Displaying posts categorized under


Israel Says It Destroyed Syrian Nuclear Reactor in 2007 Operation is a message to countries like Iran who threaten country’s existence, tweets Israeli intelligence minister By Dov Lieber

Israel said it destroyed a Syrian nuclear reactor in 2007, ending its silence over the airstrikes in what it said was a warning for an increasingly bellicose Iran threatening the country’s existence.

Israel in recent months has amplified criticism of Iranian attempts to set up military bases in Syria, warning it would counter any attempts by Tehran and its allies to strengthen their presence on its border.

Tensions escalated in February after Israel’s military said one of its jets was shot down by antiaircraft missiles during strikes on Syrian targets. Those strikes came after Israel said it intercepted an Iranian drone launched from Syria that had infiltrated its airspace.

Russia and Iran are the main backers of the Assad regime in the yearslong Syrian conflict and Tehran has vowed to destroy the Israeli state.

Some Iranian officials also have said Tehran could pull out of the 2015 nuclear deal that limits its enrichment program if the U.S. backs out, as President Donald Trump has threatened.

Iran says its enrichment program is for peaceful purposes, but Israel and other Western powers have long suspected that Tehran sought to develop nuclear weapons.

The acknowledgment of the destruction of the Syrian reactor “sends a clear message: Israel will never allow nuclear weapons to countries like Iran who threaten its existence,” Israel Katz, the country’s intelligence minister, wrote on Twitter.

His comments came after the Israeli military disclosed for the first time details about the 2007 operation, releasing previously classified information, pictures and video of the airstrikes.

“Israel’s policy was and remains consistent—to prevent our enemies from acquiring nuclear weapons,” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said late Wednesday.

The Syrian regime couldn’t be reached for comment. It has previously denied that the bombed site was a nuclear reactor. An official at Iran’s United Nations mission in New York didn’t respond to a request for comment.

It was widely thought that the airstrikes in 2007 were carried out by Israel, but its formal disclosure on Wednesday comes as Mr. Trump considers scotching the Iranian nuclear deal in May. Israel is pushing for strict overhauls, including more-robust inspections of Iranian facilities and an indefinite period to restrict Iran’s nuclear program.

Ronen Bergman, a political and military analyst who wrote “Rise and Kill First”—a history of Israel’s intelligence agencies—said Israel was sending a message not just to Iran, but also to the Trump administration. CONTINUE AT SITE

(Moderate) PLO Boss Calls US Ambassador, “Son of a Dog” Daniel Greenfield

You know the US ambassador is doing his job when the terrorists hate him.

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas called US Ambassador to Israel David Friedman “a son of a dog” on Monday, with Friedman responding with a question: “Antisemitism or political discourse? Not for me to judge, I will leave that up to you.”

The US administration “has said that settlement building is legitimate,” Abbas said. “That’s what several American officials have said including, first and foremost, their ambassador in Tel Aviv, David Friedman. He said [settlers] are building on their land. Son of a dog, they are building in their land? He is a settler and his family members are settlers.”

Abbas was responding to a tweet earlier in the day by Friedman, who wrote of the recent terrorist attacks: “Tragedy in Israel. Two young soldiers, Netanel Kahalani and Ziv Daos, murdered in the North, and father of 4, Adiel Kolman, murdered in Jerusalem, by Palestinian terrorists. Such brutality and no condemnation from the PA! I pray for the families and the wounded – so much sadness,” Friedman tweeted.

In his speech to the antisemitism conference, Friedman explained the tweet, saying that he merely “observed something that was unfortunate and obvious. I observed this morning that three Jews were killed in cold blood by Palestinian terrorists, and the reaction from the Palestinian Authority was deafening. No condemnation whatsoever. I pointed that out without further commentary.”

Demographic time bomb? Mistaken or misleading! Ambassador (Ret.) Yoram Ettinger

The “demographic time bomb” concept accords mythical standards to Arab fertility and European standards to Jewish fertility, ignoring the Westernization of Arab fertility and the surging secular Jewish fertility, while significantly underestimating the potential of Jewish immigration (Aliyah) to Israel, which has been steady and continuous since 1882.

In March 1898, the leading Jewish demographer-historian, Shimon Dubnov, published a demographic projection, aiming to dissuade Theodore Herzl from the vision of the reconstruction of the Jewish State in the Land of Israel: “in 1998, there will be only half a million Jews in the Land of Israel…. Political Zionism is wishful-thinking….” Herzl was not deterred, although there was a meager 9% Jewish minority in the combined area of Judea, Samaria and pre-1967 Israel.

In October, 1944, Prof. Roberto Bachi, the founder of Israel’s Central Bureau of Statistics, published a demographic projection, intending to convince Israel’s Founding Father, David Ben Gurion, that a population of then 600,000 Jews was not a critical mass for the re-establishment of the Jewish State: “In 2001, there will be, under the best case scenario, 2.3MN Jews, a 34% minority….” Ben Gurion proceeded to re-establish the Jewish State despite the mere 55% Jewish majority in the area partitioned for the Jewish State, and the 39% Jewish minority in the combined area of Judea, Samaria and pre-1967 Israel.

In 1946, Ben Gurion published Israel Trivus document – No Arab Majority in the Land of Israel – which exposed substantial deficiencies in the population censuses conducted by the British Mandate in 1922 and 1931, similar to the deficiencies of the contemporary Palestinian census: the inclusion of overseas residents in the census; the double-count of people moving from rural areas to urban centers; the inflation of numbers by clan leaders for political and economic reasons; the under-reporting of deaths. A June 10, 1993 document of Israel’s Central Bureau of Statistics noted that according to Palestinian reporting, Palestinian life expectancy, supposedly, exceeded life expectancy in the USA….

Silencing History: U.S. University Publishers Shun Book “Ending the Deir Yassin Myth”

Why have American academic presses rejected a book manuscript by Dr. Eliezer Tauber, a former dean and highly-regarded Israeli history professor at Bar-Ilan University’s Department of Middle Eastern Studies?

Tauber is an award-winning and prolific expert on the early phases of the Arab-Israeli conflict. By all accounts, his latest book about the April 9, 1948 battle in the Palestinian village of Deir Yassin has “many strengths” and provides the most comprehensive investigation to date of what was both a seminal event in Israel’s War of Independence and in the creation of the Palestinian refugee problem.

A book of this caliber and importance should really be of great interest to American publishers.

But so far—after three years of trying to convince an American university press to publish his book—none have agreed to give Tauber a contract for the English-language version of Deir Yassin: The End of a Myth.

Academic publishing is a tough business, and even first-rate manuscripts can be passed over if the scholarship isn’t a perfect fit for a publisher’s list or on account of a bottleneck in the pipeline—which isn’t uncommon for elite presses.

But something else, very damaging to academia, is going on here.

That’s because the U.S. university presses which Tauber approached reportedly rejected his book on the say-so of anti-Israel faculty reviewers and members of their editorial boards. Apparently, these faculty are worried that Deir Yassin: The End of a Myth could upend the way a lot of American and English-language readers assess the Palestinian narrative of 1948, so they’re advising acquisition editors not to adopt it.

If that’s true, then it’s a scandal of mega proportions.

Basically, it would be another indication that the virulently anti-Israel perspective which currently dominates in many disciplines in the Humanities and soft Social Sciences, especially Middle Eastern Studies, is truly having a corrosive impact on American higher education by undermining viewpoint diversity and hindering the growth of knowledge.

I missed this – stunning: US publishers worry about their reputation if they published new scholarly study showing that the Deir Yassin “massacre” is a myth. http://jewishjournal.com/rosnersdomain/231367/truth-deir-yassin/ …

— Petra Marquardt-Bigman (@WarpedMirrorPMB) 12:08 PM – Mar 16, 2018

Below I provide an overview of the existing scholarship on Deir Yassin. I review what reputable scholars have claimed really happened when this Arab village, located on the western edge of Jerusalem, was attacked by Jewish fighters affiliated with Israel’s pre-state underground forces.

Thou Shalt Innovate How Israeli ingenuity repairs the world. Joseph Puder

Avi Jorisch and I met at the AIPAC conference. He was a panelist at an exciting forum titled “The Israeli Ethos,” dealing with Israeli technologies, entrepreneurship, and innovation. Jorisch is a Senior Fellow at the American Foreign Policy Council, and author of Thou Shalt Innovate. We discussed what is it about Israel that nurtures entrepreneurship and innovation — and how Israeli innovation has impacted the world.

Thou Shalt Innovate: How Israeli Ingenuity Repairs the World

Thou Shalt Innovate: How Israeli Ingenuity Repairs the World
Mar 1, 2018
by Avi Jorisch

Joseph Puder (JP): Tell our readers where you come from and what motivated you to write Thou Shalt Innovate?

Avi Jorisch (AJ): I was born into a family of Holocaust survivors and raised primarily in New York City. But I also lived in Israel for long stretches of my childhood, through my teenage years and into adulthood, because of my family’s cultural, historical, and religious ties there.

My interest in Israeli technology was kindled during the summer of 2014, when my family and I lived through Operation Protective Edge, in large part going in and out of bomb shelters. My family, like the rest of Israel, found comfort in the Iron Dome. I marveled at this invention. It kept Israel from descending into the chaos and carnage that was engulfing the rest of the Middle East.



Eyedrops could replace spectacles. Israeli scientists at Jerusalem’s Shaare Zedek Medical Center and Bar-Ilan University have developed eyedrops that repair the corneas, improving near-sighted and far-sighted vision. The “nanodrops” are scheduled for human trials next year and could eventually replace multifocal lenses.

Crohn’s gene mutation identified. International scientists, including from Israel’s Hebrew University of Jerusalem and University of Haifa, have discovered a genetic mutation associated with Crohn’s disease. Those with the LRRK2 gene mutation are at high risk of developing the inflammatory bowel (IBD) disease.

Destroying tumors the size of golf balls. I’ve reported previously (several times) on Israel’s IceCure and its IceSense3 cryoablation (freezing) system for destroying even large tumors. This article and video provide an excellent explanation of how the system works, in conjunction with other medications and the immune system.

Medical tools for developing countries. Israel’s Engineering for All (EfA) is developing RevDx – a small, portable device that can perform automated blood tests, diagnostics, and data analytics on the spot; a kind of hand-held hospital to assist under-equipped medical workers and technicians in rural areas.

Former Kenyan President has treatment in Israel. 93-year-old former president of Kenya, Daniel Arap Moi is being brought to Tel Aviv for medical procedures. The ailing leader will also take the opportunity to visit holy sites around the country, Kenyan TV reported.

Adopting the Palestinian narrative Elliot Abrams

This piece is reprinted with permission and can be found on Abrams’ blog “Pressure Points.”

Seventeen “national security leaders” recently issued an alarming statement about Israel-Palestinian peace and U.S. policy. The statement was carried as an ad in The New York Times and a PDF version can be found here.

In my view, the statement is fairly radical in its departure from what has been U.S. policy for decades. How?

The Statement claims that “previous U.S. administrations” have “accepted” a Palestinian demand for “equal and minimal land swaps.” I will speak only about the George W. Bush administration. We understood that land swaps were a very useful idea to make the two-state solution work, but we did not back any demand that they be “equal and minimal.” That was to be negotiated by the parties.
The Statement says that “Jerusalem [is] to be the capital of Israel and Palestine, in the west and the east of the city respectively, an open city for the faithful of the three monotheistic religions.” The Bush administration also left the borders of Jerusalem to be determined by the parties, and never insisted on an “open city” – whatever that means.
The Statement calls for “ensuring the security of the two states consistent with their respective sovereignty and supported by a third-party security mechanism.” The Bush administration understood that security was an enormously complex and dangerous issue, but did not demand a “third-party security mechanism.” Again, the meaning of that phrase is entirely unclear, while it has long been entirely clear that Israel would not hand its security over to the United Nations, the United States, NATO troops, or any other possible “mechanism.”
The Statement says our goal should be “two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security.” What’s missing here? Compare the words of President Bush when addressing the United Nations General Assembly in 2002: “In the Middle East, there can be no peace for either side without freedom for both sides. America stands committed to an independent and democratic Palestine, living side by side with Israel in peace and security. Like all other people, Palestinians deserve a government that serves their interests and listens to their voices.” The Statement makes no mention whatsoever of freedom or democracy, simply abandoning the hopes and indeed the rights of the Palestinian people in this regard.
The Statement says that a deal between the Israelis and Palestinians “remains a core U.S. national interest.” Really? A desirable goal to be sure, but as one thinks of the rise of China, American military preparedness, missile defense, Iranian and North Korean nukes, energy issues, and the like, does solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict qualify as a “core national interest”?

The Key To Middle East Peace Is An Arab-Israeli Peace Shoshana Bryen

President Trump’s “peace process” envoy Jason Greenblatt hosted an odd and auspicious “ problem-solving meeting” at the White House to discuss the “humanitarian crisis in Gaza.” Among the 19 countries at the table were Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman, and the United Arab Emirates. And Israel. The Palestinians declined to attend and the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) was not invited.

In one way, it was a great move; in another…meh.

Kudos to Messrs. Trump, Greenblatt and Kushner for tossing out the Oslo parameters and — whether by design or just by following the logic — changing the conversation from limited and literally deadly Palestinian incitement and foot-stomping demands to a broad-based Arab State role in the process. By doing so, they have taken a step toward solving a problem they may not even have been planning to tackle.

The Palestinians are the weakest link in regional politics, which is why the “Palestinian-Israeli peace process” was doomed from the start. It is impossible for Palestinians to announce that they recognize the legitimacy of Jewish nationhood and are prepared to accept for themselves a split, rump state squeezed between their enemy Jordan and their enemy Israel while the Arab States with the money and the guns disapproved. The more the U.S. pressed for concessions that would rile the bankers, the more the Palestinians retreated. Intransigence and violence were their defense against having to defy their patrons.

The core issue was never drinking water — or a state — for the Palestinians. It is the failure of most Arab States, including most of those at the table, to recognize the legitimacy and permanence of the State of Israel in the region. “Secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force,” says UN Resolution 242, and that is the obligation of Arab States to Israel. The meeting did not fulfill the criteria, but it surely was a step in the right direction. Having met and sat and talked in the house of the world’s only superpower, Arab States can’t unmeet, unsit, or untalk. Or deny.

The New Palestinian Jihad to Obliterate Israel by Bassam Tawil

If and when Hamas is ever removed from power in the Gaza Strip, Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) will most likely seize control of the coastal enclave, where nearly two million Palestinians live.

PIJ’s new “political document” exposes the Palestinian terror group’s plan for “real peace” in the Middle East. This “real peace,” according to the jihadi group, can be achieved by eliminating Israel after “liberating Palestine, from the river to the sea, and after the original owners of the land return to their homes.”

This genocidal “peace” plan appears to be shared by other Palestinian terror groups, such as Hamas, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine and even certain parts of Mahmoud Abbas’s ruling Fatah faction.

The Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) group is the second-largest terror group in the Gaza Strip after Hamas. Like Hamas, PIJ does not recognize Israel’s right to exist and believes that violence and terrorism are the only way to “liberate all Palestine, from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River.”

Like Hamas, in the past three decades PIJ has carried out thousands of terror attacks against Israel, including suicide bombings.

Recently, the PIJ wished to remind us again of its dangerous and poisonous ideology. This reminder came in the form of a new “political document” published by the Iranian-backed terror group in the Gaza Strip.

The document contains important information about the group’s strategy to destroy Israel and provides insight into the role Islam plays in the Israeli-Arab conflict.

Some may argue that there is nothing new in the PIJ document. However, PIJ is not just another Palestinian “resistance” faction, as some Middle East experts tend to describe it. Rather, it is one of the most dangerous Palestinian terror groups. It aspires to eliminate Israel and kill as many Jews as possible.

If and when Hamas is ever removed from power in the Gaza Strip, PIJ will most likely seize control of the coastal enclave, where nearly two million Palestinians live.

Western journalists often ignore the power and threat of PIJ, mainly because the representatives of the terror group rarely give interviews to the foreign media.

Besides, it is easier for Western journalists to take the short trip from Jerusalem to Ramallah to interview a Palestinian Authority official, who uses his or her fluent English to lie about the Palestinians’ desire for peace and coexistence with Israel.

Western journalists rarely, if ever, present to their readers and viewers what the terrorists preach to their own people.

That is precisely why there is a need to bring the main points of the PIJ document to the attention of the international media and decision-makers around the world. The PIJ is a major player in the Palestinian arena, and its political and military power can be ignored only at great peril.


On 10 November 1975 by a vote of 72 to 35 (with 32 abstentions), the United Nations General Assembly adopted Resolution 3379, which declared “Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination”. That vote came one year after UNGA 3237 granted the PLO “observer status”, following Arafat’s “olive branch” speech to the General Assembly in November 1974.

Daniel Moynihan, United States Ambassador to the United Nations delivered this eloquent and stinging response the same day the resolution was passed:

“There appears to have developed in the United Nations the practice for a number of countries to combine for the purpose of doing something outrageous, and thereafter, the outrageous thing having been done, to profess themselves outraged by those who have the temerity to point it out, and subsequently to declare themselves innocent of any wrong-doing in consequence of its having been brought about wholly in reaction to the “insufferable” acts of those who pointed the wrong-doing out in the first place. Out of deference to these curious sensibilities, the United States chose not to speak in advance of this vote: we speak in its aftermath and in tones of the utmost concern.

The United States rises to declare before the General Assembly of the United Nations, and before the world, that it does not acknowledge, it will not abide by, it will never acquiesce in this infamous act.

Not three weeks ago, the United States Representative in the Social, Humanitarian, and Cultural Committee pleaded in measured and fully considered terms for the United Nations not to do this thing. It was, he said, “obscene.” It is something more today, for the furtiveness with which this obscenity first appeared among us has been replaced by a shameless openness.

There will be time enough to contemplate the harm this act will have done the United Nations. Historians will do that for us, and it is sufficient for the moment only to note the foreboding fact. A great evil has been loosed upon the world. The abomination of anti-Semitism — as this year’s Nobel Peace Laureate Andrei Sakharov observed in Moscow just a few days ago — the abomination of anti-Semitism has been given the appearance of international sanction. The General Assembly today grants symbolic amnesty — and more — to the murderers of the six million European Jews. Evil enough in itself, but more ominous by far is the realization that now presses upon us — the realization that if there were no General Assembly, this could never have happened.

As this day will live in infamy, it behooves those who sought to avert it to declare their thoughts so that historians will know that we fought here, that we were not small in number — not this time — and that while we lost, we fought with full knowledge of what indeed would be lost.

Nor should any historian of the event, nor yet any who have participated in it, suppose, that we have fought only as governments, as chancelleries, and on an issue well removed from the concerns of our respective peoples. Others will speak for their nations: I will speak for mine.

In all our postwar history there had not been another issue which has brought forth such unanimity of American opinion. The President of the United States has from the first been explicit: This must not happen. The Congress of the United States in a measure unanimously adopted in the Senate and sponsored by 436 of 437 Representatives in the House, declared its utter opposition. Following only American Jews themselves, the American trade union movements was first to the fore in denouncing this infamous undertaking. Next, one after another, the great private institutions of American life pronounced anathema in this evil thing — and most particularly, the Christian churches have done so. Reminded that the United Nations was born in struggle against just such abominations as we are committing today — the wartime alliance of the United Nations dates from 1942 — the United Nations Association of the United States has for the first time in its history appealed directly to each of the 141 other delegations in New York not to do this unspeakable thing.

The proposition to be sanctioned by a resolution of the General Assembly of the United Nations is that “Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination.” Now this is a lie. But as it is a lie which the United Nations has now declared to be a truth, the actual truth must be restated.

The very first point to be made is that the United Nations has declared Zionism to be racism — without ever having defined racism. “Sentence first — verdict afterwards,” as the Queen of Hearts said. But this is not wonderland, but a real world, where there are real consequences to folly and to venality. Just on Friday, the President of the General Assembly, speaking on behalf of Luxembourg, warned not only of the trouble which would follow from the adoption of this resolution but of its essential irresponsibility — for, he noted, members have wholly different ideas as to what they are condemning. “It seems to me that before a body like this takes a decision they should agree very clearly on what they are approving or condemning, and it takes more time.”

Lest I be unclear, the United Nations has in fact on several occasions defined “racial discrimination.” The definitions have been loose, but recognizable. It is “racism,” incomparably the more serious charge — racial discrimination is a practice; racism is a doctrine — which has never been defined. Indeed, the term has only recently appeared in the United Nations General Assembly documents. The one occasion on which we know the meaning to have been discussed was the 1644th meeting of the Third Committee on December 16, 1968, in connection with the report of the Secretary-General on the status of the international convention on the elimination of all racial discrimination. On that occasion — to give some feeling for the intellectual precision with which the matter was being treated — the question arose, as to what should be the relative positioning of the terms “racism” and “Nazism” in a number of the “preambular paragraphs.” The distinguished delegate from Tunisia argued that “racism” should go first because “Nazism was merely a form of racism.” Not so, said the no less distinguished delegate from the Union Soviet Socialist Republics. For, he explained, “Nazism contained the main elements of racism within its ambit and should be mentioned first.” This is to say that racism was merely a form of Nazism.

The discussion wound to its weary and inconclusive end, and we are left with nothing to guide us for even this one discussion of “racism” confined itself to world orders in preambular paragraphs, and did not at all touch on the meaning of the words as such. Still, one cannot but ponder the situation we have made for ourselves in the context of the Soviet statement on that not so distant occasion. If, as the distinguished delegate declared, racism is a form of Nazism — and if, as this resolution declares, Zionism is a form of racism — then we have step to step taken ourselves to the point of proclaiming — the United Nations is solemnly proclaiming — that Zionism is a form of Nazism.

What we have here is a lie — a political lie of a variety well known to the twentieth century, and scarcely exceeded in all that annal of untruth and outrage. The lie is that Zionism is a form of racism. The overwhelmingly clear truth is that is it not. READ IT ALL