,000 people. A national referendum approving the “peace agreement” will divide the country and could result in a “Jewish Spring” and civil uprisings throughout the country. If the referendum rejects the agreement, do we start all over again?

But, coming back to present reality, if a referendum is considered important enough at the end of the process, why shouldn’t it be deemed important enough to restart the process, particularly if it requires the release of terrorist murderers? Polls taken regarding the issue of their release show that the majority of Israelis were opposed to such a move. If we opposed release of prisoners, how much more would we be opposed to the uprooting of tens upon tens of thousands of Jewish people from their homes? If the right question is properly phrased in the referendum, the outcome should be clear: Israel will not be divided. Nevertheless, politics, being what it is, can generate untold surprises and, in the end, we could have a nation divided, a people divided, a land divided and enemies on all sides, from within as well as from without.

The release of convicted terrorists is no small matter. Some have already been released and others are slated to be released for the next round of negotiations, to take place in Jerusalem this week. Those who support their release say that it was the lesser of many evils. The “Palestinians” demanded that prior to agreeing to renewed “peace talks”, Israel first had to agree that the talks would be renewed on the basis of the establishment of a “Palestinian” state with the 1967 borders (which, as previously note in TWTW were not borders but cease-fire lines). This demand was rejected. Another demand that was rejected was that the talks resume where they were left off during the time of former P.M. Ehud Olmert. Also rejected was the demand that Israel openly declare a moratorium on settlement construction while negotiations were being conducted. So, why didn’t Netanyahu simply say “no” to releasing terrorist prisoners at this stage? Was this concession that critical? Would it make the “Palestinians” reject their charter that calls for the destruction of Israel? Would it make the rest of the nations love us? Obviously not. We had insisted that talks resume without preconditions. We gave in on that and set an extremely bad precedent for negotiations in the future. Our “yes” should have been “yes” and our “no” should have been “no”.

What should be obvious is that demanding the release of racist murderers and revering them as heroes, is the polar opposite of peace. Making such a demand is tantamount to making a declaration that the P.A. is not interested in peace. When such a demand is made by the head of the P.A., who also denies the Holocaust, we should have responded with a statement that those who truly seek peace would not seek the release of those who are opposed to peace and that by making such a request, Mahmoud Abbas showed himself to anything but a genuine partner for peace, or for that matter, a partner for anything.

And, to make matters worse, the negotiators agreed that the negotiations would remain secret.  Only U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry would release information about what was happening. But, this relates to Israel and plans that affect Israel always come to light, as nothing is hidden from Him, Who created us and established us for His glory. “Woe to those who deeply hide their plans from the LORD and whose deeds are done in a dark place. And they say, ‘Who sees us?’ or ‘Who knows us’?” (Isa. 29:15) “You have placed our iniquities before You, our secret sins in the light of Your presence.” (Psalm 90:8) If, according to Tzipi Livni, “Anyone who enters the negotiating room knows more or less how it should end”, then why shouldn’t we know now what they know?

The 9-month period for negotiating a “peace deal” clearly presents a picture of pregnancy. It starts with uncertainty, is followed by a period of nausea, which then turns into discomfort and an inability to move freely without pain and/or discomfort. At the end, a newborn comes forth that no ones knows how the child will look, but who will cry and wail and demand everyone’s attention to satisfy every one of his needs, until he is pacified. Sound familiar?

Following the first round of talks in Washington, Israel’s chief negotiator, Tzipi Livni, stated: “We came here today from a troubled and changing region…We are hopeful, but we cannot be naive. We cannot afford it in our region. We owe it to our people to do everything … for their security and for the hope of peace for future generations…We all know that it’s not going to be easy. It’s going to be hard, with ups and downs. But I can assure you that … in these negotiations, it’s not our intention to argue about the past, but to create solutions and make decisions for the future.”

She then turned to Saeb Erekat, the “Palestinian” negotiator, and added: “You know, Saeb, we all spent some time in the negotiations room. We didn’t reach [a] dead end in the past, but we didn’t complete our mission. And this is something that we need to do now in these negotiations … a new opportunity is being created for us, for all of us, and we cannot afford to waste it.”

At a press conference following the first round of talks, Tzipi Livni said Israel entered the negotiations with “open eyes” and that we must act to preserve our security interests, as well as act for the sake of future generations.

As expected, the Middle East Quartet was enthusiastic about the resumption of talks, stating its hope that the “renewed negotiations will be substantive and continuous and set a clear path towards a two-state solution, the end of conflict, and lasting peace and security for both Israelis and Palestinians.”

Giving away about 98% of Judea and Samaria was not completed. Now, our chief negotiator wants to finish what was started. Maybe it’s time to think about replacing the present negotiator with a new one. At least I’m not alone in my thinking. In light of her statements and willingness to “finish” what was started to create a “Palestinian” state, many in the Knesset are wondering whether Livni is the right person to bring the cows home. Her mandate is not clear and, in fact, it is not even known how far she can go and whether she will be the one suggesting what the future borders of a “Palestinian” state should be. The other negotiator for Israel is Yitzhak Molcho, who is not a politician, but a lawyer. There is no doubt that the top celebrity of the “peace talks” is Tzipi Livni. I can’t wait to hear what the next round of talks will bring forth. Actually, I can wait, because if this is the way we started, it can only get worse. And this last statement is coming from an eternal optimist.

The Real Issue
As mentioned at the outset, it seems that the discussions about holding “peace negotiations” based on a 2-state formula miss the point and are damaging to Israel. Any process of negotiation should be based upon the principle of “peace for peace”. Our emphasis needs to be our “right” to all of Israel, based on law, morality and history. The latter aspect establishes who we are, how we came to be, what we, as a people, have accomplished and contributed to the world, not the least of which is The Book of Books, The Bible, the foundation for every moral code in so-called democratic countries. Our history establishes how we came here and how we came to possess territory “from Dan to Beersheva”, including Judea and Samaria, which shows that we are not occupying land that belonged to someone else, but land that is part of our historical heritage. Negotiation, therefore, from an Israeli point of view, should press the issue of our legitimacy in and to all of the land, including Judea and Samaria. It should focus on the legitimacy of Zionism (after all, God is a Zionist – there are 500 references to Zion in the Scriptures), which began as a movement to get Jews from around the world to return to our ancient homeland, irrespective of the world’s attempt to equate Zionism with racism and apartheid. If we focus on borders and security issues, instead of our right to be here – even if our claim is rejected – and we agree to be redefined by narrow borders, we will yield our legitimacy to claim our historical link to this entire land and will justify “Palestinian” claims that we are, after all, nothing more than occupiers of “their” land. Maybe we should again suggest the possibility of the “Palestinians” trying to set up their tents in Jordan. After all, many Arab residents in East Jerusalem already hold Jordanian, as opposed to Israeli, passports.

But, alas, we may have missed the opportunity argue truth, if we argued amiss along the lines of borders and security. We can negotiate all that we want and the “Palestinians” will happily sign whatever is ultimately agreed to. If our most recent history has taught us anything, it is that they have no interest in living at peace with us, but rather, they want us removed from the region.

Setting the Record Straight
The Prime Minister wanted the Knesset to pass the controversial “referendum law” as a basic law (the equivalent of a constitutional law), that would make mandatory a national referendum regarding any peace deal that would require territorial withdrawals. During the debate on the law in the Knesset, MK Jamal Zahalka (National Democratic Assembly – an Arab party) claimed that inasmuch as the bill referred to “occupied territory”, it was irrelevant “what applies is international law; the referendum should apply to the nations of the world.”

MKs from Habayit Hayehudi responded to Zahalka, saying “You are the foreigners in this land”, to which he replied: “We were here before you and we will be here after you.”

At that point, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu asked to be allowed to respond to Zahalka’s statements from the Knesset podium, where he said: “I did not plan to speak but I heard what MK Zahalka had to say. You said ‘We were here before you and we’ll be here after you’re gone.’ The first part is not true and the second part will never take place.” The P.M. slammed his hand on the podium and then left the hall to the applause from many members of the Knesset.

It should be noted that in 2012, when Netanyahu spoke at the U.N. General Assembly, he said: “The Jewish people have lived in the land of Israel for thousands of years. Even after most of our people were exiled from it, Jews continued to live in the land of Israel throughout the ages. The masses of our people never gave up the dreamed of returning to our ancient homeland. Defying the laws of history, we did just that. We ingathered the exiles, restored our independence and rebuilt our national life. The Jewish people have come home. We will never be uprooted again.“ (underscored emphasis, mine)

In light of this last statement, how can we negotiate to give away our land? Maybe a “give-away” is not considered “uprooting” from a political point of view, because it is voluntary. But, how voluntary is it really? Maybe what we need to do is to ask the citizens of Israel, who will be required to leave their homes as part of a “peace agreement” whether their definition of “uprooting” is the same as that of our present government.

New Iranian President – not so moderate about Israel
Two days before inauguration, Iran’s new President, Hasan Rouhani, who took part in a pro-“Palestine” rally, said, “The Zionist regime has been a wound on the body of the Islamic world for years and the wound should be removed”. In so stating, Rouhani’s comments followed the lines of his predecessors, including Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, as well as of other Iranian leaders.

Prime Minister Netanyahu responded quickly to Rouhani’s statement, saying, “The real face of Rouhani has been exposed earlier than expected…The president’s words need to awaken the world from the illusion that some have been under since the elections in Iran.” At the weekly cabinet meeting that took place thereafter, Netanyahu added that even though the president in Iran had changed, the goal of the regime had not: to develop nuclear capability and weapons to destroy Israel.

Turkey Released alleged “Mossad Agent”
A while back, Egypt claimed that it caught a shark off the coast of Sinai and said that it was a spy for the Israeli Mossad. Iran also claimed that the vulture that it captured was a Mossad spy. Now, authorities in Turkey said that it detained a kestrel (bird) on suspicion of spying for Israel, because it has a metal ring on its foot with the words “24311 Tel Avivunia Israel”. But, after submitting the bird to a series of x-rays and being convinced that it was not embedded with surveillance equipment, such as microchips or bugging devices, they let it go. And that ended the saga of the “Mossad Falcon”.

Israel’s National Insurance Institute will run out of money in less than 30 years.
The National Insurance Institute, Israel’s equivalent of the U.S. Social Security System, could run out of funds by 2042. As a general matter, every working Israeli citizen is required to pay national insurance. NII Director-General Shlomo Mor said even small steps could improve the situation, adding: “The [financial] report is a warning to Israel. If we take small or moderate measures today to ameliorate the current situation, we can avoid taking drastic measures in the future, which could damage recipients’ quality of living.” Some are asking whether they should put money into a system that is designed to provide for their future pension, when that system is expected to reasonably fail by the time they expect to receive benefits from what they are now putting in.

A Little Language Levity
The Jewish Press reported on August 1st about a give-and-take between an orthodox Jewish, Member of Knesset and an Arab MK, who were able to encourage one another in their mutual opposition to a new law that would make it more difficult for small political parties to enter the Knesset. Yisrael Eichler, a member of United Torah Judaism, and Ahmed Tibi, a member of Ta’al and a staunch supporter of the establishment of a “Palestinian” state, gave speeches in the Knesset opposing the passage of the law. Eichler spoke to Tibi in Arabic and the latter showed responded in kind, speaking to Eichler in Yiddish, stating how much he appreciated the Haredi (ultra orthodox) support for “democracy”. Only in Israel!

The brief article can be found at: http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/brotherly-love-haredi-mk-speaks-arabic-arab-answers-in-yiddish/2013/08/01/

Israeli Ingenuity, from Haifa
The number of Israeli inventions and devices that have improved the lives of people around the world, including those of our enemies, is too numerous to mention here. But, we might all want to take a quick look at one system that was developed by Elbit Systems at the Haifa Scientific Industries Center (Merkaz Ta’asiyot Mada, or “Matam”) and be thankful for it the next time we plan to board a plane. Don’t you wish you lived here?
http://www.youtube.com/embed/uVlERTFVSpo?rel=0=

And THAT Was The Week That Was…and a little more.

“Do not let kindness and truth leave you; bind them around your neck, write them on the tablet of your heart. So you will find favor and good repute in the sight of God and man.” (Proverbs 3:3-4)

“The LORD loves the gates of Zion more than all the other dwelling places of Jacob.” (Psalm 87:2) “Those who trust in the LORD are as Mount Zion, which cannot be moved but abides forever.” (Psalm 125:1) “The LORD bless you from Zion and may you see the prosperity of Jerusalem all the days of your life.” (Psalm 128:5)

Be blessed and be a blessing.

Have a simply great week.

Marvin
p.s.: In case anyone missed prior updates of The Week That Was, copies of updates that were sent out from the end of January, 2013, until now, can be viewed at: http://www.twtw.co.il

Surprise, surprise – Iranian “moderate” is the new president.
The big surprise of the week came from the announcement that Hassan Rohani won the presidential election in Iran, capturing just over 50% of the more than 18 million votes that were cast. Rohani is said to be a “moderate”, who also served as Iran’s chief nuclear envoy between 2003 to 2005. He is in favor of greater interaction with the West and is looked upon by some as possibly being able to influence, even slightly, Iran’s religious powers to be more flexible. That perspective, however, is nothing more than wishful thinking.

The “West” was quick to express “cautious optimism” over Rohani’s election, but his replacement of Ahmedinejad is not expected to bring about any change in Iran’s nuclear program, which is controlled by Iran’s religious rulers, particularly the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. But, a few comments should be made to set the picture straight:-

In the broad scheme of things, nothing has changed in Iran. Presidents come and go, but Khamenei remains. The nuclear program is more a point of national pride at this point, than of an existential need to provide energy for its citizens. As such, Iran will not do a turn-about because of international, economic pressure, which alone will not affect Iran’s pride and expansionist policy. Moreover, its long-arm influence is also at stake in the role it plays in the Syrian civil war, where it openly supports Assad, both with military materials as well as with combatants. The masses have little say in Iran. They tried in 2009 and lost. If they try again, it would require a willingness to enter into an Iranian Spring, with consequences far more serious than what is happening today in Syria.

In Iran, the president is a figure-head in the stage of the world, but the script writer is Khamenei and the powerful Revolutionary Guard. Following the last presidential debate a few days before the elections, Iran’s Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi noted that none of the candidates would “impact Iran’s foreign policy after the election”. In other words, the presidency allows fire a change in form, or style, over substance. Perhaps Ruhani can “package” Iran’s nuclear policy better than Ahmedinejad, but he won’t be able to change it.

Another point about Ruhani – when he handled Iran’s nuclear file back in 2003-2005, no sanctions were imposed on Iran. His “moderate” position is moderate only in terms of his desire to be more flexible when talking with the West. When it comes to the substance of actually changing Tehran’s position and goal, he remains powerless.

Negotiations with Western powers over Iran’s nuclear ambitions were put on hold until after the presidential elections. This move can and should realistically be seen as an effort by Tehran to buy time, particularly as none of the presidential candidates spoke out against its nuclear program. It would also appear to be clear at this point that if there is no real progress once negotiations are renewed, there will be renewed threats, particularly by Israel, to pursue the military option against Iran.

Time is running out. Iran has intensified its efforts to complete its enrichment program. I pray that we won’t be in a situation where “Nero fiddled while Rome burned”.

All Hail King Shimon, the First.
In his opening speech celebrating the 90th birthday of Israeli President Shimon Peres, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair set the tone and the stage for the multitude of accolades that were to be heaped upon Peres by many of the Who’s Who of international politics, which included its subsidiary, the entertainment industry: “We in Britain have our Queen and you [Israel] have your Shimon”. From the speeches and well wishes of notables, both those present and through the media, praise and admiration was forthcoming for Israel’s most-senior active politician. All that appeared to be missing was the official coronation.

The guests, who came for the birthday celebration numbered somewhere around 3,000, and included, among others: former U.S. President, Bill Clinton, actors Robert DeNiro and Sharon Stone, as well as singer Barbara Streisand. Many of the guests also came for the annual President’s Conference that extended from last Tuesday through Thursday, and hosted around 5,000 people. Both events essentially advocated the “two-state solution” at every opportunity. Recorded birthday greetings for Peres included those from U.S. President Barack Hussein Obama, as well as German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s, Spanish King Juan Carlos, Prince Albert of Monaco and Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin. The Presidential Conference had representatives from 20 countries, including Mikhail Gorbachev and Rahm Emanuel, as well as Hollywood stars and Nobel Prize laureates. It was largely a politically-left affair, with only brief moments when comments were made regarding Israel’s need for security.

After the speeches and the praises, Peres addressed those who gathered for his birthday celebration and said, among other things, “I know you have come to Jerusalem from around the world to pay tribute to me, and with me, to do ‘tikkun olam’.” He added the “Peres Push” to the push of others, saying that Israel was geared toward peace and that he wished to see a “Palestinian” state. The Hebrew expression “tikkun olam” (tee-koon’ oh-lahm) literally means fixing or repairing the world, but is understood as “healing” or “transforming” the world. The use of that term in the context of Peres’s speech conveys the thought that the division of the land of Israel and the establishment of a “Palestinian” state in its midst is what will bring about world unity and peace. This “message” was expressed over and ever again indifferent forms, including by a rendition of the song, “Give Peace A Chance” that was sung by a few hundred young Israelis.

But, this very “schmaltzy” affair did not cause satisfaction is all sectors of Israeli society. It was said to be the wrong thing at the wrong time, because of the cost factor, some US $3 million, while the average Israeli is being asked to tighten his belt even more than before because of budget cuts and increases in taxes. It was also thought to be overly lavish and not fitting for a senior Israeli official. One columnist, Ariana Melamed, got to the heart of the matter when she wrote, in part:

“Rivers of true love and hero worship, kitsch and glitter were poured out at your feet, Mr. President. An awkward mix of oligarchs and models”, and asked, “what was it that the organizers of the event and those who appeared and starred in it wanted to prove to the citizens whose President you are?

“We know that you are very loved, that you are appreciated throughout the world as a wise, elder statesman during an era of many upheavals. This we also know. But, what we were able to see in your celebration, between segments that tried to be like a night of the Oscars and those that tried to copy from Eurovision, is primarily the embarrassing gap between words and reality, between the list of invitees to Israel who remained outside, between the honor of the State and the donation of the bank and the oligarch … [and] your party….

“This was a party of a full and proud consensus, Mr. President. You invited writers and philosophers, but none of them was heard in an interview. You invited starlets and stars from gossip columns, too many people from the image industry and too many government speeches that spoke to you and about you, all while you didn’t hear nor did you want to hear the official Israel. When did we become like them, Mr President? From Ben Gurion to Rabin and from Chaim Weitzman to Herzog, it is difficult to imagine heads of state and presidents who would be prepared to participate in such a spectacle. When did you give up the modesty that was so appropriate for Israeli leaders in favor of warm hugs from world leaders and more for all to see in order to understand your greatness?…

“Did you, for one moment during that night full of glamor, wealth and horrible public relations scripts, feel a little embarrassment? Or have we lost this feature altogether as a people and as a society….?”

Admittedly, throughout his long career, Peres had done much to benefit Israel. But, he also made lots of mistakes. Despite his “pluses and minuses” balance sheet, he accumulated enough political mileage over the years to be able to get away with almost anything that is publicly visible. He says what he wants, even when it goes contrary to official government policy and even when his position as President calls for him to remain silent. He has attained a degree of immunity from tabloid persecution when others are accused, tried and sentenced by the liberal, left-wing mass media for every word that flies in the face of compromise philosophy. And, as concerns this latest celebration, he was able to enjoy every moment of it, while other politicians would have been sacrificed at the stake of public opinion if they had tried to stage a Hollywood-style extravaganza like this birthday party.

To top off Peres’s birthday celebration, Barbara Streisand, now 71, was still able to belt out her signature song, “People Who Need People”, and then sang, in Hebrew, the Jewish, High-Holiday classic, “Avinu Malkeinu” (“Our Father, Our King”). Interesting …

How can we positively shape international opinion for Israel?
Pro-Israel activists in Norway have learned that education is the key to shaping international public opinion in favor of Israel. Instead of talking about so-called “legitimate rights of ‘Palestinians’ versus the need to insure Israel’s security”, they turn the discussion, or debate, as the case may be, to one of balancing rights, i.e., Israeli/Jewish rights and “Palestinian”/Arab rights. Once people begin to think about “justice for Israel”, it begins to even out the playing field. In a nutshell, they speak about Jewish refugees from Arab lands – an almost forgotten and almost never discussed issue.

A month ago, the Canadian government, under Prime Minister Stephen Harper, began a series of hearings on the matter of Jewish refugees from Arab countries, highlighting their plight in the context of the Israeli-“Palestinian” conflict and presenting it as a legitimate expression of an indigenous people from the Middle East. Shimon Koffler Fogel, CEO of the Center for Israel and Jewish Affairs, urged that Canada should officially recognize the persecution and displacement of over 850,000 Jews from the Middle East and North Africa, stating, in part: “Much of the Arab-Israeli peace process is about validation, of the legitimacy of Israel as a Jewish state and the recognition of the Palestinians as a people…Redress for Jews displaced from Arab countries is another example of this, and needs to be included for true and lasting peace to be achieved…Achieving peace in the Middle East is not a zero-sum game. The rights and claims of one group need not come at the expense of or displace those of the other. And thus, the purpose of incorporating the historic claims of Jewish refugees from Arab countries is not to diminish or compete with the claims of “Palestinian” refugees. The inclusion of the issue of Jewish refugees is meant to complete, not revise, the historical record.”

While the issue has been around for as long as the State of Israel exists, it has been ignored. It was highlighted for the public as early as 1984 in Joan Peters’ national bestseller, From Time Immemorial: The Origins of the Arab-Jewish Conflict Over Palestine. On page 25 of her book, Ms. Peters states:

“For every refugee – adult or child – in Syria, Lebanon, or elsewhere in the Arab world who compels our sympathy, there is a Jewish refugee who fled from the Arab country of his birth. For every Arab who moved to neighboring lands, a Jew was forced to flee from a community where he and his ancestors may have lived for two thousand years. The Jews escaped to their original homeland, where their roots are even older; the Arabs also arrived where they were in the majority, where they shared the same language and culture with fellow Arabs, and often only a few dozen miles from their places of origin.

“An exchange of populations has in actuality taken place and been consummated; by coincidence, even the total number of Arabs who reportedly left Israel is almost exactly equaled by the number of Jews exchanged. There has been a completed exchange of minorities between the Arabs and the Jews, and a more-than-even tradeoff of property for the Arabs. The Jews who fled Arab countries left assets behind in the Arab world greater than those the Arabs left in Israel. Jewish property that the Arabs confiscated in Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Egypt apparently has more than offset Arab claims of compensation from Israel.

“In fact, the concept of an ‘exchange of Arab and Jewish populations’ was introduced by an Arab leader as a solution to the ‘disturbances’ in the Middle East long before Israel or the actual exchange came about….”

She continues on pages 27-28:

“Among the dozens of countries to which tens of millions of refugees have fled for asylum, the only instance in which the ‘host countries refused,’ as a bloc, to assist properly, or even to accept aid in the permanent rehabilitation of their refugees, occurred in the ‘Arab states’. In March 1976, the director of the United States Committee for Refugees said that while ‘everyone must accept their refugees – that’s the world situation’, still, the ‘Arab refugees are a special case.’…

“‘Permanent resettlement’ remains the general goal of the United States government…Yet the current dialogue omits any mention of the rehabilitation or resettlement of ‘Palestinian’ Arab refugees. It is the ‘right of the Palestinians to their homeland’ that is consistently reiterated.

“The abuse of the refugees, their deprivation of real ‘human rights’ from 1948 onward, and the true motive behind their rejection by the Arab world have all been buried by propaganda slogans and omissions. Humanitarian voices of concern for ‘human need’ and dignity are now muted by the louder and increasingly prevalent trumpeting of the ‘rights’ of the ‘Palestinians’ to ‘return’.

“Amid that campaign, the belated recognition of the ‘other‘ Middle east refugees, the Jews, was termed an ill-timed ‘complication’ by United States officials during the Ford administration. To the benefit of the Arab propaganda mechanism, and perhaps to the ill fortune of many perpetual Arab refugees, Israel has not made an effective case for its own Jewish refugee claim; Israelis say that they have reserved the matter of the population exchange for overall peace negotiations, although they have referred to the exchange during discussions of refugee compensation, and in forums such as the United Nations.”
(Underlined words are emphasized in the original text by italics; footnotes from the original text were omitted by me.)

There is much more to this public relations argument, which Israel has failed to exploit over the years, much to its considerable detriment and to the advantage of the “Palestinian” propaganda machine. The effort by the Norwegians is admirable and we should pray that it is not too late. Similarly, the Canadian initiative should be repeated in every nation that calls itself “democratic” and which lauds the praises of “what is fair to one should be fair to all”. The bottom line of such an initiative is that it shows that Israel and the Jewish people are not “Johnnies come lately” in the Middle East, nor simply a once tolerated, but now an unwanted, by-product of European war guilt after the Holocaust, but indigenous Jews who lived in this region for upwards of 3,000 years.

It has been said before, but is worth repeating again and again: We accepted our brethren who were forced out of their homes from different Arab countries. Often the dialects and the languages themselves made for difficult communication. But, they all worked side by side, shoulder to shoulder, to build the land that received them as sons returning to their borders. The Arab refugees, on the other hand, who left at the behest of their own leadership prior to the outbreak of the War of Independence, have been used as tools by their own brethren for upwards of 65 years, kept in isolation and in squalid conditions for the world to see, rather than being absorbed by their relatives. If they had been absorbed, the Israeli-“Palestinian” conflict could have been avoided, although in all likelihood, the Arab-Israeli conflict would have continued on a wider, more religiously oriented scale.

U.S. and others to supply arms to Syrian rebels.
Apparently, the White House is finally convinced that the government forces of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons against those trying to remove him, thus crossing America’s “red line” and allowing for U.S. involvement in the civil war that has thus far claimed the lives of over 93,000 people.

The U.S. has decided to provide arms to the rebel forces, although the nature and extent of those arms has yet to be disclosed. The hesitation of President Obama to get involved in the Syrian upheaval was criticized by former President Bill Clinton, who said that such inaction could end up making Obama look life a “total fool”. The U.S. has its own struggles, trying to balance those who propose more aggressive action in Syria’s civil war, with those who are concerned about sending military materials into a war zone, where the Hizb’allah and Iranian militia are fighting alongside Assad’s troops and where al-Qaida extremists are fighting on the side of the rebels.

In the meantime, Ministers from the 11 countries, which make up the Friends of Syria group, were in agreement that there was an urgent need to “provide all the necessary material and equipment to the [Syrian] opposition on the ground”, while Russia repeated its commitment to complete a contractual deal with Syria and provide it with the advanced S-300 air defense missile system. The countries that make up the Friends of Syria group are: the Egypt, France, Germany, Italy, Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States. The weapons to be supplied by each country are to be transferred only to the Free Syrian Army, in an effort to prevent them from reaching Sunni jihadists. The once defunct “Cold War” between the U.S. and the West, on the one hand, and Russia, on the other hand, is beginning to thaw out and signs of life are able to be discerned.

Israel can only rely on itself to prevent another Holocaust.
That was the essence of what Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said when he visited the infamous Auschwitz death camp in Poland a week ago. He intimated that the dangers facing Israel at this time are those emanating from Iran: “The leaders of the Allies knew about the Holocaust in real time…They understood exactly what was happening in the death camps. They were asked to act, they could have acted and they did not…For us Jews, the lesson is clear. We must not be complacent in the face of threats of annihilation. We must not bury our heads in the sand or allow others to do the work for us. From here, the place that attests to the desire to destroy our people, I, as Prime Minister of Israel, the state of the Jewish people, tell the nations of the world: The state of Israel will do whatever is necessary to prevent another Holocaust. Because also today there are those who express their intention to destroy millions of Jews and to wipe their state off the face of the earth…This is a regime that is building nuclear weapons with the expressed purpose to annihilate Israel’s 6 million Jews…We will not allow this to happen. We will never allow another Holocaust.”

May it be that the leadership of our country will come to a clear realization that threats to our existence are directed towards us not only from outside of our borders, but inside them, as well. A little Bible reading, instead of holding a Bible meeting, wouldn’t hurt, as it would enable our politicians to begin to understand who they Re and what they Re called to be and to do.

“Palestinian” threats of another “Intifada”.
Nabil Shaath, the Senior Palestinian negotiator vis-a-vis Israel, warned that “if the status quo remains, we will not be able to prevent another intifada”, adding that Speaking to Israeli media outlets at his office in Ramallah, Shaath told reporters that a “quiet freeze [of settlement construction]” would open the door to getting the peace process back under way.

He immediately followed this with a statement that the “Palestinians” are actually spending some 60 percent of their expenses to protect Israel from counter-terrorism: “I have never seen a convict spend the penny they earn to protect their jailers … But we are doing it, because of us not because of you. Ideologically we committed ourselves to a nonviolent path and we are keeping our promise, and not to obey his highness Deputy Defense Minister Danny Danon, if I were in [Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu’s place I would fire him”.

His comments regarding Deputy Defense Minister Danny Danon followed Danon’s statement that the government does not support the two-state solution and will not allow a Palestinian state to be established inside the pre-1967 borders. Many within the left-wing faction of the government immediately condemned Danon’s statement. The “Palestinian” Authority was quick to denounce it, while pointing out that this, in fact, represents the true face of Israel. Within a few days, Danon’s statement began to gain support from other areas of the government, including from Naftali Bennett (Habayit Hayehudi party), who made it clear during coalition negotiations that he would not support the existence of a “Palestinian” state in the area of Judea and Samaria (referred to as “the West Bank”).

Netanyahu continues to express the need to seek, together with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, “to find an opening to negotiations in which a demilitarized “Palestinian” state emerges which recognizes the Jewish state. And for this to occur, the government needs to act as one.” Again, there seems to be a failure of senior politicians to remember that the only time the government tends to “act as one” is during a time of war. It is time to stop encouraging our enemy to take pieces out of this little slice of desert sand, but to come up with alternatives that will provide for an internally secure Israel, who can focus its energies against enemies from without, without the need to redirect those energies to deal with enemies from within.

Kerry is expected to present a multi-step peace plan.
During his next visit to our neighborhood, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry is expected to unveil a multi-step proposal for peace between Israel and the “Palestinian” Authority. i think the term “unveil” is appropriate, as an “unveiling” is what is done to reveal a grave stone in the Jewish community. In this situation, the grave stone lies on the dead peace process, which Kerry and the U.S. administration, along with most of Europe and other countries, seek to revive.

According to this proposed plan, both sides would enter into immediate negotiations, with no pre-conditions, but based on the two-state solution, “Palestinian” independence and Israeli security. Following the phased negotiation process, after there is agreement on certain core issues (presently undefined), Israel would be expected to make more “gestures” towards the “Palestinians”, by freezing construction and releasing terrorists (referred to simply as “prisoners” in order to be politically correct). The issue of the status of Jerusalem would be held for the end of the negotiations.

There is something inherently wrong with the thinking of, or lack of thinking by, politicians who refuse to accept reality and who continue to live on “fantasy island”. As long as they keep seeing the central issue as one of “land”, they will continue to avoid dealing with the real issue, the existence of Israel. This, in turn, which will serve to prolong the present struggle and make it much worse.

Lapid says he will press to have public transportation on Shabbat.
If the debates over budget cuts and increased taxes, as well as over “sharing the burden” in the military or national service, were not enough, Finance Minister Yair Lapid (Yesh Atid party) said he would support a plan that would allow for public transportation on Shabbat, “not in religious areas, but in secular neighborhoods and towns, because this is not an issue of religion and state — it is a simple social issue”. There seems to be a lack of understanding by many who are elected officials to recognize that there is a reason why one of Israel’s Basic Laws refers to Israel as a Jewish and Democratic state. There is no national, social issue that does not touch, in one way or another, matters of both religion and state. Just because the orthodox have been kept out of the coalition government does not mean that there will not be repercussions for upsetting the status quo regarding the government’s attempts to authorize public transportation on Israel’s day of rest. It is throwing down the gauntlet in front of the religious sector and it is uncertain by whom and how it will be picked up.

Increases in poverty affect ability to obtain medicines.
Speaking of the matters of finance, without doubt, one of Israel’s most difficult challenges is the increasing number of people who are falling below the poverty line. According to a recent report, last year some 12% of the population was forced to forego medical treatment or purchasing of medicines because of the cost, even the medicines are included in the “Medicine Package” that allows for a substantial discount for the patient in purchasing the same. The survey also revealed that an alarming number of participants felt confident that they would actually receive treatment for a serious ailment, if it became necessary.

Oldest Jewish person dies at age 113.
Evelyn Kozak was what Gerontologists refer to as a “super-centenarian”, those who are 110 or older. She was the seventh oldest person in the world, the oldest of whom is Misao Okawa, 115, of Japan.

Kozak’s family moved from Russian in the late 1800’s in order to escape anti-Semitic attacks. She ran a boarding house in Miami, Florida, and started to cover her hair in the manner of many traditionally orthodox Jewish women do. She had 5 children, 10 grandchildren, 28 great-grandchildren and 1 great-great-grandson. According to her granddaughter: “She always said a good conscience was the secret to a long life.” Now that’s a thought worth pursuing (1 John 3:21).

From an Arab doctor to Jewish one: please help this man!
War has a way of making people friends, who would forever be enemies. There is a brotherhood among physicians, who understand that they have a calling to render assistance to those who are in need of their special training and skills. In this modern age of cyberspace communication, one doctor is able to send an x-ray or the results of a CT or MRI scan to another and get a second opinion, or even help the receiving physician in ministering to his patient. But, what happens when an enemy asks for your help?

This was the question that faced Israeli doctors, who received a Syrian rebel, who was wounded in the fighting in Syria and found brought to Israel by U.N. forces which were near the border. The patient was transferred to Ziv Hospital in Safed for treatment. The unique thing about this patient is that he came with a note from the Syrian doctor who treated him before he arrived at the Israeli border. The Syrian physician wrote:

“To the honorable surgeon hello, the patient is 28 years old, was wounded by a bullet that struck him the chest, causing broken ribs, and fragments have damaged the liver and diaphragm. A thoracotomy [incision into the chest] was performed to stop the bleeding and abdominal surgery was performed to stop the hemorrhaging in the liver. The liver could not be stitched up and a pressure bandage was applied to the abdomen. The wounded patient was left under observation. Since 11 a.m. Saturday, June 8, 2013, his vital signs and hemoglobin levels were monitored. The doctors believe the abdominal surgery is required to analyze the state of the liver and to remove the pressure bandage. Please do what is required and thank you in advance.”

The Syrian doctor listed the medications used on the patient and signed his name at the end of the note.

Ziv Hospital has treated 20 Syrians since the outbreak of the civil war. Following the receipt of this patient, Ziv Hospital Director Dr. Oscar Ambon said: “A civil war is a complicated thing, and it should be noted that despite being portrayed as their enemy, the rumors that one can get good medical treatment in Israel are spreading by word of mouth”.

“If your enemy is hungry, give him food to eat; and if he is thirsty, give him water to drink. For you will heap burning coals on his head and the LORD will reward you” (Proverbs 25:21-22; Rom. 12:20). To this we might now include that if our enemy is injured, provide whatever treatment you can. There is no telling how saving a life can end up changing a life.

Israeli firm sets record-breaking deal for navigation application.
An Israeli company sold its navigation app “Waze” to Google for more than US $1 billion, plus an extra US $100 million for company managers and to pay out options. Waze has over 47 million users and raised over US $67 million in funding to date.

Many commercial reasons have been given for Google’s willingness to lay out this kind of money for a widely-used application.  But, with everybody trying to eavesdrop on everyone else, what better way to know where you are or where you’re heading than to plug your information into a system that could one day end up tracking your every move. Is Big brother really starting to watch us or are we just waking up to that reality?

Israel’s Biblical history and the politics of peace – how much denial can we take?
A 5-ton, carved pillar dating back to the time of King David was recently discovered at a location near Bethlehem, only for the discoverer to find out that he “re-discovered” what Israel has known about for years, but chose not to make it public, because of the “complexities of Arab-Israeli relations”. What is worse, an article that reported about it referred to its location as being “in the West Bank, not within the official borders of Israel” (my emphasis), making it all the more problematic to excavate there. This is simply outrageous!

Here’s the site:
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/06/20/find-from-era-king-david-confirm-old-testament/?fb_action_ids=10151501094693806&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=%7B%2210151501094693806%22%3A305051362963019%7D&action_type_map=%7B%2210151501094693806%22%3A%22og.likes%22%7D&action_ref_map=%5B%5D

And THAT was The Week That Was.

O LORD, our Lord, How majestic is Your name in all the earth…When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, the moon and the stars, which You have ordained; What is man that You take thought of him, And the son of man that You care for him? Yet You have made him a little lower than God, And You crown him with glory and majesty! You make him to rule over the works of Your hands; You have put all things under his feet…O LORD, our Lord, How majestic is Your name in all the earth! (Psalm 8:1, 3-6, 9)

Be blessed and be a blessing.

Have a simply great week.

Marvin
p.s.: In case anyone missed prior updates of The Week That Was, copies of updates that were sent out from the end of January, 2013, until now, can be viewed at: http://www.twtw.co.il

נשלח מה-iPad שלי

Well, one week ran into the next, as events began to unfold in various areas. Russia is firming up its position in Middle East affairs and will not only supply a state-of-the-art anti-aircraft system to Syria, but will give it almost a dozen MiGs as well. Fighting intensified in the Golan, which has spilled over to the demilitarized zone between Syria and Israel. The Austrian “peace-keeping” contingent is withdrawing its troops because the area has become to too dangerous for them. The lack of gas masks in Israel remains a concern of the government. Netanyahu pleads with Abbas to sit down and negotiate with Israel. Iran’s nuclear ambitions may be tied to its expansionist ideology and Tel-Aviv allows another Gay Pride Parade. Turkey’s Erdoğan is having his troubles and woes with the population and there is evidence of erosion between the Hizb’allah and Hamas. A kidney from a Jewish child who died was transplanted into a “Palestinian” child and a Member of Knesset gets the giggles and gets almost everyone in attendance to laugh with him.

From Russia with love – anti-aircraft system and 10 MiG-29 combat planes to Syria
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s announced that he has already received the first shipment of the Russian-made S-300 anti-aircraft missile system. The Kremlin denied having made the delivery, but stated that it could deliver the S-300 system to Syria “in accordance with contract no earlier than the autumn”. Apparently, there were more military contracts that remained unfulfilled and that would be supplied. Russia intends to supply Syria with 10 Russian MiG-29 combat airplanes, also “in accordance with contract”. After delivery, testing and training, the S-300 system could be operable by the spring of 2014. Some military experts believe that they can become operable within a month, depending upon the diligence of the Syrian personnel. According to a former Russian Air Force Commander, once the system is set up, it can be deployed with five minutes. The combat planes can be put into operation much more quickly than the anti-missile system.

Israel’s concern over Syria’s receipt, installation and operation of the S-300 anti-aircraft missile system is that it is able to launch six missiles at once, with each one being capable of intercepting ballistic targets, as well as being able to destroy aircraft flying at several times the maximum speed of the F-16 and F-22 fighter jets, the staples of both the Israeli and U.S. air forces, respectively.

This places Israel in the position of having to locate and destroy the anti-missile systems, as well as the combat planes, before either of them becomes operational. The complication is that for both of those deliveries, Russian technicians and/or military experts will have to be on site in order to train the Syrians how to use them. The Kremlin’s statements on the matter (that the S300 would provide “regional stability against the hotheads who are thinking about intervening in Syria”) are intended for Israeli ears. If the Russians in Syria are killed or seriously wounded by Israel, it would not be treated as just another Israeli strike, but could well be seen as a provocation that would bring Russia into the fray. In this situation, the conflict would be between Moscow and Jerusalem – not a good scenario.

Fighting on the Golan Heights – for now, in the Syrian side
The Syrian civil war edged a step closer to Israel’s borders this week, as the border town of Old Quneitra (pronounced koo-neh-trah) became the scene of heavy fighting between the forces of Assad’s regime and rebel forces. The latter also captured, but then lost, a border crossing in the demilitarized zone. According to a report by the Reuters News Agency, the Austrian troops in the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (U.N.D.O.F.) went into their bunkers during the fighting, until after the Syrian army recaptured the border crossing. Thereafter, the Austrian government decided to withdraw its military contingent, which numbers 377 troops, more than one-third of the 911-member U.N. force, stating: “Freedom of movement in the area de facto no longer exists. The uncontrolled and immediate danger to Austrian soldiers has risen to an unacceptable level.”

Israel remains justifiably concerned that the Hizb’allah is trying to open an additional front against Israel, this time from the Syrian side of the Golan Heights. It is to be recalled that the Golan was captured from Syria in 1967. Jerusalem’s perspective is that this strategic plateau could become a haven for jihadists and various other, terrorist groups and a springboard for attacks against Israel by those presently involved in the armed opposition against Assad.

Notwithstanding Israel’s desire not to become involved with Syria’s civil war, it nevertheless has again agreed to provide medical assistance to some of the wounded, rebel combatants, who were taken to Israeli hospitals.

Assad’s forces have recently been successful against the rebels in major battles, primary among them being for the city of Qusair, following a three-week confrontation, in which the Lebanese Shiite Hizb’allah forces sided with Assad’s regime. Even though this terrorist organization lost dozens of fighters in that battle, its presence and commitment to keep Assad in power was a substantial factor in the success of Assad’s forces in the recent fighting and its continued assistance could make a significant difference in the outcome of the civil war. Its involvement on behalf of Syria’s Alawite-Shiite minority government could also push the region into a sectarian conflict between the Iranian-backed, Shiite axis (Iran-Syria-Hizb’allah) against Sunni Moslems, who constitute the majority of the population in Syria. In addition, the recapture of Quneitra by government forces could cause Assad to think that he could actually be victorious against the rebel forces and push for all-out victory, rather than agree to participate in cease-fire negotiations, which are being urged by the U.S. and Russia.

However, lest we think that Hizb’allah is the only organized terrorist organization involved in the Syrian arena, it should be pointed out that the al-Qaida-affiliated Nusra Front is also fighting, but on the side of the rebels against Assad’s troops, the Hizb’allah and the Iranian forces there. Both the Hizb’allah and al-Qaida are active in many countries around the world, providing a one-two punch for terrorism, which is increasing internationally. The questions which naturally arise are: Are the countries around the world able to launch effective counter-terrorism measures? With the U.S. deciding to downplay terrorism and avoid even language related to it, who will step up to take the lead in the fight not to give in to terrorism?

One more thing: Following Austria’s decision to withdraw its “peace-keeping” force, guess who offered to replace it? Right! Russia. Why should they stay on warships in the Mediterranean, when they can be deployed on Israel’s northeastern border? But, their request was denied by the U.N., whose spokesman, Martin Nesirky, said on Friday that Russia was banned from taking part in the force because it is one of five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council: “We appreciate the consideration that Russia has given to provide troops on the Golan. However, the disengagement agreement and its protocol between Syria and Israel does not allow for the participation of permanent members of the security council in UNDOF.” It’s the little things, like this, for which we need to remember to be thankful.

Gas Masks – again.
When an issue continues to be emphasized in the media, it tends to reflect a genuine concern that is not being properly addressed by the government. Or, if the issue is being addressed, action on the issue is not being taken quickly enough. Such is the case with the ABC (Atomic Biological Chemical) protective kits.

According to reports issued this past week, about 42 percent of Israelis do not have the ABC kits and in order to supply what is missing, the government will have to come up with 1.3 billion shekels (about $352 million). In addition, another NIS 300 million ($81.5 million) a year is required to replace age-appropriate gas masks and atropine pens that are included in the kits, when these items pass their expiration dates. Government sources were quick to stress that the decision to expedite supplying these protective kits to every Israeli was unrelated to the situation in Syria.

Here, too, Israel will have to make “hard decisions”, an expression that is finding its way into the everyday lexicon of the Prime Minister, who said: “We will have to deal with the issue of gas masks and here too, we will have to make some hard decisions — and we will make them, period…We will make the necessary decisions and bear the brunt of the budgetary and practical ramifications they entail. There are different ways to finance the gaps [in the budget] and create a situation that will be both appropriate for the entire population and will change if need be.” (my emphasis)

P.M. Netanyahu pleads with Abbas to negotiate.
I don’t personally know any Israeli who does not want to live in peace with our neighbors. But, I do know that the country is divided as to how to attain that peace. Some say the best defense is a strong offense. In the context of this discussion, that means “offer peace in exchange for peace”. Others, who are far more aligned with the Israeli political left, are willing to divide the land and allow the establishment of a “Palestinian” state in the heart of Israel.

Given the significant increase in the number of terrorist incidents in Israel, rather than their decrease, I have to reflect whether those who live here and want to sit down and negotiate with those who refer to themselves as “Palestinians” really understand what “negotiation” means and what it will cost Israel. Unfortunately, this willingness is evident at the highest levels of our government and it appears that some of them are living in “lala-land”, rather than in the present State of Israel.

An Arab peace plan, that was offered 11 years ago and properly rejected by Israel, has been slightly modified in recent days and is now being seriously considered in the highest echelons of our government. The earlier plan, proposed in 2002 by the Arab League, offered normalization of ties with Israel by many (but not all) of our Arab neighbors, in exchange for complete Israeli withdrawal from land captured by Israel in the Six-Day War in June, 1967. Like many before him, Netanyahu had rejected the proposal, saying that a return to pre-1967 frontiers was indefensible.

However, about a month ago, there appeared to be a softening and slight modification of the Arab plan, when the prime minister and foreign minister of Qatar suggested that Israel and the “Palestinians” could “trade” land, instead of conforming exactly to the 1967 cease-fire lines. While Netanyahu has not publicly endorsed the concept of territorial exchange, nevertheless, it was clear from a diplomatic cable released by Wikileaks in 2010 that in a meeting with U.S. legislators  in 2009, he expressed support for the concept.

After repeatedly expressing a willingness to pursue the “two states for two peoples” proposal, it should not come as a surprise that while speaking to the Knesset plenum, Netanyahu expressed Israel’s willingness to consider the revised Arab peace plan. As he stated: “We are willing to discuss initiatives that are offers, not dictates…We are in favor of negotiating without preconditions immediately.” He also again called on Mahmoud Abbas, the “Palestinian” Authority President, to return to the peace talks that collapsed in 2010, without preconditions. Then, almost as if he was begging Abbas to return to the negotiating table, Netanyahu said: “Since he (Abbas) doesn’t speak Hebrew, and my Arabic is not great, I am calling on him in a language we both know and saying to him (switching from Hebrew to English), ‘Give peace a chance’…Don’t miss the opportunity.” And then he added that he was prepared to make “difficult decisions to move negotiations ahead” but would not do anything that would jeopardize Israel’s security.

Anyone listening to this political double-talk would have to ask what how land swaps in the heart of Israel could not jeopardize Israel’s security. What land is Abbas going to offer us in return for Judea and Samaria? Would he offer us Gaza, which was part of the area given as an inheritance to the tribe of Judah (Joshua 15:20-21, 47), but which is now temporarily under the control of Hamas, who has sworn never to recognize Israel?

Ever since President Obama visited Israel in March if this year, the intensity with which Netanyahu wants to partition the land has increased and continues to increase with each visit of Secretary of State Kerry to the region. Once, it was thought that Netanyahu would not yield to U.S. pressures.  But, that perspective totally changed following Obama’s visit here. It became evident with Obama’s speeches, Netanyahu’s speeches and the actions of the government to apologize to Turkey for the Mavi Marmara incident of 3+ years ago and to pay damages to the families of the “activists” who were killed in the flotilla incident, of agreeing to allow Turkey to be involved in mediating the Arab-Israeli conflict, of appointing Tzippi Livni to negotiate with the “Palestinians” and now, the pressure of Secretary of State Kerry. The U.S. has made it clear that it may decide to withdraw its attempts to resolve the present conflict, if it doesn’t see real progress very soon.

And what is the response of the “Palestinians” to continued Israeli overtures to meet and talk in an effort to reach agreement?  Abbas continues to insist on his pre-conditions before he agrees to talk. These include the demand that Israel present a map setting forth the permanent borders of the future “Palestinian” state, the release of convicted terrorists and an immediate cessation of all settlement construction (i.e., over the Green Line), including in Jerusalem. The above map, of course, needs to set borders in line with those that existed before The Six-away War. Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator, continues to blame Israel for the impasse in negotiations: “Of course we want to negotiate. No one benefits from the success of Kerry’s efforts more than us, and no one loses, if he fails, more than us…But we want to know the agenda of the talks. We want the Israeli prime minister to utter the word 1967.” Erekat did not complete the equation, which should have been: “No one benefits from the success of Kerry’s efforts more than [the “Palestinians” and no one loses more from the success of those efforts than Israel].”

Regarding the release of the prisoners, we are talking about hard-core terrorists with blood on their hands. The country is still reeling from the release of 1,027 terrorists in exchange for one live soldier, Gilad Shalit, who was held captive by Hamas for over 5 years. It is quite another thing to release 120 murderers “in exchange for resuming the talks.” Notwithstanding their heinous crimes, Justice Minister Tzippi Livni, who described the prisoners named in the list of Abbas as “despicable terrorists who did terrible things”, agreed to look into their individual cases, while President Shimon Peres said that Abbas’s demand to release the rogues gallery of prisoners should be looked upon favorably by Israel. Of the many outrageous demands made by representatives of the “Palestinians”, this is one of the most egregious and should have been rejected outright. These murderers should be given the same consideration that they gave to the victims that they willfully and maliciously killed, namely: none!

The Almagor Terror Victims Association revealed the complete “list of 120” and gave countless examples of terrorists “with blood on their hands” who were released by Israel and returned to terrorist activity – murder and wounding, or inciting or planning terror attacks. Meir Indor, one of the heads of Almagor, said: “If there should be another wave of released terrorists, the state will have sinned twice. The first is the moral sin of releasing murderers before the proper time and making a joke out of the legal system, the law and law enforcement in the State of Israel. Second, they’re committing a moral sin by releasing terrorists knowing that previous releases have already led to waves of terrorism and the murder of hundreds of people…Some of the people who were released in the Shalit deal have gone back to terrorism and made statements supporting terrorism.”

Unfortunately, Netanyahu has bought into the terminology of the U.S., as well as of former Israeli Prime Ministers, including Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert, namely, that the two-state solution will involve “painful concessions”. If we know it will be painful to us in the immediate future, why should we agree to it? There cannot be any guarantees etched in stone that will insure that the pain will not continue well into the future.

To close out this discussion, a brief comment needs to be added regarding what former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert was willing to give to the “Palestinians”. According to a report published last weekend by journalist Avi Issacharoff, following an interview with Olmert, the former P.M. was willing to give Abbas 98 percent of Judea and Samaria, as well as another 6% of the territory in “land swaps” for major Israeli settlement areas in Gush Etzion, Ariel and Jerusalem. But, worse than that, Olmert reportedly  agreed to give up Israeli sovereignty over the Temple Mount. He was willing to release “Palestinian” prisoners and even offered to propose the establishment of a “Palestinian” state in the U.N. and rally support for this initiative. And there was more. Abbas refused to conclude the deal and said that he had to “think about it.”

Why would the “Palestinians” fail to take advantage of such an incredibly magnanimous deal? The simple, but most obvious, answer is that they would have to agree to a total end of the conflict with Israel, which would be contrary to the P.L.O. Charter. They don’t want a peace with Israel and they don’t want a piece of Israel. They want all of Israel. Their attitude and mentality haven’t changed. Even if we were to agree with Abbas today, there is a good likelihood that tomorrow he will be out of the picture and Hamas will control the “Palestinian” Authority in its entirety. And then we will face armed conflict within our greatly reduced borders. So why is Netanyahu begging Abbas to “negotiate”? If ever there was a time when wisdom and discernment, along with courage, were needed to stand against those who seek to do away with Israel, this is that time.

The “Safavid” plan for the Middle East – Iran’s expansionist goals
The involvement of the Hizb’allah forces in Syria’s civil war was said to be part of a “Safavid” plan for the Middle East region. So said Brig. Gen. Salim Idris, commander if the Free Syrian army during a recent interview on Al-Jazeera. Similar comments were forthcoming from other Arab sources which warned that Sunni Arabs were facing danger from “Safavid allies” and from “the spreading Safawi project”.

The term “Safavid” has become a derogatory word among Arab leaders for Iranians. Use of the word is a reference to the Safavid Empire and imputed expansionist idea and plans giving rise to the suggestion that Iran (formerly known as Persia) is seeking to re-establish its country’s former imperial borders.

The Safavid Empire existed between 1501 and 1722. Shiite Islam was the state religion and Iran’s leadership waged wars against the Ottoman Empire (now mostly Turkey), which was the leading Sunni state at the time. The Safavid Empire included what are now large parts of Afghanistan, Pakistan and Turkmenistan, half of Iraq, including Baghdad, Azerbaijan, Armenia, the Arabian coastline of the Persian Gulf and the Shiite holy cities of Najaf and Kerbala, along with the easternmost part of Syria. In order to help propagate Shiite Islam across the Persian realm, Safavid leaders imported Shiite leaders from southern Lebanon, establishing ties between the two countries that extend at least as far back as the 16th century.

The present Iranian leadership has made statements suggesting that the borders of the Safavid Empire are part of their national aspirations, while coming short of formally claiming them. Both in articles and in verbal declarations, Iran, officially and unofficially, stated that the Arab people in the Arabian peninsula were not involved in the appointment of their governments and that the Arab states of the Gulf came about because of intervention from the West. In 2009, Ali Akbar Nateq Nouri, who was Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s candidate for president in 1997, called Bahrain the “14th province” of Iran. Similarly, another Khamenei confidant recently referred to Syria as Iran’s “35th province”. According to WikiLeaks, an Iranian official told a visiting American counterpart that Tehran was motivated by an “Iranian expansionist ideology”, which is related to the regions that in one way or another were formerly subject to, or under the control of, Iran. Thus, by referring to Iranians as “Safavids”, Arabs are expressing the view that Iran is an anti-status quo state and aspires to exercise its influence over its neighbors and, eventually, take over their territories.

This issue should have particular relevance for the West, which is still debating the consequences of a nuclear Iran. An Iran that is seeking “the bomb” for defensive purposes only and is considered as a status-quo state (i.e., not territorially expansionist), fits in nicely with the present position of the Obama administration. There are many indications, however, that just the opposite is true and that Iran’s desire to become nuclear is part of its larger plan to totally change the international status quo. If, in fact, Iran sees itself as territorially divided and as wanting to reunite the territories it once controlled under the Safavid Empire, then the West will have a considerably greater problem than it presently thinks it has in trying to deter Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

By the way, none of the 8 candidates for the presidency of Iran this week is taking a stand against Iran’s nuclear program. Khamenei has interjected himself in the presidential campaign, by saying that he is not telling the public to vote for any specific candidate, but to vote “nuclear”. In terms of Iranian politics, that means to vote for Khamenei’s hand-picked candidate, Said Jalili, who commented regarding the nuclear program and stated: “We’re not in a bad situation, we’ve progressed considerably.” That statement did not warm the cockles of the hearts of those here who are following Iran’s nuclear project.

Tel-Aviv held its 15th annual Gay Pride Parade.
This past Friday, Tel Aviv held its 15th annual Gay Pride Parade, with a record-breaking 100,000 spectators and participants attending the celebrations, including tourists from all over the world.

Among the notables who addressed the crowds was Dan Shapiro, the U.S. Ambassador to Israel. He conveyed warm wishes from President Barack Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry and the American people, adding: “There’s no better place to celebrate than in Tel Aviv, the friendliest city in the world to the LGBT community…We learned from Israel to let our troops serve in the military without having to hide who they love…We’re not done yet, there is still much to be done.”

Tel Aviv has been praised for its friendliness to the LGBT community and is widely considered to be the only gay-friendly destination in the Middle East. What a claim to fame.

“Arab Spring” in Turkey? Probably not, but it is also not Turkish Delight.
Gazi Park, the Istanbul, Turkey, equivalent of New York’s Central Park, has given rise to the worst civil unrest that Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan (pronounced Erd-wan) has had to deal with during his 11 years in power. There is a sort of poetic justice about his leadership problems, which stem from his prideful stance regarding everything taking place in the Middle East, as well as from his desire to increase the Islamization of his country.

The park is in the center of Istanbul, a city with a population of some 17 million people. The government is planning a development project in the park, which would necessitate the uprooting of about 600 trees. Environmental quality and related matters are issues of genuine concern for many Turks. Replacing trees and grass with buildings was not something that the Turkish people were going to readily agree to and it gave them a reason to take to the streets in protests, some of which became violent and resulted in the loss of life. Erdoğan’s real problem began when the chants of “Save the trees” were replaced by “Erdoğan, resign.”

Erdoğan responded last week in a speech saying that Turkey is a democracy (so why was there a local media blackout of the unrest?) that will not give in to the tyranny of the minority. Nice words, but they fail to address the real issue, namely, the tyranny of Erdoğan himself. Istanbul is a prosperous city, but her residents demonstrated that economic prosperity is of no value, if there is no freedom to speak out and express their opinions.

It is doubtful that Istanbul’s Taksim Square will become the Turkish equivalent of what Tahrir Square was/is in Egpyt and that the fate of 600 trees in central Istanbul would be the spark that ignites the Turkish Spring. But, things change very rapidly in this part of the world and if Erdoğan doesn’t listen to the voice of the people, he may find himself on the wrong end of a very local “Arab Spring”. In any event, it is still too early to tell how things will turn out.

Erdoğan is openly antagonistic towards Israel and the leadership in Jerusalem and even expressed support for Israel’s removal in favor of the establishment of a “Palestinian” state. It is ironic that Erdoğan allowed his security forces to use excessive force to disperse the protestors. This is the same Erdoğan, who called upon his “former friend”, Syrian President Assad, to deal gently with protestors and who also lectured Arab leaders about morality during the early days of the Arab Spring in 2011. Syria gave Erdoğan a taste of his own moral exclamations when its information minister expressed sympathy for the Turkish people, saying that they “don’t deserve all this violence” from Erdoğan. Touché! It is somewhat ironic that Syria came out with a “traveler’s advisory”, cautioning tourists from visiting Turkey because of the social unrest in that country. This is a clear situation of the pot calling the kettle “black”.

Erdoğan has been pursuing measures which, if passed, will change Turkey’s so-called “democratic” image and point to greater Islamization. I wonder if Erdoğan’s woes would have been avoided if he had decided to bless Israel, rather than curse her (Gen. 12:3).

Hizb’allah – Hamas ties are eroding.
Sometimes, bad situations have surprising twists that are good for Israel. For example, the fighting in Syria is a cause for concern for Israel. Not good. The Hizb’allah is fighting on the side of Assad and wants to establish a foothold in Syria from which to launch future attacks a upon Israel. Not good. Assad, for his part, justifies the military involvement of the Hizb’allah, saying: “When Israel’s involvement and ties to those who call themselves the rebels became clear, we couldn’t not allow Hizb’allah to stop the Israeli attempt.” Not good. But, without all of these events, the tension on the Lebanon-Syria border has also started to boil. This is good. Relations between Hamas and the Hizb’allah, who were once close allies, are beginning to erode. The Lebanese terrorist group called for Hamas leaders to immediately leave Lebanon, because of Hamas’s support for the Syrian rebels. The command to disconnect ties to Hamas came directly from Tehran, which had completely halted its support for Hamas. These are good. May their houses be divided permanently. If only the same division would take place between Moscow and Damascus. A report this past week from the Washington Post indicated that Syria ordered supplies from Russia, which include 20,000 Kalashnikov assault rifles, 20 million bullets, machine guns, grenade launchers, sniper rifles and night-vision equipment. That’s enough to keep the present war going for a while and even to start a new one. Not wanting the Russian backing of the Syrian regime to create an imbalance there, U.S. Senator John McCain called for providing the rebels with ammunition: “We can help the right people…Is there some risk involved? Absolutely. But is the status quo acceptable?” Is this good or bad?

Kidney of deceased Jewish child donated to 10-year-old “Palestinian”.
Noam Naor died after falling from the balcony of his home last month. His family agreed to donate his organs. The recipient of one of his kidneys was 10-year-old Yakoub Ibhisad, a “Palestinian” boy from the West Bank.

Israeli regulations do not allow families of donors to determine who receives donated organs, or to make an organ donation conditional on going to a particular ethnic or religious group. Nevertheless, Noam’s family was asked if they were comfortable with his kidney being transplanted to a “Palestinian” child. One of Noam’ parents responded: “It doesn’t matter who gets the kidneys, as long as children don’t have to go through dialysis anymore.”

Last Sunday, President Shimon Peres called the mother and told her that “to do something so humane, so generous and so difficult — to give life to another human being — is exceptional…According to Jewish tradition, every man was created in the image of God, and anyone who saves a life in essence serves the Jewish ideology. You stood before two tests and you passed them with impossible bravery, after having gone through such an unjustified tragedy. You have filled our hearts with pride over the courage you possess, your motherhood and your Jewishness.”

The father of the recipient remarked on the donation: “There are no words to thank the donor’s family. My child has received a new life, after many years of waiting for a transplant.”

I wonder whether the “Palestinian” media picked up on the story.

In the midst of all the seriousness – a little laughter can be contagious.
Education Minister Rabbi Shay Piron came up to the podium of the Knesset and wanted to address the growing phenomenon of “inserting unlawful objects” into prisons. But, as soon as he began his speech, he started to giggle and, eventually, the entire plenum joined him in laughter.

It’s worth the 3-1/2 minutes to watch. You don’t need to understand the Hebrew. Laughter is good medicine. (Prov. 15:13 – my interpretation)
http://forward.com/articles/177954/talk-of-sex-gets-israeli-minister-shai-piron-all-g/

And THAT was The Week That Was.

“For a day in Your courts is better than a thousand outside. I would rather stand at the threshold of the house of my God than dwell in the tents of wickedness. For the LORD God is a sun and shield; The LORD gives grace and glory; No good thing does He withhold from those who walk uprightly. O LORD of hosts, How blessed is the man who trusts in You!” (Psalm 84:10-12)

Be blessed and be a blessing.

Have a simply great week.

Marvin
p.s.: In case anyone missed prior updates of The Week That Was, copies of updates that were sent out from the end of January, 2013, until now, can be viewed at: http://www.twtw.co.il

An economic conference in Jordan turned into a diplomatic push for peace talks by President Shimon Peres, whose intended speech drew criticism in Jerusalem. Iran keeps its nuclear program moving, despite cyber attacks from the West. Russia stepped up its involvement in Middle East affairs, while Syrian President Assad is feeling more confident after some military victories, with help from Iran and the Hizb’allah and encouragement from Russia. After 12 years, Israel finally brings truth to the Muhammad al-Dura lie that spawned hatred and attacks against Israel. These are some of the events of the past week.

Peres plays diplomatic spokesman, again, and draws fire from home.
It seems that wherever he goes, Israel’s President, Shimon Peres, tries to push his personal agenda to get Israel and those who call themselves “Palestinians” to sit down and negotiate to establish a “Palestinian” state in the heart of Israel. He did it again while attending the World Economic Forum in Jordan.

While speaking to reporters, Peres iterated that the two sides should restart “serious negotiations”, adding that it is possible to overcome differences and skepticism over peacemaking: “We shouldn’t lose the opportunity because it will be replaced by great disappointment…From my experience, I believe it’s possible to overcome it. It doesn’t require too much time. Our aim is to not waste time and resume negotiations as soon as possible so we can complete the full peace process with the “Palestinians” on the basis of two states for two peoples living side by side as neighbors, with full economic cooperation, for the sake of future generations.” (Underline emphasis, mine)

As noted in prior updates of TWTW, Peres is not an appointed diplomatic spokesman and is not authorized to speak on behalf of the government when it comes to policy, foreign or domestic. Expressing his opinion on the Israeli-“Palestinian” situation can embarrass the country and its leadership when they do not fall in line with Peres’ proclamations. He cannot say “our aim is…” this or that, as if he is the official spokesman.

It was reported here that Peres was going to address the Forum and say to the participants, which includes “Palestinian” President, Mahmoud Abbas, that the majority of the Israeli people support a return to 1967 borders, with mutually acceptable changes. It was further reported that he was going to address Abbas directly and tell him that all of the gaps between the parties are able to be overcome and that he wants to be partners with Abbas for peace.Before the speech was made, Strategic Affairs Minister Yuval Steinitz expressed harsh criticism of Peres, stating: “I wasn’t aware that Peres purports to be the government’s spokesman. I believe that the government already has its own spokespeople…The president is very highly respected in Israel, but diplomatic decisions should be left up to the government and I think that every remark, certainly on the eve of resumption of this type of negotiation, does not contribute to Israel’s position.”

Knesset Member and Minister of Tourism, Uzi Landau (Likud Beytenu) added to the comments of MK Steinitz, saying: “I don’t want to address political proposals made by this or that public figure … The legendary Foreign Minister Abba Eban once said (in 1969) that 1967 borders are Auschwitz borders. What country would want to define borders that make it impossible to defend itself? … If the Palestinian Authority, with whom we have already signed agreements, fell apart, who wants to sign an agreement with a state whose ability to sustain itself is in doubt? Let us not forget what we got when we withdrew from Gaza. We got Hamas and terror. We need to be realistic.“ (Underline emphasis, mine) But, the perspective and position of Shimon Peres is quite the opposite. I refer to it as the “Peres push”, which is anything but realistic. The “Peres push” doesn’t say “Damn the torpedoes; full speed ahead”. It advocates “Ignore the torpedoes, they are not harmful; full speed ahead.” That type of perspective ignores reality. It ignores history. And, it turns a willing, deaf ear and blind eye to the intentions of those with whom Peres wants to become neighbors, while they, on the other hand, want to kick us out of the neighborhood!

Capping off his comments, Landau encouraged the government not to “build policies on dreams that may never come true” and added: “Whoever wants something serious [to come out of peace discussions] should stay away from the idea of a “Palestinian” state”.

Naftali Bennett, Chairman of the Habayit Hayehudi party and strong opponent of establishing a “Palestinian” state in the heart of Israel, also condemned Peres’ push in that direction, saying that Peres’ vision goes beyond being faulty, adding: “Now is the time to make it clear that this is our country and it is not for sale.” May it be that this clarification would be grasped by our national leadership, from the Prime Minister on down.

Obviously, not everyone disagrees with the “Peres push”. He has his leftist backing. And, to add insult to injury, U.S. Secretary of State, John Kerry, is back in our neck of the woods, again, and will also participate in the Forum. And, like his predecessor before him, Hilary Clinton, he gives encouragement to the “Peres push” by saying that both parties need to “make hard decisions to move toward direct negotiations.” We’ve heard this before, many times, even from our Prime Ministers, beginning with Ariel Sharon. The only difference is the actual wording. Now, it’s “hard decisions”. Before that, it was “painful concessions” – that we would have to make. The “Palestinians” would concede nothing. Woe to any country, and particularly this country, that has blind leaders who seek to lead the people into a deep pit.

As it turned out, when Peres gave his speech, he deviated from his prepared text and left out reference to returning to the 1967 borders, which were not “borders”, but cease-fire lines. At least in this regard, the early condemnation of what Peres had intended to say paid off. Despite that, he called upon the “Palestinians” to return to negotiations without preconditions. But, the gestures and the push were lost of “Palestinian” President Mahmoud Abbas, who made it clear that without the preconditions, there would be no resumption of talks. What are their preconditions?  A return to 1967 pre-Six Day War borders,  cessation of all settlement construction, release of prisoners, the right of “Palestinian” refugees to return and no “interim” deals. In other words, he wants everything now.

The intransigence on the part of Abbas should make it clear to all concerned that he really is not interested in resuming peace negotiations, but is more than satisfied with the status quo. Why not? It is actually to his advantage. He continues to belly ache and to assert that Israel is the stumbling block to peace and he has received the ears and attention of countries around the world, who have been, and continue to be, only too happy to condemn Israel for almost anything. He was able to attain diplomatic advancement for the P.A. with Observer status through the U.N. General Assembly and has convinced governments that they should pour tons of money into the “Palestinian” Authority. In this regard, Secretary of State Kerry announced an economic plan that would put $4 billion of private investment into the P.A., although he didn’t specify where the money was going to come from.

Kerry appeared to get a handle on the fact that there have been no negotiations between the parties for two years and that there is skepticism and cynicism that come from years of bitter disappointment. Notwithstanding that, he said: “Indeed right now the strategic case for peace, based on the two-state solution, a secure state of Israel, and a viable independent state of “Palestine”, the case for that has never been stronger.“ (Underline, my emphasis) I really wonder whether politicians ever listen to themselves. It’s obvious that they’re not listening to each other.

So, even with statements like “the case for [peace] has never been stronger”, realities on the ground prove otherwise, as there is still no agreement on the basis for discussions.

Iran’s nuclear program continues to move forward.
The West claims that technological warfare has been successful to halt, or at least severely delay, Iran’s nuclear ambitions. That argument then is used by those opposing military action against Tehran, adding that there is still time for a diplomatic solution to the increasing concern over Iran’s acquisition of a weapon of mass destruction.

But, the best laid plans of mice and men have failed to prevent the ayatollahs from laughing their way through negotiation after negotiation, in order to buy time for their nuclear program to advance. If anything, it appears that the best “worms” and “viruses” that purportedly infiltrated Iran’s nuclear facilities, including the much-touted Stuxnet, only served to challenge those who provide technical support to Tehran to double their efforts to contain the problem. This is evidenced by the fact that the installation and operation of new centrifuges were not impeded.

According to a study entitled “Are Cyberweapons Effective?”, published by Ivanka Barzashka in the Royal United Services Institute Journal, “uranium-enrichment capacity grew during the time that Stuxnet was said to have been destroying Iranian centrifuges…An increase in enrichment capacity or centrifuge performance shortens the time Iran needs to manufacture the nuclear material for a bomb…If anything, the malware, if it did in fact infiltrate Natanz, has made the Iranians more cautious about protecting their nuclear facilities, making the future use of cyber weapons against Iranian nuclear targets more difficult.” The conclusion to be drawn from Barzashka’s study is that cyber warfare is not the way to stop Iran. We can try to worm our way out of it, but the bottom line is that only concentrated military action will stop Iran in its nuclear tracks.

And while we wait for the next round “negotiations” with Iran, Tehran continues on its maddening, merry way, unabated. It is now reported to have undertaken “massive” deployment of missile launchers to unspecified areas within Iran. These are surface-to-surface launchers with a range of about 1,200 miles. In other words, these missiles can reach Israel, as well as U.S. bases in the area of the Middle East. The deployment of such missile launchers at this time is undoubtedly strategically timed as a show of strength intended to have an impact on the national elections in Iran scheduled for next week. But, the outcome of the elections should have no bearing on the continuance of Iran’s nuclear agenda. Israel’s Strategic Affairs Minister Yuval Steinitz said that a nuclear Iran would be equal to 30 North Koreas. While the exact number of equivalent North Koreas is open for discussion, the understanding is clear –  a nuclear Iran is a threat to the entire world.

The U.S. continues to play games with Iran, holding military exercises intended as a flexing of muscles through Air Force carriers. But, if the U.S. doesn’t play the game to win, it will end up losing. So will the rest of the world, who will wake up one morning to a nuclear Iran. And then it will ask itself how that could have happened. The West continues to make the mistake of misunderstanding the mentality of this region and, particularly, the mullahs in Iran. Their hearts and minds are set on war. If the rest of the world gets in the way of establishing their unholy caliphate, which is intended to usher in their Islamic Messiah, then the rest of the world needs to be done away with. This is not a rational mentality and that is exactly the point that the West fails to grasp. There is no “reasoning” with fanaticism and particularly Islamist fanaticism. They understand only power. When “the enemy” is perceived as weak, the power of Islam tends to spread. When “the enemy” is strong, Moslem supremacy wanes and waits for the tide to change.

The present waiting game, filled with planned negotiations and offers to placate and appease, is dangerous to the extreme. Talk is cheap, action is costly. But inaction would be disastrous and deadly. Never without apt phrase, Winston Churchill’s definition of appeaser would be applicable here: “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.”

Russia steps up its involvement in Middle East affairs.
A report in last week’s The Wall Street Journal included a statement by U.S. officials that future Israeli air strikes against targets in Syria could be directed against Russian Yakhont, advanced anti-ship missiles which were sold and delivered to Syria, but which could be transferred to the Hizb’allah. This, coupled with the unsuccessful attempt by Israeli P.M. Netanyahu to persuade Putin not to complete the transfer to Syria of S-300 anti-aircraft missiles, poses a formidable threat to Israel’s ability to maneuver on the sea and in the air. Israel has repeatedly said that while it is not seeking a confrontation with the forces of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, it will, nevertheless, act to prevent the transfer of “game-changing” weaponry to the Hizb’allah.

But, what is even worse is that the S-300 anti-aircraft and anti-missile system could pose a genuine threat to both civilian and military aircraft flying in Israeli airspace, as well. Similarly, the Yakhont anti-ship system could seriously threaten Israel’s navy, as well as our underwater gas reserves in the Mediterranean.

Russia began increasing its military presence in the eastern Mediterranean about three months ago and its continued presence here, with a dozen or more warships patrolling waters near its naval base in Syria, represents one of Russia’s largest and sustained naval deployments since the end of the Cold War. This deployment, which might be reinforced with nuclear submarines, could lead to the setting up of a permanent Russian fleet in the region. Its presence here at this time is also seen as an intended warning to Israel and the West not to get involved in Syria’s bloody civil war that has claimed more than 80,000 lives over the past slightly more than two years.

According to Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, Russia’s intentions to go through with the supply of the S-300 systems to Syria is officially said to be a matter of completing its contractual arrangements. But, he added: “Those that aren’t planning on acting aggressively against sovereign nations should not have any reason to fear this.” This could clearly be understood as a message, or threat, to Israel. Israel’s “unofficial” response to Lavrov’s statement was to the effect that the deciding factor for Israel would be what actually takes place, not what is said to take place. In other words, actions will speak louder than words and will determine how Israel will respond.

So, what do we have? Russia entering the picture and establishing a strategic presence in the waters of the Mediterranean not far from Israel. Russian “game-changing” weapons will be delivered to Syria before too long and Israel promising not to allow those weapons to reach the Hizb’allah, which may necessitate their destruction in Syria shortly after their arrival to prevent Syria from using them against us, as well.

It’s been suggested that Syria is being used by Russia as a means to another end, namely: the capture and control of the natural gas reserves discovered by Israel off of its northern coast, near Lebanon, as “spoils” of war. This is a genuine possibility, particularly given Russia’s sizable naval presence in the region. But, there are a number of things that need to occur before this potentiality becomes a reality. The region is definitely heating up. For the moment, a watchful eye and prayer for discernment are essential.

Assad feels confident, with a little help from his friends.
No matter how we want to look at it, Assad should have been removed a long time ago. The atrocities committed against his own citizenry make him morally unfit to rule. But, then again, we have seen dictators in this region and in Europe, who committed atrocities against humanity and specific people groups, who thrived because the world community essentially adopted a hands-off approach. As a result, hundreds, thousands and millions have fallen victim to evil regimes, which were eventually overturned. The same is true now in the countries of the Middle East, which have experienced the so-called “Arab Spring”, including Syria. If we’ve learned anything from these uprisings, it is that even the most vile, corrupt regime, like that of Assad, can survive for an extended period, if it is strongly supported by the military and by some outside help from the likes of Tehran, the Hizb’allah and now, Moscow.

Apparently, in discussions between the U.S. and Russia, which are designed to bring about an end to the fighting in Syria, there is purportedly an agreement that Assad will remain in power in one way or another. That means that the Iran-Syria-Hizb’allah axis of evil would remain as well, all with the blessing of Mother Russia. This is a likely scenario unless, of course, the rebels succeed in getting rid of Assad, while his friends take a coffee break.

Non-conventional warfare protection kits are in short supply.
According to the recently released, annual report of the Home Front Defense Ministry (H.D.F.): “As of 2012, the readiness level of government office and state authorities for an unconventional weapon attack stands at low-medium”. The essence of the report in layman’s terms is that we are at high risk of a terrorist chemical attack and a medium risk of a radiological attack.

A combination of government ministries and local authorities combined to carry out a drill on dealing with a chemical attack, which included two sirens that were sounded throughout the country, one at 12:30 p.m. and the other at 7:05 p.m. Numerous news reports reports indicated that chemical weapons were used in the fighting in Syria, but the real concern in Israel is that such weapons would fall into the hands of the Hizb’allah or other jihadist or radical groups.

The H.D.F. report reflects the current fears, saying that there are numerous indicators of terrorist organizations trying to get their hands on nonconventional weapons. But, the report also pointed out that only about 60 percent of Israeli citizens have nonconventional warfare protection kits that are supposed to contain, among other things, age-appropriate gas masks, and that there are not enough kits in storage – another victim of budget shortfalls.

H.D.F. Minister Gilad Erdan stated on Army Radio that, in his opinion, the Syrian government would not risk using chemical weapons on Israel: “Syria would not dare turn its chemical weapons on Israel…The Syrian regime and other groups in the area understand all too well the difference between using conventional weapons against Israel and using chemical weapons. The IDF’s power to retaliate is immense, and if we are talking about the possibility of such weapons being used against Israel, well, then the chances are not high.” We can hope and should definitely pray that his assessment is correct. Extremist behavior is not at all limited to Iran.

More tension along the border with Syria
Could Assad emerge the victor in the civil war? The thought is chilling, but the possibility exists. This possibility stems from recent military victories, with the help of Hizb’allah fighters, allowing him to regain the offensive and successfully repel the rebel attacks on the capital of Damascus and the major city of Aleppo. All of the initial expectations that pointed to Assad’s anticipated, “immediate” downfall did not take into account the massive military assistance that he received from Iran, the Hizb’allah and Russia.

Looking at the big picture, we would have to conclude that Assad is treading lightly when it comes to Israel. His focus has been, and if necessity must be, to keep the rebels from toppling his regime. Placing too much emphasis on a military engagement with Israel could prove very costly and could even prove fatal at this juncture. However, we should not conclude that Assad’s hesitation for a full face-off with Israel is a sign of weakness on his part. He has the military means to confront Israel through unconventional weaponry. This concern lies at the heart of Israel’s present dealings with Damascus.

Over the last few months, Israel has introduced new rules in its relationship with Syria. Paramount among them is its determination to prevent any arms shipment to the Hizb’allah that includes advanced weapon systems. However, Assad understands the mentality of the region, particularly the perception that extended restraint is a sign if weakness, which could harm him more in the long run than if he were to enter into a military fray with Israel. While Israel has threatened to topple his regime, if Assad should retaliate against Israel’s self-defense measures, it is clear that as he goes down, he may release his considerable weapons stockpile, including unconventional weapons, which would target major Israeli cities to create as much havoc and confusion as possible. While Israel prepares for every reasonably conceivable eventuality, a scenario like the one just described could cause the entire region to explode.

Israel really needs wisdom to know how to proceed. Cross-border missile and mortar attacks from Syria are becoming more and more frequent. The last thing that Israel needs right now is a northern duplication of the on-again, off-again missile attacks that Sderot (in the south) had to deal with. At some point, when the fighting is over, a new military reality will govern Israel-Syria relations. Until then, we continue to ask whether the devil we know is better than the one we don’t know. We need to resist both.

Turkish Prime Minister, in the U.S., condemns Israel.
While U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry made his 4th visit to the Middle East, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan (pronounced “Erdwan”) was in Washington, D.C. During a speech that he gave at D.C.’s Brookings Institution, he criticized Israel again, saying: “As long as Israel does not accept a “Palestinian” state, there is not much to talk about in terms of trying to achieve peace.” He also referred to the rulers of Hamas as “brothers” (he should have said “birds of a feather”) and, during a question and answer period after his speech, added: “[Those] who agree to an Israeli state, cannot agree to a “Palestinian” state.” Well, I guess he must be talking about the leaders of the “Palestinian” Authority, who say they are willing (on their terms, of course) to accept an Israeli state. That being the case, what is all the fuss about trying to set up a “Palestinian” state, when even those who claim to want it, according to Erdoğan, cannot agree to it. Don’t you just love it when they trip over their own words?

A peace agreement that includes Hamas is “impossible”.
It will be recalled that during Netanyahu’s coalition negotiations, the first to join was left-wing Tzippi Livni. Being the first to help him out, she was rewarded with the post of Justice Minister. He also agreed to allow her to head up Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations, along with Yitzhak Molcho, who represents Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Although she takes every opportunity to agree with the “Peres push”, even she acknowledged the impossibility of concluding a peace deal between Israel and a Hamas-led Palestinian government.

Responding to Turkish P.M. Erdoğan’s comment that peace negotiations must include Hamas, Livni stated:“Erdogan perceives Hamas as a positive element — he has for years. But there is no chance of striking a [peace] deal with Hamas…Hamas represents an Islamist ideology that does not recognize Israel’s existence. Hamas would rather be isolated than abandon violence or say Israel has the right to exist.” So, who does she want us to negotiate with? Mahmoud Abbas, who denies the Holocaust happened and wants us to return to 1967 cease-fire lines? That would not be in Israel’s best interest, but a denial of international justice.

“A lie told well is immortal.” – Mark Twain
“There is only one way to counter lies, and that is through the truth.” So said P.M. Netanyahu with regard to the alleged shooting death of 12-year-old Muhammad al-Dura during the early days if the Al-Aqsa Intifada on September 30, 2000. After 12 long years, the Prime Minister was presented with a 36-page report, which officially negates and the French television report that suggested that the boy was killed by direct fire from the IDF. Not only does the report debunk the incident, it also concluded that there was no evidence that the boy and his father were injured at all, let alone severely, by IDF fire and further, that the French television station edited the footage to support its biased reporting.

The al-Dura affair has been one of the cornerstones of a lengthy delegitimization campaign against Israel, whose sole purpose is to portray Israel as a nation that kills children and perpetrates genocide. It should be clear that if the premise is wrong, the conclusions flowing from the faulty premise must also be wrong. One such faulty conclusion is that every act of violence against Israel is legitimate, because it is a country that knowingly and intentionally kills defenseless children. The lie, and hence the conclusion flowing from it, stem from a culture that views lying as one of many legitimate measures in its fight against the Yahud — the Jew.

The deceased terrorist, Yasser Arafat, demonstrated how it could be. He said: “We will abide by the Oslo Accords just like the Prophet Muhammad kept the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah.” That treaty actually related to a defeat of the Muslims, yet Muhammad presented it to his followers as a victory.

P.M. Netanyahu related to the findings of the report, saying: “It is important to focus on this incident, which has slandered Israel’s reputation…This is a manifestation of the ongoing, mendacious campaign to delegitimize Israel. There is only one way to counter lies, and that is through the truth. Only the truth can prevail over lies.” If Netanyahu only knew how true his statements are and how much God desires that we speak truth, it might affect the future policies of the State of Israel.

Many government officials lauded the findings of the report. Among them was Deputy Minister Ofir Akunis (Likud), who stated: “The truth always has a way of coming out…This is the end of this vicious blood libel. The Palestinians will no longer be able to use the boy’s death to incite against Israel, as they have the past 13 years.” MK Eitan Cabel (Labor) added his praise to the findings, saying: “I had no doubt that an Israeli soldier never opened fire on a Palestinian child deliberately.”

The Muhammad al-Dura story is a carefully-orchestrated, well-edited media event. Avenging his alleged death became a national, indeed an international, cry. His photo was on posters, billboards, postage stamps and in the media all over the world, media who were and are willing to believe the lie and become party to the conspiracy to condemn and delegitimize Israel, rather than probe the facts to elicit truth, before reporting the story. His story is a lie that has taken on flesh that was nourished by the flesh of others. Maybe I should have captioned this comment: “The face that launched a thousand attacks”.

There is an excellent article that presents the history of this “Palestinian” media sham. It is well worth the few minutes it will take to read it and I heartily recommend that you do so:
http://www.aish.com/jw/mo/Muhammad-al-Duras-Faked-Death.html

The Hizb’allah was attacked and Israel didn’t do it.
Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, leader of the terrorist Hizb’allah organization, vowed this past Saturday to help push the present Assad-controlled, Syrian regime to victory. He warned that Assad’s forced removal would be a benefit for Israel and the West, that it would allow the emergence of extremists and spell the beginning of a “dark period” for the Middle East.

It wasn’t very long ago when Nasrallah was “the man” in Arab circles – the symbol of Arab pride. That was immediately following the Second Lebanon War in 2006. His Shiite militia stood up to Israel’s military and he became the instant hero of Shiite and Sunni Moslems alike. Even though he remained in seclusion to avoid the possibility of bring targeted by Israel, he was, nevertheless, revered and touted among the Arab states as the only who who could eventually restore the pride of the broader, Arab community.

That was until the Arab Spring turned to Winter and the glow of Nasrallah’s pan-Arab prestige began to fade. His true colors came out particularly during the Syrian civil war, when he sent members of the Shiite Hizb’allah gunmen to fight alongside Bashar al-Assad and kill Sunni Arabs, who make up the majority of the population in Syria. And so, he came under harsh criticism from within his own organization, from the Lebanese population and leaders of other Arab countries, who question where his true loyalties lie.

In a certain sense, Nasrallah’s speech last Saturday had much to do with self-preservation. His commitment to “not let [Assad] fail” is an expression of recognition that if the present Syrian regime goes under, his own organization will follow suit. Syria has been one of the strongest backers of the Hizb’allah and supplier, directly or indirectly, of much of its weaponry.

Referring to the Hizb’allah as “the resistance”, Nasrallah stated, in his televised address commemorating Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000: “Syria is the backbone of the resistance, and the resistance cannot stand, arms folded, while its back is broken…If Syria falls into the hand of America, Israel and takfiris [Muslims accused by other Muslims of apostasy], the resistance [Hezbollah] will be besieged and Israel will enter Lebanon and impose its will.” More than that, he said that the downfall of the regime in Syria would mean that “Palestine will be lost”. As a result, Nasrallah said that his organization would fight until the end and that the Hizb’allah would turn the tide of the fighting in Assad’s favor.

His speech was a clear acknowledgment of the role of the Hizb’allah in Syria’s civil war, which Nasrallah tried to play down, but was no longer able to do so,  given the heavy Hizb’allah losses in the fighting for the strategic town of Qusair, located near the Lebanese border. The speech also hinted at the fact that there would be more Hizb’allah losses before the fighting is over.

A few hours later, a Hizb’allah-controlled district in Beirut was hit by two rockets. Although there was no one that claimed responsibility, three rocket launchers were sound in an area to the southeast of Beirut, two of which had been fired. Nasrallah has “lost face” with the Lebanese people. In this area, that means he has to go. Even if Assad remains in power and even if the Hizb’allah will have a lot to do with that, neither Assad nor Nasrallah will be the same.

“The times, they are a changin’.”

And THAT was The Week That Was.

Sometimes in the face of what appears to be a giant, we often see ourselves as grasshoppers (Numbers 13:27-29; 32-33). At those times, we need to remember: “Trust in The LORD with all your heart and do not lean on your own understanding” (Prov. 3:5)
“Do not fear, for I am with you; do not anxiously look about you, for I am your God. I will strengthen you, surely I will help you, surely I will uphold you with My righteous right hand. Behold, all those who are angered at you will be shamed and dishonor end; those who contend with you will be as nothing and will perish…Those who war with you will be as nothing and non-existent.” (Isaiah 41:10-12)

Be a blessing and be blessed,

Marvin

Lots of interesting things happened this past week, but the primary focus was on failed international negotiations, threats from our neighbors, Syrian missiles pointed towards Tel-aviv and shooting on the Golan Heights. There were public demonstrations and economic issues that occupied much of the media here, but I opted not to address them here this week. Of course, there were the political battles and struggles that are a regular part of our society. We took a break from these issues as well and focused, just a bit, on the President of Israel and his efforts to involve the Vatican in the affairs of Israel. More remains to be discussed, but at least there are matters presented for prayer and further inquiry.

P.M. Netanyahu fails to persuade Putin not to sell missiles to Syria.
From many perspectives, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is a shrewd and persuasive politician. He knows how to pull the right strings and to press the right buttons. But, sometimes a situation develops that requires more than what strings and buttons can accomplish. And sometimes, friendly discussions have not-so-friendly consequences.

Such was the case last week, when Netanyahu flew to Russia in an effort to persuade Russian President Vladimir Putin not to go through with Moscow’s agreement, signed in 2010, to sell S-300 anti-aircraft missile batteries to Damascus. The deal with Syria is similar to one signed with Iran, but until now, the missiles had not been delivered to either country.

Although sources in the Prime Minister’s Office reported that the meeting between the two leaders was “warm and productive” and that “a wide range of issues were discussed, including the arms deal and its ramifications”, Netanyahu pointed out that the sale of such missile batteries to Syria “could destabilize the region.” The understanding, of course, is that such weapons could fall into the hands of those seeking to topple the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, or worse, the Hizb’allah.

Avi Magen, a former Israeli Ambassador to Russia, who now serves with the Institute for National Security Studies here, said that the purpose of Netanyahu’s visit had more to do with the possibility of a “Western offensive” in Syria than the issue of the arms sale, an offensive which is strongly opposed by Russia. Magen added: “Russia has gradually become a key player on the Syrian front, implementing a strategy that bars any outside intervention, which enables Assad to fight the rebels. Simultaneously, Russia has been pursuing alternatives that could end the conflict but would still ensure Syria standing in the Middle East, and allow it to maintain the radical Iran-Syria-Hezbollah axis.” The civil war in Syria has claimed some 80,000 lives over the last two years.

Israel will not allow the transfer of “game-changing” weapons to the Hizb’allah.
A senior Israeli official in the know informed The New York Times that “Israel is determined to continue to prevent the transfer of advanced weapons to Hezbollah. The transfer of such weapons to Hezbollah will destabilize and endanger the entire region. If Syrian President Assad reacts by attacking Israel, or tries to strike Israel through his terrorist proxies, he will risk forfeiting his regime, for Israel will retaliate.” Up to this point, Israel has made a concerted effort not to become involved in Syria’s civil war, but that would obviously change, if Assad decides to attack Israel in one way or another.

In this regard, Zeev Elkin, the Deputy Foreign Minister, who was with P.M. Netanyahu during his trip to Russia, noted that the report in the New York Times was not a threat, but a statement of fact: “We are not threatening him but we do have our clear red lines. We will not intervene in the Syrian civil war but we have very clear positions and the transfer of any game-changing weapons is a red line … and we will do everything necessary to stop them.”

Syrian missiles are pointed toward Israel.
Events in the Middle East rarely remain stable for an extended period of time. Israel’s statements of its intention not to become embroiled in Syria’s two-year civil war may soon change. According to a report in The Sunday Times, domestically-produced Tishreen missiles, carrying 500-kilogram (1,100-pound) warheads have been deployed in Syria, with attack coordinates set for Tel Aviv, and standing orders to fire them, if Israel strikes Syria.

In response to the above report, Prime Minister Netanyahu informed the cabinet that Israel was prepared for any scenario, stating: “The Middle East is currently facing one of the most sensitive eras it has seen in decades, and at the center: the escalating shock waves in Syria…We are closely monitoring the developments and changes there, and we are prepared for any scenario…The Israeli government is acting responsibly, is determined and calculated, and will ensure that Israel’s top priority is preserved — the security of the citizens of Israel in accordance with the policy that we have outlined — and prevent, as much as possible, the transfer of advanced weapons into the hands of Hezbollah and terror organizations. We will take action to protect the security interests of the citizens of Israel in the future as well.”

The deployment of the Tishreen missiles, if true, indicates that Syria has moved the crisis to a new level, vis-a-vis Israel. As noted just before the weekend by a senior Israeli intelligence official, Jerusalem would prefer that Assad’s regime would continue, rather than face an uncertain, rebel-led regime if Assad is removed. As he stated: “Better the devil we know than the demons we can only imagine if Syria falls into chaos and extremists from across the Arab world gain a foothold there.” However, not everyone agrees with this assessment, as revealed by the words of IDF Spokesman, Brigadier General Yoav (Poly) Mordechai: “I don’t know who this unnamed source is. I have learned a lot over the last two years about the calculated use of such remarks to achieve this or that objective. Since I am very well acquainted with the official position of the Military Intelligence Directorate, I find this quote to be implausible, and I would even go as far as to say that it sounds baseless.” It is difficult to imagine that there is no basis to the statement of the official, as Israel has been keeping a close eye on the developments within Syria, particularly as Assad’s defeat could create untold havoc with regard to the use of Syria’s very sizable cache of sophisticated weaponry, either by the rebel forces or the Hizb’allah. While the latter has an identifiable leader and a location, the former does not, at least at this point.

Notwithstanding Israel’s “hands-off approach with regard to the Syrian uprising”, Assad claimed in a recent interview with an Argentinian newspaper that “Israel is working with the Syrian opposition against me…Israel directly supports terrorist groups. It gives them logistical support, and tells them which sites to attack and how to carry out those attacks.” Referring to the recent attacks against Syrian weapons locations and shipments, Assad added: “Rebels attacked radar installations that were part of our aerial defense system. The system is able to track any plane that approaches our territory, especially from Israel. The Israeli attacks were carried out to raise the rebels’ morale.” He also denied attacking his own citizens with chemical weapons, a denial which the world media is able to clearly and easily refute.

During the above interview, Assad took the opportunity to express doubt concerning the reality of the Holocaust, stating: “I am no historian as to know exactly what went on there, but we all know that history is dictated by those who write it and we have gotten false historical accounts on more than one occasion.”

The relatively passive attitude of Israel may change in a moment, as the situation in the region of the Golan Heights continues to heat up.

Is Assad’s continued rule really good for Israel?
The question of whether or not the continuation of Assad’s regime is good, or bad, for Israel, has proponents and opponents on both sides. At first, it was clear: Assad needs to go. But, as the Syrian “Arab Spring” turned into polluted waters, it slowly became more and more difficult to decide who are the good guys from the bad guys.

Obviously, there is a valid argument for wanting to upset the Iran-Syria-Hizb’allah triumvirate, all of whom have a common goal of downing the “West” and, of course, Israel. The fact that weapons continue to flow from Iran to Syria, coupled with the attempts to continue that flow from Syria to the Hizb’allah in Lebanon, is a major cause for concern and Israel has pledged not to allow that to happen. The success of such weapons transfer could radically upset Israel’s strategic military edge in the region. The toppling of Assad’s regime would sever the lifeline of that axis to the Hizb’allah.

Alternatively, and as already pointed out, there is no central authority among the rebel forces, who could command the allegiance of all of those who seek Assad’s immediate departure, not only from power, but from this world. Indeed, given the fact that there are extreme jihadist and al-Qaida elements among the opposition forces, this could lead to a free-for-all drive for power and the mighty will dominate over the less powerful. That would clearly open for the door for re-directing the energies of those opposition forces against Israel, which would be a goal that could and probably would unite the various military forces, including some who are presently part of the Syrian army. We’ve seen this before with the situation in Egypt and it is still on-going. If the Syrian border becomes like the Sinai Peninsula, Israel will have its hands full trying to maintain a sense of order along its northeastern border, which could quickly become a haven for all kinds of terrorist groups and jihadist elements. Such a situation could also cause Israel to take more active measures inside of Syria, which it is desperately trying to avoid doing.

To the extent that it depends upon Jerusalem, we should continue to stay out of Syria’s civil war. However, we should not remain indifferent to the dynamics that are developing there, particularly the increase in power and influence of radical Islamic elements. It was a greater victory for David not to slay King Saul in the cave when he had a chance to do so than to slay Goliath. So, in a certain sense, it takes more wisdom and courage to stay out of the fighting in Syria than to take an active role in it to sway the outcome. May God grant both to our government and to the military leaders of Israel.

Israel responds to direct gunfire in the Golan Heights.
It was to be expected that the sporadic “misfiring” of mortars and bullets, claimed to be a spill-over of the Syrian civil war, would eventually turn into directed attempts to test Israel’s readiness to respond to more active aggression. So, when the third consecutive cross-border shooting incident in the past three days took place this morning (Tuesday), Israel responded and “returned precise fire”. The IDF confirmed that it successfully destroyed the source of the fire. The shooting incident struck an IDF jeep in the region of the central Golan Heights. Syrian army radio claimed that it “destroyed an Israeli vehicle with everyone in it” and broadcast images of a destroyed Israeli army jeep, which the Syrians claim is evidence of Israel’s active assistance of the rebels against the Assad regime. The IDF denied the allegation and said that the jeep was a leftover from the first Lebanon War in the 1980s and that it has been out of service during all this time. It added: “This is a cheap propaganda attempt and nothing more.” The IDF views the intentional shooting “with concern” and Chief of General Staff, Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz, commented that there is a risk that Israel could be drawn into what it wants to stay out of, namely, a “security deterioration in our region at any moment, a deterioration which could rapidly spin out of control…Not a day goes by when we are not faced with decisions which could lead us to a sudden and out of control deterioration. This is the situation that will accompany us in the near term and we need to be more alert because of it.”

President Shimon Peres urges the new Pope to come to Israel.
Why would the President of the State of Israel urge the Pope to visit Israel? The official answer is found in the statement of Shimon Peres to newly appointed Pope Francis, made during Peres’ visit to the Vatican on April 30th: “The sooner you visit the better as in these days a new opportunity is being created for peace and your arrival could contribute significantly to increasing the trust and belief in peace.” This statement came after a private meeting between the two men, which lasted for three quarters of an hour. Several thoughts come to mind as a result of the above. What was the need to hold a private meeting? Shimon Peres is not a policy maker. He cannot make decisions that affect the country without being given an official OK to do so. And he has expressed his opinion on national policy matters, when it would have been best for him to remain silent.

The next question: What is the “new opportunity … for peace” that he mentioned? Does he know something that the rest of the country doesn’t know? Doesn’t Peres read the newspapers himself, or is he just fed a bunch of gobbledygook by advisors? The so-called “peace process” is dead. Almost everyone knows that, except for ultra-leftists, who continue to push negotiation and appeasement leading to partition – a nice word meaning “division” – of this land.

Regarding the “peace process”, Peres added: “I believe that there is a chance to open negotiations between Israel and the ‘Palestinians’. Abu Mazen (i.e., Mahmoud Abbas, the President of the ‘Palestinian’ Authority) is a genuine partner for peace. The ministers of the Arab League expressed their support for the two-state solution, which also is accepted by us, and a broad structure of support is being created for making progress.” Again, we have to ask whether his thoughts are filled with nutty-putty, or whether he is privy to information that is being kept from the rest of the country. Since when does Israel make decisions based on what the Arab League favors or supports? What “broad structure of support is being created for making progress” and by whom? There are no negotiations between the parties concerned, which means that the “broad structure of support” has to be coming from other parties.

Peres then told Pope Francis: “You have an important role in advancing peace and the belief in it”, adding that “the whole country of Israel” was waiting for his visit. Why? What is it about another Papal visit that the whole country is waiting for? What role is he to have in advancing peace?

The Vatican released a statement after the private meeting between Peres and the Pope, saying that the two men discussed the relations between Israel and the Vatican and the latter pointed to “significant progress” in, and the hope for the speedy conclusion of, negotiations towards a diplomatic pact that would establish legal and economic rights of Catholic entities in Israel. The Vatican statement also stated that the two of them discussed prospects for a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict that would respect “the legitimate aspirations of the two peoples, thus decisively contributing to the peace and stability of the region.” This sounds like it came out of a “Palestinian” propaganda statement. This region is getting set to explode. Israel is surrounded by those who are sworn to destroy us as a nation, so that the name of Israel would be no more. The “partner” of the so-called “Palestinians” is Hamas, who said it will never recognize Israel. Iran wants to nuke us, jihadists and al-Qaida want to destroy us, the Hizb’allah in Lebanon says its missiles can reach from Dan to Beersheva (i.e., everywhere in Israel), Syria has missiles pointed towards Tel-Aviv and is one, gigantic powder keg. And these two men want to move the establishment of a “Palestinian” state, thinking that this will “decisively [contribute] to the peace and stability of the region”. This is an attempt to create a superficial expectation that “peace is at hand” and can readily be achieved when, in fact, they assert “peace, peace, but there is no peace” (see Jer. 6:14; 8:11).

And so we leave the pontifications about peace and return to the realities of the day. Shimon Peres, as a Jewish child growing up in Poland, received his early education in a Jesuit school. OK, that was probably the reality of many Jewish children at the time. But, how many of those Jesuit-educated, Jewish children went on to become the President of the State of Israel, maintained a close contact with the Vatican and has visited the Vatican many times over the years and wants to conclude a diplomatic pact with it? It is a documented fact that about 20 years ago, Peres wanted to internationalize Jerusalem, granting political control of the Old City to that un-organization, the U.N., and control over the holy sites in Jerusalem to the Vatican. This would enable the U.N., among other things, to allow the “Palestinians” to establish their capital in East Jerusalem. The story first broke back in 1993 and became a front-page issue in 1995, even in one of Israel’s most left-wing newspapers.

In 2006, Peres met with the then Pope, Benedict XVI, and invited him to visit Israel, stating: “I definitely believe that a visit by the Pope can influence the peace process”. Sound familiar? Following that meeting, the Vatican spokesman published a statement, which included, among other things: “Relations between the state of Israel and the Holy See were also examined — in the light of agreements endorsed in 1993 and 1997 — as well as the relations of Israeli Authorities with the country’s Christian communities.”

According to a Reuter’s news release, Peres, while serving as the head of the opposition Labor Party, suggested that the way to resolve the Israeli-“Palestinian” conflict over Jerusalem was to put its holy sites under U.N. control. The Old City would become a “world capital”, whose mayor would be the U.N. Secretary-General. Obviously, Israel rejected that idea. And, of course, there’s more.

It is clear that Peres’ raison d’être is to bring about the establishment of a “Palestinian” state in the heart of Israel, while at the same time yielding Israeli sovereignty over the city of Jerusalem, our ancient capital, which was reunited under Israeli control during the Six-day War. Such plans only encourage our enemies to pursue their ultimate goal of removing us entirely from this land. That being the case, we must ask “whose interests is Peres seeking to protect”? But, he is not alone. Lest we forget, God is totally against those who divide this land and scatter His people (see Joel 3:2).

Maybe we should look to Peres’ involvement with the Freemasons, along with the involvement of other top ranking, political leaders of Israel. But, that’s another story altogether and for another time.

And THAT was The Week That Was.

“My people, what have I done to you and how have I wearied you? Answer Me. Indeed, I brought you up from the land of Egypt and ransomed you from slavery, and I sent before you Moses, Aaron and Miriam. My people, remember now what Balak king of Moab counseled and what Balaam son of Beor answered him, and from Shittim to Gilgal, so that you might know the righteous acts of the LORD.” (Micah 6:3-5)
“Some trust in chariots and some in horses, but we will boast in the name of the LORD, our God. They have bowed down and fallen,  it we have risen and stood upright. save, O LORD; may the King answer us in the day we call.” (Psalm 20:7-9)

Have a simply blessed week.

Marvin

נשלח מה-iPad שלי