Kuwaiti newspaper Al Jarida reported Sunday that U.S. President Barack Obama has been refusing to take phone calls from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu because of the tension between the two countries over how to resolve the Iranian nuclear issue.
The Prime Minister’s Office issued a flat denial, saying, “The report in Al Jarida is wrong.”
The White House also denied the reports.
Al Jarida, which has previously reported information that was later verified about a leak investigation taking place in Netanyahu’s bureau, says that on Friday, Obama refused more than once to speak to Netanyahu on the telephone and had U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry take the call instead. The paper cited a source it says is familiar with the issue.
According to the report, which was written by a reporter in Jerusalem, U.S. Jewish leaders are trying to get the White House to decrease the tension and snag Netanyahu an invitation to meet with Obama in Washington.
The Kuwaiti paper’s exclusive reports on what’s going on behind the scenes of the Prime Minister’s Office have raised the question of whether Netanyahu’s bureau is intentionally using the paper to release information to which it doesn’t want to be directly linked.
Jonathan Pollard was a civilian American Naval intelligence analyst. In the mid 1980's (circa 1983-1984), Pollard discovered that information vital to Israel's security was being deliberately withheld by certain elements within the U.S. national security establishment.
Israel was legally entitled to this vital security information according to a 1983 Memorandum of Understanding between the two countries.
The information being withheld from Israel included Syrian, Iraqi, Libyan and Iranian nuclear, chemical, and biological warfare capabilities - being developed for use against Israel. It also included information on ballistic missile development by these countries and information on planned terrorist attacks against Israeli civilian targets.
When Pollard discovered this suppression of information and asked his superiors about it, he was told to "mind his own business", and that "Jews get nervous talking about poison gas; they don't need to know."He also learned that the objective of cutting off the flow of information to Israel was to severely curtail Israel's ability to act independently in defense of her own interests.
Pollard was painfully aware that Israeli lives were being put in jeopardy as a result of this undeclared intelligence embargo. He did everything he possibly could to stop this covert policy and to have the legal flow of information to Israel restored. When his efforts met no success, he began to give the information to Israel directly.
Jonathan Pollard was an ideologue, not a mercenary. The FBI concluded after nine months of polygraphing that Pollard acted for ideological reasons only, not for profit. This fact was recognized by the sentencing judge who declined to fine Pollard. (See theaddendum for further details.)Furthermore, on May 11, 1998, Israel formally acknowledged Jonathan Pollard had been a bona fide Israeli agent. This fact wiped out any remaining doubt about Jonathan Pollard's motives. Being an official agent is, by definition, the polar opposite of being a mercenary.
In 1985, his actions were discovered by the U.S. government. His instructions from Israel were to seek refuge in the Israeli embassy in Washington. When Pollard and his former wife sought refuge there, they were at first received and then summarily thrown out into the waiting arms of the FBI.
Jonathan Pollard never had a trial. At the request of both the U.S. and Israeli governments, he entered into a plea agreement, which spared both governments a long, difficult, expensive and potentially embarrassing trial.
Jonathan Pollard fulfilled his end of the plea agreement, cooperating fully with the prosecution.
Nevertheless, Pollard received a life sentence and a recommendation that he never be paroled - in complete violation of the plea agreement he had reached with the government.
Jonathan Pollard was never indicted for harming the United States.
Jonathan Pollard was never indicted for compromising codes, agents, or war plans.
Jonathan Pollard was never charged with treason. [Legally, treason is a charge that is only applicable when one spies for an enemy state in time of war.]
Jonathan Pollard was indicted on only one charge: one count of passing classified information to an ally, without intent to harm the United States.
Prior to sentencing, then-Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger delivered a 46-page classified memorandum to the sentencing judge. Since then, neither Pollard nor any of his cleared attorneys have ever been allowed to access the memorandum to challenge the false charges it contains-a clear violation of Pollard's constitutional rights. The day before sentencing, Weinberger delivered a four-page supplemental memorandum to the sentencing judge. In it, he falsely accused Pollard of treason. Also in the supplemental memorandum, Weinberger advocated a life sentence in clear violation of Pollard's plea agreement. The implication that follows from Weinberger's false characterization of Pollard's offense as "treason" is that the country Pollard served, Israel, is an enemy state.
Pollard was shown the supplemental Weinberger memorandum only once, just moments before sentencing - hardly adequate time to prepare an appropriate defense to rebut the false accusations in it.
No one else in the history of the United States has ever received a life sentence for passing classified information to an ally - only Jonathan Pollard. The median sentence for this offense is two to four years. Even agents who have committed far more serious offenses on behalf of hostile nations have not received such a harsh sentence.
Pollard's attorney never appealed from the life sentence. The time to file for such an appeal was within ten days of sentencing. Years later, with a different attorney, Pollard filed a habeas corpus challenge to the sentence.The Court of Appeals, in a two-to-one decision, rejected the challenge, largely on procedural grounds. The majority placed heavy emphasis on the failure to appeal from the life sentence in a timely manner, and on the resulting far heavier burden faced by Pollard in seeking to challenge the sentence via habeas corpus. [Note: "Habeas corpus" is a procedure by which an incarcerated person may bring a court challenge to the legality of his or her incarceration - often long after the underlying case has been concluded.] In a dissenting opinion, Court of Appeals Judge Stephen Williams called the case "a fundamental miscarriage of justice," and wrote that he would have ordered that Pollard's sentence be vacated.
In November 1995, Israel granted Jonathan Pollard Israeli citizenship. The official presentation took place in January of 1996. This publicly signaled to the U.S. Israel's willingness to accept full responsibility for Pollard.
On May 12, 1998 , in the same statement in which the Government of Israel publicly acknowledged Jonathan Pollard as an Israeli agent, it accepted full responsibility for him, and indicated its commitment to securing his release and repatriation to Israel.
Jonathan Pollard has repeatedly expressed his remorse publicly and in private letters to the President and others. He regrets having broken the law, and is sorry he did not find a legal means to act upon his concerns for Israel. (See Remorse Page.)
The Wye Plantation summit is a prime example of U.S. exploitation of Jonathan Pollard.Both before and again during the Wye summit negotiations in the fall of 1998, President Clinton promised to release Jonathan Pollard. Pollard was the deal-maker at Wye which enabled the accords to be completed.
At the last minute, with the eyes of the world focused on the Wye Accords signing ceremony which was about to take place in Washington, Clinton reneged on Pollard's release, creating a storm of negative publicity for Israel.
How the Wye fiasco came about:In September, 1998, just before the mid-term Congressional elections, President Clinton (who at the time was facing impeachment hearings and in need of a foreign policy PR victory) asked Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to attend a three-way summit with the Palestinians at Wye River, Maryland. Clinton knew that a successful summit at Wye just before the Congressional elections would be good not only for his image, but would also reap great political benefits for the Democrats in their bid to regain control of Congress. As an inducement to Netanyahu, Clinton promised to release Jonathan Pollard within the context of the summit. Understanding the value of Jonathan Pollard for his own re-election bid, and needing him as a sweetener to sell any kind of "peace" deal to the Israeli people, Netanyahu ignored the entreaties of Republican friends like Newt Gingrich and agreed to attend the summit. (Gingrich would later repay Netanyahu by leading the Republican charge of slander and lies against Jonathan Pollard.)
Once the Wye summit was underway, Clinton quickly "forgot" his promise to free Jonathan Pollard and there was little Netanyahu could do.
Talks at Wye broke down over the release of Palestinian murderers with Jewish blood on their hands and over Israel's request for the extradition of Ghazi Jabali, the chief of Police in Gaza who was wanted for his role in planning and executing terrorist attacks in Israel.
To break the stalemate, the Palestinians suggested Jonathan Pollard as the solution. They proposed that Pollard be sold to Netanyahu once again: the US would give Jonathan to Israel in return for Israel's freeing of hundreds of Palestinian terrorists and immunity for Ghazi Jabali.
The US and Israel agreed to the Palestinian plan to swap Pollard for terrorists and murderers.President Clinton personally worked out the details of the deal in a late-night private session with a Palestinian and an Israeli representative.
According to the deal, Prime Minister Netanyahu was to receive a side letter from President Clinton the next morning (one of approximately 30 side letters the Americans had promised) guaranteeing Pollard's release for November 11, 1998, one week after the US House elections.The Pollard negotiation was the deal-maker at Wye which allowed the summit to be successfully wrapped up and a signing ceremony to be planned for the next morning in Washington, on Friday October 23, 1998.
Only hours before the signing ceremony, P.M. Netanyahu received all of the American side-letters that had been promised to him, except one - the one guaranteeing the release of Jonathan Pollard.Netanyahu threatened not to attend the signing ceremony unless he got the Pollard side letter. Clinton said, "Trust me." Netanyahu, knowing he was about to be double-crossed by Clinton over Pollard for the second time, refused. Netanyahu demanded that in the absence of a side letter of guarantee, Pollard should be freed into his custody immediately, or no signing ceremony. Arik Sharon supported Netanyahu and they threatened to leave Wye without signing the accords.
In order to take the pressure off of President Clinton, CIA chief George Tenet quickly leaked the news of Pollard's imminent release to the media in a deliberate - and ultimately successful - attempt to torpedo the deal.He sent emissaries to Capitol Hill to hold emergency meetings with leading Senators and Congressmen to enlist their support in publicly denouncing Pollard's release. Many lies were told by the CIA emissaries about Jonathan Pollard to convince the legislators to act swiftly and in unison. Believing the lies, the legislators complied and began an unprecedented series of public actions to prevent the release of Jonathan Pollard.
Meanwhile at Wye, under heavy pressure and still fearful that Netanyahu would not back down, Clinton quickly negotiated a private fall-back position with Netanyahu: Clinton would publicly promise to do a "speedy review"of the Pollard Case and he would use that review to free Pollard a few months later, parallel to the release of the 750 Palestinian terrorists who were part of the price Israel had agreed to pay for Pollard.Under heavy public pressure and betrayed by his own Minister of Defense, Yitzhak Mordecai*, who closed ranks with Clinton, Netanyahu folded and accepted this private deal. The signing ceremony was held in Washington as scheduled. *(Mordecai himself is now on trial in Israel in 2001 for sexual assault.)
Netanyahu's capitulation at Wye, the public spectacle of his being brought to heel by the Americans, and the lopsided deal he brought home from Wye now that Pollard was no longer perceived to be a part of it, would shortly cost him his premiership.
After Wye, the White House falsely accused Netanyahu of having injected Pollard into the Wye summit at the last moment.However, eye witnesses to the Pollard deal at Wye, including the Israeli and the Palestinian who had negotiated the deal with Clinton and the former Israeli Cabinet Secretary, all later contradicted the White House version of events and affirmed that President Clinton had committed himself to the release of Jonathan Pollard as an integral part of the Wye Accords.
Note: Prime Minister Netanyahu was the first prime minster of Israel to agree to free Palestinian terrorists with Jewish blood on their hands. That is the price the Americans demanded for Pollard at Wye. To this day, this represents a keen embarrassment for Netanyahu and his party, even more so since he did not receive Pollard but the Palestinian murders were released nonetheless. That is why no official source from the Netanyahu government ever wants to publicly admit to it. They keep the details to a minimum, but all concur that Pollard's freedom was bought and paid for by "concessions"at Wye.
When Netanyahu returned to Israel after Wye, he created a firestorm of publicity by releasing 200 Palestinian common criminals from Israeli prisons.The Palestinians were outraged, and insisted that these common criminals were not the prisoners that they had bargained for at Wye. The Americans angrily protested. Netanyahu reminded the Americans that the Wye Accords do not specify exactly which prisoners Israel must release. Critics wondered if the Prime Minister had lost his mind to antagonize the Americans this way. Only those close to Prime Minister Netanyahu understood that this was Netanyahu's private, pointed reminder to Bill Clinton that if he was thinking of double-crossing him yet a third time over Pollard, he should think again. No Pollard, no release for the Palestinian murderers and terrorists. Unfortunately for Jonathan Pollard, Netanyahu's government fell before he was able to act on this.
In a meeting with Netanyahu right after his electoral defeat in the Spring of 1999, Jonathan Pollard's wife, Esther, received assurances from the former prime minister that the new prime minister, Ehud Barak, had been fully briefed about what had been agreed to at Wye and about the fall-back position; that is to say, Israel had yet to free the 750 terrorists with blood on their hands and was still supposed to receive Pollard home in a "parallel gesture" from President Clinton.
Not long after Barak took office, the 750 Palestinian murderers and terrorists walked out of prison as free men. Jonathan Pollard remained in his American jail cell.
In an attempt to justify Clinton's reneging at Wye, a story was leaked to the press that George Tenet, a Clinton appointee, had threatened to resign as head of the CIA if Pollard were released.The story, though not logical, sounded plausible and it became popular to cite the opposition of the American Intelligence community as the reason Clinton did not honor his commitment at Wye to free Pollard. This was soon exposed as the lame excuse it was when Clinton freed a group of unrepentant FALN terrorists in the fall of 1999, in an attempt to improve his wife's popularity with New York State's Hispanic community in her election bid for the Senate. (See Senate Race Page.) To this day, the same lame excuse continues to be used to justify the unjustifiable failure of Clinton to honor his commitment.
In September of 1999, despite strenuous opposition from all of his government advisors and agencies, President Clinton freed 14 unrepentant Puerto Rican terrorists, members of the FALN, charged with bank robbery and various acts of terrorism, including over 130 bombings in the US, and the deaths of American police officers.Clinton ignored a solid wall of opposition from the Justice, Intelligence and Defense departments and Congress, invoked his powers of executive clemency and set the FALN terrorists free. In doing so, he unequivocally put the lie to the notion that any government agency might tie his hands or influence his decision in matters of clemency. (See FALN Page and Clemency Page.)
More than two years elapsed after Wye. President Clinton did no review. Jonathan Pollard remained in prison while the US continued to extract Israeli concessions for his release.
Those who still believed the myth that it was the American Intelligence Community that was tying the hands of President Clinton, also clung to the belief he would finally honor his many promises to release Jonathan Pollard - including the commitment he had made at Wye - at the end of his term, when he could do so without fear of political reprisal.
Beginning in 1991 Rabbi Mordecai Eliyahu, the former Chief Rabbi of Israel, and Jonathan's rabbi, offered himself to the U.S. Justice Department as Jonathan's guarantor. The offer was ignored.Rabbi Eliyahu repeated the same offer every year after that in private letters to President Clinton. Every offer went unacknowledged until the fall of 2000, when Esther Pollard received a letter from the White House indicating that the President was aware of the former chief Rabbi's offer and that it would be part of the President's consideration in reaching a final decision on her husband's case.
President Clinton never kept his promises.When he left office in January 2001, Jonathan Pollard was not included among those that to whom Clinton granted clemency:
in spite of his repeated express commitments to Israel to free Pollard in return for numerous heavy concessions
in spite of his commitment to free Pollard as an integral part if the Wye Accords
in spite of the appeals of the Jewish community, and
in spite of the gross injustices of the Pollard case which include:
ex parte communication between prosecutors and judge
a lack of due process
a sentencing procedure infected by false allegations and lies
On his last day in office, Clinton granted clemency to 140 people. Many who received executive clemency had been convicted of very serious offenses, including murder, robbery and drug dealing. Some of those pardoned had served no prison time at all before being pardoned. Among those pardoned were Clinton's brother, and a former head of the CIA. (See Clemency Page.)
Since he was sentenced in 1987, none of Jonathan Pollard's security-cleared attorneys have been able to see the classified portions of the docket in order to challenge them in a court of law or to defend him in a clemency proceeding.In September of 2000, Jonathan Pollard's attorneys filed a separate motion requesting that attorney Eliot Lauer be allowed access to the secret portions of the Pollard court docket. (See Legal Doc: Motion to Unseal the Pollard Record.)
On January 12, 2001, Chief Judge Norma Holloway Johnson denied the attorneys' request to allow Eliot Lauer access to the complete Pollard docket, upholding the government's claim that Lauer's seeing the secret portion of the record poses a risk to American national security.Both Lauer and Semmelman hold TOP SECRET level security clearances, which they obtained from the Justice Department in order to be eligible to see their client's full record. A motion for reconsideration was filed January 18, 2001. (See Legal Doc: Motion for Reconsideration of Court Order.)
Five Prime Ministers of Israel and three Presidents of Israel have requested Jonathan Pollard's release from the United States. Israel has pledged to be responsible for its agent who has served many years in prison under harsh conditions, and who has fully and repeatedly expressed his remorse. (See Remorse Page.)Between close friends and strong allies, that ought to be enough.
On November 21, 2012, Jonathan Pollard entered the 28th year of his life sentence, with no end in sight.
Because it is – in my view – Turkey that changed its mind on reconciling, I focused on the Turkish side of things in the FA piece, so I thought I’d now write a little bit about the Israeli side. From Israel’s perspective, making up with Turkey has made sense for awhile now, and the reasons to do so only grew stronger with each passing day. First, there is the regional dynamic in the Middle East, which is hardly trending in Israel’s favor post-Arab Spring. While I do not think that Israel has anything to fear from new governments in the region, the upheaval has opened up power vacuums in the Sinai and Syria that allow hostile non-state actors to operate with impunity. Add to this the existing threats from Hamas and Hizballah and the distinct possibility that the Jordanian government falls, and Israel desperately needs any friend who will have her. Making up with Turkey means that at least Israel is not entirely alone in the region, and being able to coordinate with Turkey and with Jordan (so long as King Abdullah remains in power) will be extremely helpful in containing the spillover threat from Syria. While I highlighted the urgency for Turkey in my FA piece, Israel’s biggest concern with regard to the Syrian civil war has always been the transfer of chemical weapons to hostile non-state actors, and now that the chatter around chemical weapons has increased, apologizing to Turkey took on an urgency for Jerusalem that was absent before.
Second, Turkey has successfully blocked Israel from NATO military activities and summits, and the ability to get back in the game has always been important to the Israeli government. While the Noble Dina naval exercises with Greece and the U.S. that Israel began doing in 2011 are nice, they are a poor substitute for Israel being able to use the vast Turkish airspace for aerial training or being able to participate in NATO military exercises. Israel has attempted to ramp up its military relations with Greece and Cyprus in response to the freeze in relations with Turkey but this has always been a suboptimal solution, and Israel has felt this acutely as the government has become increasingly preoccupied with possible threats from Iran. Furthermore, Israel’s defense industry has had billions of dollars in contracts with Turkey suspended by Ankara, and being able to resume sales to Turkey should provide a nice jolt to the Israeli economy.
Nobody should expect Israel and Turkey to go back to where they once were. Turkey does not feel as alone in the region as it once did, there is still a benefit from having cool relations with Israel, and too much has taken place between the two, from Davos to the Mavi Marmara to the “Zionism is equal to fascism” kerfuffle of a month ago. It is unfortunately not surprising to already see Erdoğan backing away from his commitment to normalize relations, although it will happen sooner rather than later since this is only Erdoğan playing politics in response to some hardline domestic criticism over the deal with Israel. Exchanging ambassadors and resuming limited military and intelligence cooperation does not negate the fact that bashing Israel will remain a potent element in Erdoğan’s box of tricks, and I expect to see issues big and small arise between the two countries, particularly as things remain static on the Israeli-Palestinian front and settlement building in the West Bank continues. Nevertheless, this restoring of formal ties is good for both sides, and I hope that both countries can get over their past issues and begin work on developing a healthier relationship.
Given the situation, the main questions that arise from Israel’s apology to Turkey are as follows: Is it truly a declaration with little intrinsic meaning, as Peres intimated? Should it simply be viewed as a means of overcoming a technical block to renewing Israel’s strategic alliance with Turkey? In other words, will the apology facilitate Turkish cooperation in stemming the rise of jihadist forces in Syria, and blocking the transfer of chemical and biological weapons and ballistic missiles to such actors? Finally, what does Obama’s central role in producing Israel’s apology say about his relationship with the Jewish state and the consequences of his visit on Israel’s alliance with the US and its position in the region? And finally, what steps should Israel consider in light of these consequences?
On Saturday, the Arab League convened in Doha, Qatar and discussed Israel’s apology to Turkey and its ramifications for pan-Arab policy. The Arab League member states considered the prospect of demanding similar apologies for its military operations in Lebanon, Judea, Samaria and Gaza.
The Arab League’s discussions point to the true ramifications of the apology for Israel. By apologizing for responding lawfully to unlawful aggression against the State of Israel and its armed forces, Israel did two things. First, Israel humiliated itself and its soldiers, and so projected an image of profound weakness. Due to this projected image, Israel has opened itself up to further demands for it to apologize for its other responses to acts of unlawful war and aggression against the state, its territory and its citizens from other aggressors. The Arab League like most of its member nations is in an official state of war with Israel. The Arabs wish to see Israel destroyed. Kicking a nation when it is down is a perfectly rational way for states that wish other states ill to behave. And so the Arab League’s action was eminently predictable.
As for the future of Israel-Turkish cooperation on Syria, two things must be borne in mind. First, on Saturday Erdogan claimed that Netanyahu’s apology was insufficient to restore Turkish-Israel relations. He claimed that before he could take any concrete actions to restore relations, Israel would first have to compensate the families of the passengers from the Mavi Marmara killed while assaulting IDF soldiers with deadly force.
Beyond that, it is far from clear that Turkey shares Israel’s interests in preventing the rise of a jihadist regime in Syria allied with al-Qaeda. More than any other actor, Erdogan has played a central role in enabling the early jihadist penetration and domination of the ranks of the US-supported Syrian opposition forces. It is far from clear that the man who enabled these jihadists to rise to power shares Israel’s interest in preventing them from seizing Syria’s weapons of mass destruction. Moreover, if Turkey does share Israel’s interest in preventing the Syrian opposition from taking control over the said arsenals, it would cooperate with Israel in accomplishing this goal with or without an Israeli apology for its takeover of the Mavi Marmara.
I think the apology was a mistake. Netanyahu, who is notoriously pliable, came under pressure from Obama and could not resist.
I don't believe Israel will reap any benefits from the apology. If we're really lucky, maybe it won't come back to haunt us.
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has decided to allow the transfer of funds to the Palestinian Authority, which is ruled by Fatah.
The Prime Minister's Office said that the decision was reached with the consent of the ministers who sit on the diplomatic-security cabinet. Treasury Minister Yair Lapid will instruct his ministry to transfer the funds to the PA.
The funds, from customs collected by Israel on behalf of the PA, were frozen after the PA made a unilateral move in the UN, gaining recognition as a non-member observer state.
The last transfer of funds from Israel to the PA was made in late November, just two days before the PA's UN move.
BY: Alana Goodman
February 19, 2013 12:51 pm
Secretary of defense nominee Chuck Hagel said Israel is on its way to becoming an apartheid state during an April 9, 2010, appearance at Rutgers University, according to a contemporaneous account by an attendee.
Hagel also accused Israel of violating U.N. resolutions, called for U.S.-designated terrorist organization Hamas to be included in any peace negotiations, and described Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as a “radical,” according to the source.
Kenneth Wagner, who attended the 2010 speech while a Rutgers University law student, provided the Washington Free Beacon with an email he sent during the event to a contact at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. The email is time-stamped April 9, 2010, at 11:37 AM.
“I am sitting in a lecture by Chuck Hagel at Rutgers,” Wagner wrote in the email. “He basically said that Israel has violated every UN resolution since 1967, that Israel has violated its agreements with the quartet, that it was risking becoming an apartheid state if it didn’t allow the Palestinians to form a state. He said that the settlements were getting close to the point where a contiguous Palestinian state would be impossible.”
“He said that he [thought] that Netanyahu was a radical and that even [former Israeli foreign minister Tzipi] Livni, who was hard nosed thought he was too radical and so wouldn’t join in a coalition [government] with him. … He said that Hamas has to be brought in to any peace negotiation,” Wagner wrote.
AIPAC had no comment.
Wagner said the remarks were made during the Q amp;A session. The speech took place at the Rutgers School of Law in Newark.
Wagner, a pro-Israel activist, reiterated the account in an interview with the Free Beacon and called Hagel’s comments “pretty shocking.”
“I was very surprised at his attitude because I had been listening to politicians speak about the situation in the Middle East and the U.S. Israel relationship for about two decades,” Wagner told the Free Beacon. “And it was probably the most negative thing I’d ever heard anybody in elected office say.”
The news of the comments given during the 2010 speech comes at a time when the embattled secretary of defense nominee has been forced to respond to a report that he called the State Department an adjunct of the Israeli foreign ministry during the Q amp;A portion of a 2007 speech at Rutgers.
The Free Beaconreported Thursday on a contemporaneous account of another speech then-Senator Hagel gave at Rutgers in 2007. The report, written by Hagel supporter and political consultant George Ajjan, claimed Hagel had described the U.S. Department of State as an extension of the Israeli government.
Sens. Lindsey Graham and Kelly Ayotte on Friday sent a letter to Hagel requesting an explanation of the alleged comments. The Anti-Defamation League also called on Hagel to explain, and the American Jewish Committee said, “Further Senate deliberation is called for before any final vote is taken.”
Hagel has disavowed the remarks and says he does not recall making them.
“I do not recall making any such statement, or ever making any similar statement,” he wrote in a reply letter to Graham and Ayotte on February 16. “I completely disavow the content of the alleged statement attributed to me.”
According to one of the 2007 event’s organizers, Hooshang Amirahmadi, who is currently running for president of Iran, Ajjan’s account of the 2007 speech is “complete nonsense.”
Amirahmadi told the Free Beacon that some of his “very good Jewish colleagues who are very pro-Israel” did not appear offended at any point during the speech.
The Daily Caller reported on Monday that Amirahmadi accepted funding grants from the Alavi Foundation, which federal law enforcement officials have called a front group for the Iranian regime.
Amirahmadi is also the head of the American Iranian Council, which awarded Hagel an expensive clock in 2002.
Another attendee at the 2007 speech, Rutgers Professor Charles Häberl said he is “certain” Hagel did not say the State Department was an adjunct of the Israeli government, BuzzFeed reported today.
When the Free Beacon contacted Häberl about the 2007 speech last Thursday, he said he was not the best person to talk to about the event.
“Have you been in touch with Hooshang Amirahmadi?” Häberl wrote in an email. “He’s the one who organized the event, and he would be the best situated to talk about it. At the time, I was just a lecturer.”
Meanwhile, Ajjan stood by his account and said he is the only person who has provided a written report from the time.
“If somebody comes out with a transcript and those words aren’t uttered, I’d be the first one to say, ‘My apologies. I wrote something down that was wrong—I misheard it, or I misreported it,’ if that’s the case,” Ajjan told the Washington Free Beacon.
“I’m a conscientious person,” Ajjan said. “When I was blogging at that time, I did my best to record things accurately … there’s no way that I would pick a phrase like ‘adjunct of the Israeli foreign ministry.’ That’s a pretty odd combination of words to use. I wouldn’t have just pulled those out of thin air.”
When asked about Häberl disputing his account, Ajjan said he wants to make it clear he is not trying to undermine Hagel’s confirmation or the Rutgers event. He said he is still a supporter of Hagel.
“I suppose [Häberl] thinks that I’m somehow trying to disparage Chuck Hagel or cast a dark shadow over his confirmation hearings. That’s not the case at all. And I certainly don’t wish to besmirch the people who organized the event,” said Ajjan. “I very much enjoyed the event, I appreciate the people who organized it.”
The Free Beacon is working to obtain transcript and video of Hagel’s comments during the question and answer sessions at Rutgers in both 2007 and 2010, and is continuing to speak to others who attended both events.
A representative for Hagel did not respond to a request for comment by press time.
"We are trying to maximize the number of civilian casualties," Netanyahu says in a fake satirical video edited to appear genuine.
THE HAGUE - A Dutch news show has stirred controversy by airing a fake satirical video of Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu bragging to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton about civilian deaths in Gaza.
“We are trying to maximize the number of civilian casualties. We prefer that,” Netanyahu is seen telling Clinton in the video, which the broadcaster Vara aired on November 21, as part of the satirical corner of the prime-time news show De Wereld Draait Door. Approximately 1.5 million viewers watch the show every evening.
The video, made to appear genuine through seamless splicing of sound bites from previous speeches by Netanyahu, was spread by thousands of Twitter and Facebook users who advertised it under the headline “Netanyahu finally tells the truth.”
“We are conducting these surgical operations against schools, mosques, hospitals, children,” Netanyahu is heard saying, adding: “This is something I don’t have to explain to Americans.” De Telegraaf, the Netherlands’ largest-circulation daily, reported that the video irked Israel’s supporters here. “The video is tasteless but the show’s satirical corner spares no one, so this isn’t about agenda,” said Esther Voet, deputy director of the pro-Israel Center for Information and Documentation on Israel. “The problem is that the clip is humorless and technically a good forgery, so many people don’t understand its satirical nature.”
Timon Dias, a Sri Lanka-born columnist for the Dagelijkse Standard – the Dutch equivalent of the Huffington Post – said the video is “reminiscent of the many blood libels that already exist about Israel and Jews.”
President Obama promises to put U.S. troops in the Sinai without asking Congress? you ready for a real f'n disaster? Welcome to a bloodbath of Americans.
(RT) Israel and Palestine are momentarily at a ceasefire, but the potential reasoning behind the recess could have some real international implications. Israel’s Debka reports that the pause in fighting comes after the US promised to send troops to Sinai.
According to Debka, US troops will soon be en route to the Sinai peninsula, Egyptian territory in North Africa that’s framed by the Suez Canal on the West and Israel on the East. In its northeast most point, Sinai is but a stone’s throw from Palestinian-controlled Gaza, and according to Debka, Hamas fighters there have been relying on Iranian arms smugglers to supply them with weaponry by way of Egypt.
Debka reports this week that Sinai will soon be occupied by US troops, who were promised by President Barack Obama to Israel’s leaders as a condition that a ceasefire be called. Once deployed, the Americans will intervene with the rumored arms trade orchestrated by Iranians, ideally cutting off supplies for Hamas while at the same time serving as a thorn in the side of Iran.
“Once the missile and arms consignments depart Iranian ports or Libyan arms bazaars, Tehran has no direct control of their transit from point to point through Egypt until they reach Sinai and their Gaza destination,” Debka reports. “All the same, a US special forces operation against the Sinai segment of the Iranian smuggling route would count as the first overt American military strike against an Iranian military interest.”
The decision to send US troops to Sinai in exchange for a ceasefire was reportedly arranged early Wednesday morning after Pres. Obama made a deal over the phone with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. In the days prior, Israel was relentless in targeting Gaza, killing more than 100 persons — including civilians — during a renewed assault on Hamas. A ceasefire has since been called after a week of fight, but more military action could soon occur, claims Israel, if the flow of weapons to Gaza is not stopped. Netanyahu has been adamant with his pleas for the United States to strike Iran in an effort to disrupt its nuclear enrichment facilities, a demand which up until now has been brushed aside by Pres. Obama. The White House has up until now insisted on diplomatic measures in order to make an impact on any Iranian output, but Debka’s sources suggest that US troops may now have to intervene in Sinai if any smugglers should attempt to move weapons into Gaza.
“By opening the Sinai door to an American troop deployment for Israel’s defense, recognizes that the US force also insures Israel against Cairo revoking or failing to honor the peace treaty Egypt signed with Israel in 1979,” adds Debka.
According to their sources, US troops are expected in Egypt early next week. Meanwhile, American forces have all but surrounded Iran and are stationed in countless bases across the Middle East.
(Carl) If we as a country are foolish enough to do this, then we as a country deserve the lousy retread leadership we would get. A JPost poll has a 'center left mega party' including former Prime Minister Ehud K. Olmert, former Prime Minister Tzipi Livni, convicted sex offender Haim Ramon (who once told Ted Koppel that if his party has just one more vote than the other side, they can crush the other side), and the vapid Yair Lapid, would win 31 Knesset seats as compared with 22 for the Likud.
The poll found that such a party would win more seats than Likud, which would receive 22 mandates. Yisrael Beytenu would come in third, with 14 mandates, closely followed by Labor with 12, and Shas with 11 seats.
The poll of 500 people representing the general population was conducted on October 9 and 10, and has a margin of error of 4.5 percent.
The poll results follow reports of progress on Wednesday by Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s political opponents, in their efforts to build a “Center-Left mega-party” that could pose a serious challenge to him in the upcoming general election.
Netanyahu officially informed President Shimon Peres of his intention to advance the elections, in a meeting at the President’s Residence on Wednesday. Peres expressed hope that the elections would be clean.
Netanyahu finalized the election date on Thursday. The date is acceptable to all the coalition parties and is just two days after the inauguration of the president of the United States. ...
Ramon’s first preference is for former prime minister Ehud Olmert to lead the mega-party, which would bring together former Kadima head Tzipi Livni, current Kadima MKs and other well-known figures on the Left. He would also want Yesh Atid leader Yair Lapid’s party to join. Olmert told a stream of visitors to his office and home on Wednesday that he would decide whether to run within a week or two after receiving the results of in-depth surveys.
Livni, who met recently with Olmert, will not decide her political future until she returns from a lecture tour in the US in the middle of next week.
While popular former IDF chief of staff Gabi Ashkenazi is legally prevented from running for Knesset, Olmert, who is close to Ashkenazi, would present him as his candidate for defense minister if he chooses to make a comeback.
If Olmert heads a Center- Left bloc he would be able to form a coalition with religious parties and with Yisrael Beytenu, whose leader, Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman, met with Olmert this week.
Kadima leader Shaul Mofaz has said in closed conversations that he would not stand in the way of an Olmert comeback, but he is not expected to cooperate with an effort to reinstate Livni as head of the Center-Left bloc after he defeated her by a landslide in Kadima’s leadership race.
Itzik expressed confidence that Mofaz would be willing to make political compromises for the good of the country.
The TV station’s military reporter Alon Ben-David, who earlier this year was given extensive access to the Israel Air Force as it trained for a possible attack, reported that, since upgraded sanctions against Iran have failed to force a suspension of the Iranian nuclear program in the past two months, “from the prime minister’s point of view, the time for action is getting ever closer.”
Asked by the news anchor in the Hebrew-language TV report how close Israel now was to “a decision and perhaps an attack,” Ben-David said: “It appears that we are closer than ever.”
He said it seemed that Netanyahu was not waiting for a much-discussed possible meeting with US President Barack Obama, after the UN General Assembly gathering in New York late next month — indeed, “it’s not clear that there’ll be a meeting.” In any case, said Ben-David, “I doubt Obama could say anything that would convince Netanyahu to delay a possible attack.”
The report added that Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak believe Obama would have no choice but to give backing for an Israeli attack before the US presidential elections in November.
For those who understand Hebrew (sorry, no English on this one), let's go to the videotape.
Caroline Glick..
carolineglick.com..
11 May '12..
In all of our many conversations that took place over the better part of the past decade, I never asked Prof. Benzion Netanyahu what led him to become an historian. Certainly it was a function of his concern for his nation and his recognition that our very existence hung in the balance. Certainly, too, it was a function of his insatiable intellectual curiosity.
I don't know whether his decision was the function of a specific event or simply a natural progression of his life's path. But through the lessons that he taught me both directly, and through the books he wrote, I can understand why once he embarked on his journey into Jewish history, the path he eventually took became inevitable.
Netanyahu died last week, at the age of 102.
A good place to begin a study of his long life and its impact on his actions is with his first major work, his biography of Don Issac Abravanel, the leader of the Jews of Spain at the time of Spain's final expulsion of the community in 1492. Abravanel was an extraordinary scholar of philosophy and Jewish teachings as well as a financial genius. The former brought him renown among his people. The latter attracted the monarchs of Portugal and Spain and the leaders of Italian city states.
One of the shocking aspects of the tragic end of the Jewish community is Spain is that Abravanel, and his fellow communal leaders failed to anticipate the expulsion order. For all of his proximity to King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella, Abravanel had no idea that they were planning to expel the Jews and so was unable to either cancel the expulsion decree or to make preparations for the community to move to another land.
In his biography, Netanyahu described the exiled Jews of Spain as they sought and were denied refuge in port after port.
In his words (translated from the Hebrew edition): "On 24 August 1492 nine caravel ships arrived in the Port of Napoli bearing expelled Jews from Spain. The journey from Spain was one of continuous suffering. The ship owners were unsympathetic, cruel and greedy. The ships were overloaded and lacked sufficient food. The sanitary conditions invited disease, and the plague quickly spread among the passengers. All these conditions left the expelled in a state of abject penury after weeks of suffering. The historian Genovani, who saw some of these exiles when their ship passed through his town's port, wrote, 'It was possible to mistake them for ghosts; they were so hollow; their looks were so frigid, their eyes so sunken in their sockets. They looked just like the dead, aside from the fact that with great difficulty, they were still able to move.'"
Netanyahu proceeded to do the only thing he could, when faced with this description. He made the comparison between the plight of the expelled Jews from Spain, and the Jews of Europe during and after the Holocaust. And from this direct line of suffering, one can begin to understand not only the continuity of the form of Jewish suffering - but the continuity the persecution of the Jews over the course of the long exile that began in 70 CE with the destruction of the Second Temple.
NETANYAHU'S RESEARCH into the life of Abravanel led him to his most important historical discovery. While working in one of the libraries in Spain, he came across the writings of Jewish leaders in Spain from the years leading up to the Inquisition and expulsion in 1492. He discovered that in the early and mid-15th century, the Jewish community hated and feared the former Jews who were forcibly converted en masse to Christianity during the first state offensive against the Jews in 1391.
Until Netanyahu came across these writings, he shared the popular view that the so-called Conversos were heroes who led a double life. On the outside, they were Christian, but they remained Jews in secret.
What he discovered was that this heroic posture lasted at most one generation. The children of the Conversos were enthusiastic Catholics. Many rose to power in the Catholic Church.
Whereas the Jews who remained in Spain after 1391 were by and large a pitiful, impoverished remnant of what had once been a magnificent community, the Conversos quickly became the leaders of Spain, and in so doing, angered their fellow Catholic Spaniards who envied their success.
Netanyahu's findings led to his revolutionary conclusion that the Spanish Inquisition did not target the Jews as a religion, but the Jews as a race. Most of those who died by Torquemada's sword were loyal Catholics whose only crime was their possession of Jewish blood. The real Jews were not killed. They were expelled. His conclusion from his finding was that there was nothing unique or new about the Nazis' racial and genocidal hatred of the Jews.
Netanyahu's intellectual journey shaped and sharpened his perception of the Jewish condition. It fortified his conviction that Zionism is the only means of securing the lives of Jews as individuals and the existence of the Jewish nation.
Netanyahu's Zionism was not a hyphenated one. It was not Labor Zionism, like the Zionism of David Ben-Gurion and his socialist followers. It was not religious Zionism, like that of the Lovers of Zion movement which formed the core of the initial modern Jewish settlement drive in the Land of Israel.
He learned from the early Zionist leader Yehuda Pinsker's seminal pamphlet, Auto-Emancipation, that Zionism rejects utopianism. Netanyahu's own lesson from the Spanish Inquisition is that for Jews, assimilation is as much of a utopian path as socialism. As Pinsker, and later Theodor Herzl made clear, the only way for Jews to be redeemed is by doing it themselves.
In his study of Pinkser from 1944, Netanyahu wrote, "Pinsker thought that normal relations between national groupings are not based on mutual affection but on mutual respect."
According to Pinsker, what distinguished exile Jews from all other nations was the Jews' failure to understand this basic truth. For the Zionist movement to succeed in liberating the Jews, its leaders needed to demand and command the respect - not the sympathy - of other nations.
AS NETANYAHU showed in his 1937 article on Herzl's Zionist doctrine, Herzl, the man who built the diplomatic and legal edifice upon which the State of Israel was created, believed that Zionism rested on two essential foundations: international recognition of the Jews' right to sovereignty over the Land of Israel; and Jewish military capacity to defend those sovereign rights.
Until his death in 1904, Herzl worked feverishly to build international recognition of the Jewish people's right to the Land of Israel in its maximalist borders - from the Nile Delta to the Euphrates River. As Herzl understood, it is much harder to secure international recognition of sovereign rights than it is to give them up, and once they are renounced, they are all but impossible to regain.
What Herzl found was that it was much easier to secure international recognition of the rights of the Jewish people than it is to convince the Jews to muster the courage to demand, seize and defend those rights.
Netanyahu wrote his study of Herzl at the same time as the Zionist leadership in pre-state Israel was debating Britain's Peel Commission's partition plan. Although it provided for the establishment of a tiny, indefensible Jewish statelet, the plan involved Jewish renunciation of their sovereign rights to the overwhelming majority of the land they had lawfully received sovereign title to under the 1917 Balfour Declaration and the 1922 League of Nations Mandate for Palestine. That sovereign title included all of present day Israel as well as Judea and Samaria, and arguably present-day Jordan as well.
Netanyahu argued that the tragedy of Zionism is that the leaders who took over after Herzl's death - first and foremost Ahad Ha'am and Chaim Weizmann - lacked the courage to demand the rights of their nation, preferring to be loved than respected.
Lamenting this failure of will and what it was liable to mean for the future of the Jews as the drums of the next war grew ever stronger, Netanyahu wrote that the one thing that Herzl worked towards but failed to achieve was to change "the character of the nation."
"This change," he wrote, "which Herzl believed was critical, was not manifested in the spirit of its leaders, or more precisely, in the spirit of those, who conducted negotiations in the name of the Jewish people, and afterwards managed its affairs. When it was necessary to demonstrate the courage of a sovereign, which Herzl spoke of, when it was necessary to dare and demand from the world the Jewish State and sovereignty over that state, the nation's representatives issued no such demand."
In the end, despite Netanyahu's reiteration of Herzl's warning, the Zionist leadership accepted the Peel Commission's partition plan, just as 10 years later they accepted the UN Partition Plan.
Fortunately for their ill-served nation, their willingness to renounce the Jews' sovereign rights under the League of Nations Mandate was never binding, because the Arabs rejected the plans and so rendered them null and void. The Jewish nation's sovereign rights to the Land of Israel remain in force today.
In 2005, Netanyahu republished his profiles of Pinsker and Herzl, as well as profiles on Max Nordau, Israel Zangwill and Ze'ev Jabotinsky, which were written between 1937 and 1981, as one collection. He called this book of essays The Founding Fathers of Zionism.
In his introduction to the collection, Netanyahu wrote, "The articles included in this book were written decades ago. They are published here as first written because I saw no reason to correct them...."
And he was right.
Zangwill once wrote, "The past is for inspiration, not imitation, for continuation, not repetition."
The challenges the world Netanyahu departed last week present to the Jews bear striking similarities to those that faced the Jews throughout our history, and certainly since the dawn of modern Zionism. Unlike the options Abravanel had to weigh, since the dawn of modern Zionism, our leaders have had the option of demanding and commanding the respect of the nations of the world and so securing the lives of the Jews and nationhood of the Jewish people in our land.
Today the heirs of the failed utopian movements of the last century have joined forces with the jihadist heirs of the Mufti of Jerusalem to deny the Jewish people our sovereign rights to our land. If they succeed they will finally and irrevocably destroy Herzl's greatest achievement.
The most ardent hope that comes through clearly in Netanyahu's life work is that the Jews find a leader of Herzl's stature, capable of demanding and commanding the world's recognition and respect for our rights, and the ability to finish Herzl's work by convincing the Jewish people that it is our right and our duty to assert and secure our destiny in our land. Link:http://www.carolineglick.com/e/2012/05/professor-netanyahus-lessons.php Originally published in The Jerusalem Post.
Summary: Christian Europe hated Jews for their Blood. Hitler may of not been a real Christian, but the Christians in Catholic Spain were. It is important to not look to Christians for a helping hand. Often we Jews lack the courage to demand the rights of a nation and we prefer to be loved rather than respected. Let's hope his son Bibi really understands this.
(IDF) Within ten minutes of boarding the plane, the squad of elite commandos managed to kill the two male terrorists, arrest the two female terrorists, and neutralize the threat to the passengers. Nearly all civilians on board were unharmed, except for three, one of whom later died from her injuries. Among the commandos were Ehud Barak and Benjamin Netanyahu–both of whom eventually became Israeli prime ministers.
The surviving female terrorists were sentenced to life in Israeli prison, but were later released in the prisoner exchange deal following the 1982 Lebanon War.
...
The same airplane that was victim to the hijacking was flown for an additional five years before being sold to the Israeli Air Force (IAF). The IAF ended up using it to carry out spy missions. (MORE)
Ben-zion Netanyahu,
father of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu,
arriving to attend a change of power ceremony
at President Shimon
Peres' residence in Jerusalem in 2009.
(Washington Post By Aron Heller, Published: April 30 The Washington Post / LIOR MIZRAHI/AFP/Getty Images) Ben-Zion Netanyahu, the historian and Zionist activist whose skepticism about peacemaking with the Arabs helped to shape the world outlook of his son Benjamin, Israel’s prime minister, died April 30 at his home in Jerusalem. He was 102.
The prime minister’s office did not give a cause of death. Born Ben-Zion Mileikowsky in Warsaw, Dr. Netanyahu was a devout follower of revisionist Zionist leader Ze’ev Jabotinsky, who advocated Jewish military strength and opposed partitioning Palestine between Arabs and Jews. Dr. Netanyahu served as his personal aide until Jabotinsky’s death in 1940.
Dr. Netanyahu then edited right-wing Jewish publications and earned a doctorate in history from Dropsie College in Philadelphia, a center of Jewish learning that was later incorporated into the University of Pennsylvania.
Later, he was a professor of Jewish history and Hebrew literature at the University of Denver and Cornell University, where he served as chairman of the department of Semitic languages and literature. He was the editor-in-chief of the Hebrew Encyclopedia for more than a decade.
He was best known in academic circles for his research into the medieval inquisition against the Jews of Spain, the subject of his 1995 book, “The Origins of the Inquisition in Fifteenth Century Spain.” In the New York Times, Richard Bernstein critiqued the book as a “remarkable, lucid and very lengthy explanation of one of the central acts of malice in world history.”
Dr. Netanyahu’s academic career had his family shuttling between the United States and Israel. He met with many Jewish and U.S. political leaders of the period, including President Dwight D. Eisenhower.
Dr. Netanyahu and his wife, the late Tzila Segal, had three sons: Yonatan, Benjamin and Iddo, all of whom served in the same elite military commando unit, Sayeret Matkal. Yonatan was killed while commanding the daring 1976 rescue of more than 100 Jewish and Israeli hostages on board an Air France jet in Entebbe, Uganda.
Following his son’s death, Dr. Netanyahu returned to Israel full time. His middle son, Benjamin, entered politics and was elected prime minister of Israel in 1996 and again in 2009. Iddo, the youngest of the three, is a radiologist and writer.
Dr. Netanyahu is believed to have had great influence over his son’s politics and openly criticized him when his government made concessions toward the Palestinians.
Several analysts have speculated that Benjamin Netanyahu was emotionally unable to sign off on a comprehensive peace deal with Israel’s Arab neighbors as long as his father was still alive, a notion the prime minister dismissed as “psychobabble.”
In newspaper interviews late in life, Ben-Zion Netanyahu forcefully questioned the feasibility of Mideast peace.
“The tendency to conflict is in the essence of the Arab,” he told the Maariv daily in 2009. “He is an enemy by essence. His personality won’t allow him any compromise or agreement. It doesn’t matter what kind of resistance he will meet, what price he will pay. His existence is one of perpetual war.
“The Arab citizens’ goal is to destroy us. They don’t deny that they want to destroy us.”
— Associated Press
With host, Michael Dukakis!
The Netanyahu (Ben Nitay) part begins around the 15 minute mark:
I find it interesting that the pro-Palestinian Arab side is generally only talking about self-determination, not a state. By pretty much any definition, they have achieved that.
But every time they achieve something, the goalposts keep moving.
(h/t Hillel Neuer)
The Israeli prime minister's office denied media reports Binyamin
Netanyahu's wife mistreated a foreign worker hired to care for her
elderly father.
Channel 2 reported Tuesday Sarah Netanyahu was suspected of mistreating a caretaker from Nepal.
The television report said she suspected the worker of stealing
money from her 96-year old father. An argument allegedly ensued and the
worker fell, injuring her hand.
In response to the theft allegations, the worker alleged
Netanyahu failed to feed her, cursed her and refused to give her
vacation time.
A statement issued by Binyamin Netanyahu's office denied the
charges and said the worker's allegations were baseless, made only after
she found out the agency employing her was looking for a replacement,
The Jerusalem Post said.
"When it became known to her that she was about to be fired --
something that could lead to her being deported from the country -- she
made up the story, and now there is a cynical and unworthy campaign
against the Netanyahu family," the Post quoted the statement issued by
Netanyahu's office.
I remember this story being a big thing in the NYTimes. Honestly I was so scared of Obama and Livni that I forgot about this libelous story completely. For one thing the person who would take the blame would be his wife... and that kind of attitude that blamed Bibi for Sarah was pushed when the NYTimes thought the Clinton family and their ambitious husband wife team was some kind of ideal match, when in fact it kind of led Bill to go wild. So the story was a big deal because the liberal media was condemning people based on their spouses behavior and comparing them to the careerist culture of the progressive Democrats. Now it has been exposed that this culture and it's role models were a facade, but the libel against poor Sarah Netanyahu still is out there because the original juxtaposition of the alleged accusation is moved from being a condemnation of a marriage (that would implicate Bibi) to a Socioeconomic allegation that is more in line with the attitude of the Tel Aviv Tent protesters. The one consistency is that the story is probably bullshit. If you have never fired a difficult worker and had accusations come out then you have never had to employ anyone... let alone in a difficult situation where an elderly man is being taken care of. Then there is the other issue. Suppose Sarah is guilty? How guilty is she really? She was concerned about her dying father. It shows how biased the media is against Jewish leadership.
Terrorists launched a multifocal terror attack on Israel's south on Thursday, injuring over a dozen people.
In the first incident, Egged bus number 392, traveling from Beersheba to
the southern resort city of Eilat was ambushed. Eleven people were
wounded in the attack, which took place on Highway 12, about 30km north
of Eilat, near the Ein Netafim junction.
Security forces, as well as Magen David Adom emergency services' teams,
were immediately dispatched to the scene. The injured were triaged on
site and rushed to the Yoseftal Medical Center in Eilat.
Soon after that a second incident was reported involving yet another
shooting on a bus and a private vehicle traveling south. Five people
reportedly suffered mortal wounds in the attack.
A third incident was reported at around 1pm, involving multiple roadside
bombs used and rocket fire at IDF forces patrolling the Israel Egypt
border fence.
A fourth incident ensued, in which security forces engaged terrorists in combat.
According to the IDF Spokesperson’s Unit, soldiers were among the wounded in these incidents.
All
of the roads leading to Eilat have been closed. Security forces are
currently canvassing the area in search of suspects. IDF aircrafts are
assisting in the search, as well as extensive Counter-Terror Unit
forces.
...Defense establishment sources said that the fire originated from
the Egyptian side of the border. Egyptian security forces have been
alerted and are reportedly conducting a simultaneous manhunt.
Israeli
soldiers were among the five casualties this morning, August 18, 2011,
as terrorists opened fire on an Israeli civilian bus traveling 20km from
Eilat, a southern Israeli city. Terrorists fled the scene and are being
pursued by IDF forces.
This morning’s incident, near the southern Israeli city of Netafim, left
four soldiers moderately injured and one soldier lightly injured.
Magen David Adom says that at least 6 people are dead.
Witnesses are now saying that those that fired on the buses were dressed in Egyptian Army uniforms! Egypt is denying that they were involved.
The IDF has killed three terrorists, may still be in firefight with others. So far over 24 people have been taken to hospitals.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is currently being given a brief of the situation as it happens.
The IDF Chief of Staff has arrived on the scene of the attacks near Eilat.
The IDF now says:
Combined
terrorist attacks are currently taking place on Israeli territory, near
the Israel- Egypt border, approximately 20 kilometers north of the city
of Eilat.
Nine people were injured when terrorist opened fire at an Israeli bus
approximately two hours ago. The injured were evacuated to receive
medical care at a nearby hospital. Several people were injured as a result of an explosive device,
detonated on an IDF force that arrived at the scene and drove over it.
Crossfire between IDF forces, led by the Commander of the 80th Division,
Brigadier General Tamir Yadi and the cell of terrorists is currently
underway. Additional IDF and rescue forces are arriving at the scene.
Hamas has issued a report on the attacks in which they call Eilat "occupied Om Ar-rashrash."
Barry Rubin writes:
This isn’t just another
terrorist attack—it’s a major escalation, a new phase in the
Arab-Israeli conflict, and it is the bitter fruit of the U.S.-backed
downfall of the government of President Husni Mubarak in Egypt.
The IDF has said that the attack originated in Gaza.
Jordan supposedly gave Israel a warning that terrorists may try to infiltrate the country.
Here is a video from the attack.
Less than 10% of the
security fence between Israel and Egypt has been built despite the fact
that the budget was approved over 18 months ago.
Segments near Netafim and Carmit are still open, left completely
unsecure and without the promised security fence. So far the IDF has
been trying to manage the situation by monitoring the area with cameras
and radar scans.
Israel's Channel 2 is reporting that 20 terrorists took part in the attack, which was organized by the Popular Resistance Committees from Gaza.
A six-year-old and a four-year-old are among the 6 killed in the terrorist attacks.
The IDF now reports that 7 terrorists have been killed.
Reports are coming in that Arabs near Jerusalem are celebrating the attacks.
Israeli officials are now confirming that there are terrorists still at large and that they originated from Gaza.
Hamas terrorists are reportedly going
under-ground in Gaza, anticipating a heavy Israeli response. The Rafah
crossing has been closed and UN officials have been removed from Gaza.
Here is an unbelievable story about how the bus driver of one of the buses that was attacked helped prevent an even greater catastrophe.
The United States has issued a condemnation.
The
United States condemns today’s attacks in southern Israel and all acts
of terrorism in the strongest terms. These brutal and cowardly attacks
appear to be premeditated acts of terrorism against innocent civilians.
Our deepest condolences go out to the victims, their families and loved
ones.
This violence only underscores our strong concerns about the security
situation in the Sinai Peninsula. Recent commitments by the Egyptian
Government to address the security situation in the Sinai are important
and we urge the Egyptian Government to find a lasting resolution.
The United States and Israel are united in the fight against terror. We
hope that those involved in the planning of these gruesome attacks will
be brought to swift justice. We stand by Israel as our friend, partner,
and ally -- now and always.
ElderofZiyon notes that the Palestinians are rejoicing on internet forums.
The UN has condemned the attack and called for restraint.
In a press conference Benjamin Netanyahu said Israel will respond to the attacks. After a period of relative quiet, two more Israelis were injured as gunshots were heard near the Egyptian border. It seems that one of the two people is an IDF soldier.
Israel has killed two senior officials of the Palestine Resistance Committee. It seems that one of the dead is the head of the terrorist group.The IDF has also struck a number of targets in the area near the Rafah crossing.In a speech taking place Thursday evening, Netanyahu said: "Those who gave the orders to initiate this attack are no longer living."
Palestinian official Saeb Erekat has warned Israel against attacking terrorist groups in Gaza.
An Arab in Jerusalem was arrested with a knife and admitted to planning to stab a police officer.
The total number of dead currently stands at 7, 6 civilians (including a 6 year old and 4 year old) and 1 IDF soldier.
Two rockets have been fired from Gaza into Israel. One rocket landed near Ashkelon, no reports of injuries. The other was intercepted by Iron Dome.
While Hamas says they were not involved in today;s attacks, they have praised them.
Here is another video regarding today's terrorist attack.
After Israel took out the leader of the Palestine Resistance Committee, the group has threatened to attack Israel again. Hamas has condemned Israel's airstrikes near Rafah. Egypt has decided to close the Rafah crossing.
The IDF has released the name of the soldier who was killed.
First Sergeant Moshe
Naftali, 22 years old from Ofra was killed during a combined terrorist
attack in southern Israel today, Thursday August 18th 2011 around noon.
The EU's Catherine Ashton has issued her statement on today's events.
Hamas has threatened to strike Israel.
Israel is now reporting that the terrorists sought to capture Israelis during today's attack.
Here is the official statement from Netanyahu's office.
Firstly, I would like to express my condolences to the
families of the civilians murdered, and to those of the soldiers who
fell while responding to today's terrorist attacks.
I share their pain. I know that their lives will never be the same. I
also want to express my hopes for a speedy recovery to those injured in
these attacks and are currently undergoing treatment in hospital.
We all witnessed today an attempt to escalate the terrorist war against
Israel by launching of attacks from the Sinai. If there is someone who
thinks that the State of Israel will let this pass, he is mistaken.
I have set out a principle - when the citizens of Israel are attacked,
we respond immediately and with strength. That principle was
implemented today. Those who gave the order to murder our citizens,
while hiding in Gaza, are no longer among the living.
I commend the IDF and the security services who eliminated today in Gaza
the senior figures of the organization which carried out the terror
attacks in the south. I commend the soldiers, police, and members of the
security services who acted swiftly, determinately and bravely against
the terrorists, and who thereby prevented an even greater tragedy.
If the terrorist organizations believe that they can attack our citizens
and get away with it, they will soon learn how wrong they are. We will
exact a price, a very heavy price.
Iron Dome has intercepted two more rockets, making three in total today. It did not intercept 1 rocket, however, that landed in an open field.
The IDF said that they had intel that terrorist group was planning an attack, however, they believed they would only act at night.
Italy has called the terrorist attack "barbaric."
Congressman Rothman has called on the Palestinian Authority and Egypt to condemn today's attack.
