 |
||
 |
        |
 |
|
||
| MP3 Radio | Website News Briefs: | |||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
 |
 |
1. Holiday of the Torah Begins Tuesday Night
by Hillel Fendel
The Jewish holiday of Shavuot is set to begin Tuesday night – lasting for its one Biblical day (from sunset to the next sunset) in Israel, and two days in the rest of the world.
Shavuot (Pentecost, Feast of Weeks), as well as Pesach (Passover) and Sukkot (Tabernacles), are the three pilgrimage festivals on which Jews are bidden to visit Jerusalem. Tens of thousands of people are in fact expected to arrive at the Western Wall throughout Tuesday night and Wednesday morning, though the Biblical commandment to visit Jerusalem on these days applies fully only when the Holy Temple is built.
The current custom of gathering at the Wall for the holiday began spontaneously on the Shavuot holiday of 1967 (5727), which followed the Six Day War and the liberation of Jerusalem by only a few days. Realizing that masses of people would descend upon the Wall and its narrow walkway, the authorities razed the old buildings within 100 meters from the Wall in order to make room. It was the first holiday in 1,900 years in which throngs of Jews congregated at the Western Wall.
The holiday of Shavuot marks the Jewish People's receiving of the Torah at Mt. Sinai 3,323 years ago. It also marks the day after the 49-day Sefirat HaOmer counting period, which begins on the Passover holiday. The counting denotes the fact that the ultimate purpose of the Exodus from Egypt was for the Jewish People to receive the Torah and begin its national/spiritual existence as the People of the Book.
Features of the joyous Shavuot holiday include:
* remaining awake all night to study Torah; known as Tikkun Leil Shavuot.
* the bringing of the Bikurim (First Fruits) to the Holy Temple (temporarily suspended, until the Temple is rebuilt); greenery is placed arund the home and synagogue to recall this.
* the time of the wheat harvest;
* the public reading of the Book of Ruth for several reasons, among them: Ruth accepted Judaism as the Jews did on the holiday, the story takes place during the Shavuot season, and King David, her descendant, died on Shavuot.
* a wide-spread custom of eating dairy foods on Shavuot, as the Torah is compared to "milk and honey under the tongue". (for more reasons, see our Shavuot dairy recipe)
In Israel, Shavuot is a legal holiday. There is no public transportation; schools, offices and most stores are closed; newspapers are not published.
Click here for a trivia quiz on Shavuot and the other Jewish holidays. For other Shavuot links, click h e r e and h e r e.
Comment on this story
by Hillel Fendel
The Jewish holiday of Shavuot is set to begin Tuesday night – lasting for its one Biblical day (from sunset to the next sunset) in Israel, and two days in the rest of the world.
Shavuot (Pentecost, Feast of Weeks), as well as Pesach (Passover) and Sukkot (Tabernacles), are the three pilgrimage festivals on which Jews are bidden to visit Jerusalem. Tens of thousands of people are in fact expected to arrive at the Western Wall throughout Tuesday night and Wednesday morning, though the Biblical commandment to visit Jerusalem on these days applies fully only when the Holy Temple is built.
The current custom of gathering at the Wall for the holiday began spontaneously on the Shavuot holiday of 1967 (5727), which followed the Six Day War and the liberation of Jerusalem by only a few days. Realizing that masses of people would descend upon the Wall and its narrow walkway, the authorities razed the old buildings within 100 meters from the Wall in order to make room. It was the first holiday in 1,900 years in which throngs of Jews congregated at the Western Wall.
The holiday of Shavuot marks the Jewish People's receiving of the Torah at Mt. Sinai 3,323 years ago. It also marks the day after the 49-day Sefirat HaOmer counting period, which begins on the Passover holiday. The counting denotes the fact that the ultimate purpose of the Exodus from Egypt was for the Jewish People to receive the Torah and begin its national/spiritual existence as the People of the Book.
Features of the joyous Shavuot holiday include:
* remaining awake all night to study Torah; known as Tikkun Leil Shavuot.
* the bringing of the Bikurim (First Fruits) to the Holy Temple (temporarily suspended, until the Temple is rebuilt); greenery is placed arund the home and synagogue to recall this.
* the time of the wheat harvest;
* the public reading of the Book of Ruth for several reasons, among them: Ruth accepted Judaism as the Jews did on the holiday, the story takes place during the Shavuot season, and King David, her descendant, died on Shavuot.
* a wide-spread custom of eating dairy foods on Shavuot, as the Torah is compared to "milk and honey under the tongue". (for more reasons, see our Shavuot dairy recipe)
In Israel, Shavuot is a legal holiday. There is no public transportation; schools, offices and most stores are closed; newspapers are not published.
Click here for a trivia quiz on Shavuot and the other Jewish holidays. For other Shavuot links, click h e r e and h e r e.
Comment on this story
2. 77% of Jews Oppose Obama ‘Peace’ Formula
by Gil Ronen
Seventy seven percent of the Jews in Israel reject an Israeli retreat to 1949 Armistice lines with small border modifications in a peace deal, a poll sponsored by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs has found. The respondents said they would oppose such a retreat even if it was part of a peace deal in which the Arab Countries declared an end to the conflict with Israel.
The formula is the one suggested by U.S. President Barack Obama in his last speeches on the subject.
The poll was conducted by the Dahaf Institute for the JCPA, which is headed by former Israel United Nations Ambassador Dore Gold, an informal advisor to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.
Eighty five percent of Israeli Jews support leaving Jerusalem united under Jewish sovereignty. Seventy five percent oppose handing over the Temple Mount to Palestinian control, even if the Kotel remains in Israeli hands as part of a peace deal.
However, 52% favored a deal that would place the Temple Mount under international sovereignty and leave the Kotel in Israeli hands.
Sixty-five percent opposed a deal that would also involve giving up control of other holy sites, like Rachel’s Tomb or the Cave of Patriarchs, while leaving Israel with the Kotel.
Regarding the Jordan Valley, 75% said that they do not agree to vacate the Jordan Valley and a similar percentage opposed giving up the Etzion Bloc. Some of these said that they “absolutely” refuse and others said that they “tend to” refuse.
Obama recently unpleasantly surprised Israeli leader Binyamin Netanyahu with a speech calling for a return to the 1949 Armistice lines. Observers are concerned that Obama will be exceedingly hostile toward Israel in a second term in office, and especially so during the last two years of the term -- should he win reelection in 2012.
Comment on this story
by Gil Ronen
Seventy seven percent of the Jews in Israel reject an Israeli retreat to 1949 Armistice lines with small border modifications in a peace deal, a poll sponsored by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs has found. The respondents said they would oppose such a retreat even if it was part of a peace deal in which the Arab Countries declared an end to the conflict with Israel.
The formula is the one suggested by U.S. President Barack Obama in his last speeches on the subject.
The poll was conducted by the Dahaf Institute for the JCPA, which is headed by former Israel United Nations Ambassador Dore Gold, an informal advisor to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.
Eighty five percent of Israeli Jews support leaving Jerusalem united under Jewish sovereignty. Seventy five percent oppose handing over the Temple Mount to Palestinian control, even if the Kotel remains in Israeli hands as part of a peace deal.
However, 52% favored a deal that would place the Temple Mount under international sovereignty and leave the Kotel in Israeli hands.
Sixty-five percent opposed a deal that would also involve giving up control of other holy sites, like Rachel’s Tomb or the Cave of Patriarchs, while leaving Israel with the Kotel.
Regarding the Jordan Valley, 75% said that they do not agree to vacate the Jordan Valley and a similar percentage opposed giving up the Etzion Bloc. Some of these said that they “absolutely” refuse and others said that they “tend to” refuse.
Obama recently unpleasantly surprised Israeli leader Binyamin Netanyahu with a speech calling for a return to the 1949 Armistice lines. Observers are concerned that Obama will be exceedingly hostile toward Israel in a second term in office, and especially so during the last two years of the term -- should he win reelection in 2012.
Comment on this story
3. Court Rejects Appeal to Open Jewish Hevron Street to Arabs
by Elad Benari
Three different petitions to Israel’s Supreme Court, which had been joined together into one appeal over the years, came to an end on Monday. The appeals, which were filed by the Hevron (Arab) Municipality, the Hevron Development Committee, and several Arab citizens of Hevron, had demanded that the IDF be forced to remove all the restrictions it had been forced to impose on Arab movement in Hevron because of terror.
At the center of the appeals was a demand that Israel reopen King David Street, which Arabs call Shuhada Street (“street of the martyrs”), to Arab traffic.
The street was open to both Jews and Arabs until the beginning of the PA intifada in 2000. Hundreds of terrorist attacks took place in Hevron, and the IDF decided to limit PA access to the road as a safety measure.
The appeals fail to mention the fact that 97 percent of the city of Hevron is completely closed to Jews, while Arabs are free to roam the entire city except for a small three percent of it.
The court proceedings continued for seven long years, during which the IDF repeatedly tried to accommodate both the Court and the PA Arabs. Finally, Supreme Court President Justice Dorit Beinish was convinced and accepted the army’s position that easing the restrictions imposed on the Arabs would mean the continuation of murderous terror attacks. Beinish rejected the petition and accepted the IDF’s position that King David Street cannot be opened to Arab traffic.
The proceedings were accompanied by protests by Hevron’s Arab residents. In one such demonstration in February, rioters threw stones at soldiers and police officers. The demonstrators shouted “Hevron is Palestine” during the riot, and waved PLO flags. Others chanted, “Down with the occupation,” a reference to the Arab claim that the presence of Israeli Jews in the city constitutes illegal occupation.
It should be noted that throughout the court discussions, all involved - including the Arab petitioner - used the term King David Street rather than Shuhada Street.
Orit Strook, who heads the legal department of the Jewish community in Hevron, welcomed the court’s decision, saying that “the Supreme Court’s decision came at a symbolic time: on the eve of Shavuot, Feast of King David, and after seven years from the date of the filing of the petition – the same number of years as King David ruled in Hevron before moving to Jerusalem.”
Strook added, “This is definitely good news that even the Supreme Court has recognized the right of Jews to live safely in King David’s city, and that even the Arab lawyer properly used the Hebrew name of the street: King David Street. We hope that the free movement of Jews in Hevron will be expanded to many more streets, and that future movement restrictions will apply only to the attacking side and not to the side of the victim.”
Comment on this story
by Elad Benari
Three different petitions to Israel’s Supreme Court, which had been joined together into one appeal over the years, came to an end on Monday. The appeals, which were filed by the Hevron (Arab) Municipality, the Hevron Development Committee, and several Arab citizens of Hevron, had demanded that the IDF be forced to remove all the restrictions it had been forced to impose on Arab movement in Hevron because of terror.
At the center of the appeals was a demand that Israel reopen King David Street, which Arabs call Shuhada Street (“street of the martyrs”), to Arab traffic.
The street was open to both Jews and Arabs until the beginning of the PA intifada in 2000. Hundreds of terrorist attacks took place in Hevron, and the IDF decided to limit PA access to the road as a safety measure.
The appeals fail to mention the fact that 97 percent of the city of Hevron is completely closed to Jews, while Arabs are free to roam the entire city except for a small three percent of it.
The court proceedings continued for seven long years, during which the IDF repeatedly tried to accommodate both the Court and the PA Arabs. Finally, Supreme Court President Justice Dorit Beinish was convinced and accepted the army’s position that easing the restrictions imposed on the Arabs would mean the continuation of murderous terror attacks. Beinish rejected the petition and accepted the IDF’s position that King David Street cannot be opened to Arab traffic.
The proceedings were accompanied by protests by Hevron’s Arab residents. In one such demonstration in February, rioters threw stones at soldiers and police officers. The demonstrators shouted “Hevron is Palestine” during the riot, and waved PLO flags. Others chanted, “Down with the occupation,” a reference to the Arab claim that the presence of Israeli Jews in the city constitutes illegal occupation.
It should be noted that throughout the court discussions, all involved - including the Arab petitioner - used the term King David Street rather than Shuhada Street.
Orit Strook, who heads the legal department of the Jewish community in Hevron, welcomed the court’s decision, saying that “the Supreme Court’s decision came at a symbolic time: on the eve of Shavuot, Feast of King David, and after seven years from the date of the filing of the petition – the same number of years as King David ruled in Hevron before moving to Jerusalem.”
Strook added, “This is definitely good news that even the Supreme Court has recognized the right of Jews to live safely in King David’s city, and that even the Arab lawyer properly used the Hebrew name of the street: King David Street. We hope that the free movement of Jews in Hevron will be expanded to many more streets, and that future movement restrictions will apply only to the attacking side and not to the side of the victim.”
Comment on this story
4. Iran Says Its Submarines are in the Red Sea
by Gil Ronen
Iran has sent military submarines to the Red Sea, according to the semi-official Fars news agency.
"Iranian military submarines entered the Red Sea waters with the goal of collecting information and identifying other countries' combat vessels," Fars said in a Tuesday report, citing an unidentified source.
It did not say how many submarines were involved or what type they were but noted they had sailed alongside warships from the Iranian Navy's 14th fleet.
State-run Press TV said in a report earlier in May that the 14th fleet – which is comprised of two vessels, the warship Bandar Abbas and the destroyer Shahid Naqdi – had been sent to fight piracy.
"The fleet entered the Gulf of Aden region in May and has now entered the Red Sea in the continuation of its mission," Fars said.
Two Iranian warships passed through the Suez Canal en route to Syria in February, for the first time since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Israel called that move a "serious provocation."
According to Reuters, Iran announced last August it had expanded its fleet of domestically built 120-ton Ghadir-class submarines to 11. These, it said, would be used to patrol the Gulf and the Sea of Oman.
Israel reportedly stationed submarines near Iran last year.
Comment on this story
by Gil Ronen
Iran has sent military submarines to the Red Sea, according to the semi-official Fars news agency.
"Iranian military submarines entered the Red Sea waters with the goal of collecting information and identifying other countries' combat vessels," Fars said in a Tuesday report, citing an unidentified source.
It did not say how many submarines were involved or what type they were but noted they had sailed alongside warships from the Iranian Navy's 14th fleet.
State-run Press TV said in a report earlier in May that the 14th fleet – which is comprised of two vessels, the warship Bandar Abbas and the destroyer Shahid Naqdi – had been sent to fight piracy.
"The fleet entered the Gulf of Aden region in May and has now entered the Red Sea in the continuation of its mission," Fars said.
Two Iranian warships passed through the Suez Canal en route to Syria in February, for the first time since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Israel called that move a "serious provocation."
According to Reuters, Iran announced last August it had expanded its fleet of domestically built 120-ton Ghadir-class submarines to 11. These, it said, would be used to patrol the Gulf and the Sea of Oman.
Israel reportedly stationed submarines near Iran last year.
Comment on this story
5. How did the Nakba Happen? Read RFK
by Gil Ronen
On June 6, 1968, Robert F. Kennedy succumbed to gunshot wounds inflicted a day earlier by an Arab terrorist, Sirhan Sirhan. His daughter later said that this was because of his support for the Jewish state.
Lenny Ben-David, former head of AIPAC, writes in his blog that “Years later his daughter told me, ‘My father was killed by a Palestinian terrorist [Sirhan Sirhan] because of his strong support for Israel.’ He was killed on the first anniversary of the 1967 Six Day War."
Ben-David links to another blog that contains excerpts from a series of articles written by RFK for a now-defunct Boston newspaper, after his visit to “Palestine” in March 1948.
The articles show some things have not changed at all and point to the roots of the Arab-Israeli conflict which are no different 63 years later.
The Arabs are most concerned about the great increase in the Jews in Palestine: 80,000 in 1948. The Arabs have always feared this encroachment and maintain that the Jews will never be satisfied with just their section of Palestine, but will gradually move to overpower the rest of the country and will eventually move onto the enormously wealthy oil lands. They are determined that the Jews will never get the toehold that would be necessary for the fulfillment of that policy.
They are willing to let the Jews remain as peaceful citizens subject to the rule of the Arab majority just as the Arabs are doing in such great number in Egypt and the Levant states, but they are determined that a separate Jewish state will be attacked and attacked until it is finally cut out like an unhealthy abscess.
While the Arabs are unabashedly hostile, the Jews appear naively proud about the benefits they have brought their neighbors:
The Jews point with pride to the fact that over 500,000 Arabs in the 12 years between 1932 and 1944, came into Palestine to take advantage of living conditions existing in no other Arab state. This is the only country in the Near and Middle East where an Arab middle class is in existence.
One thing that seems different in the period RFK describes is Jewish national spirit and morale, which he describes as “101-percent”:
The Jewish people in Palestine who believe in and have been working toward this national state have become an immensely proud and determined people. It is already a truly great modern example of the birth of a nation with the primary ingredients of dignity and self-respect. (...)
The die has long since been cast; the fight will take place. The Jews with their backs to the sea, fighting for their very homes, with 101 percent morale, will accept no compromise.
On the other hand, the Arabs say: “We shall bring Moslem brigades from Pakistan, we shall lead a religious crusade for all loyal followers of Mohammed, we shall crush forever the invader. Whether it takes three months, three years, or 30, we will carry on the fight. Palestine will be Arab. We shall accept no compromise.”
Kennedy describes “annihilation” of the Jews as the Arab purpose:
Within the Old City of Jerusalem there exists a small community of orthodox Jews. They wanted no part of this fight but just wanted to be left alone with their wailing wall. Unfortunately for them, the Arabs are unkindly disposed toward any kind of Jew and their annihilation would now undoubtedly have been a fact had it not been that at the beginning of hostilities the Haganah moved several hundred well-equipped men into their quarter.
Jews in that period were actually proud of their settlements:
The Jews have small settlements or community farms such as Givat Brenner in completely hostile territory. They take pride that, despite the great difficulties, they have not evacuated any of them. From the very tip of Galilee right down to the arid Negev these communities exist...
Kennedy agreed with the Jewish claim of British hostility toward the Jews:
The British government, in its attitude towards the Jewish population in Palestine, has given ample credence to the suspicion that they are firmly against the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine.
When I was in Cairo shortly after the blowing up of the Jewish Agency [March 11, 1948] I talked to a man who held a high position in the Arab League. He had just returned from Palestine where he had, among other things, interviewed and arranged transportation to Trans-Jordan for the Arab responsible for that Jewish disaster. This Arab told him that after the explosion, upon reaching the British post which separated the Jewish section from a small neutral zone set up in the middle of Jerusalem, he was questioned by the British officers in charge. He quite freely admitted what he had done and was given immediate passage with the remark “Nice going.”
RFK described preparations for the war which would result in the "Nakba" Arabs cry about today:
When I was in Tel Aviv the Jews informed the British government that 600 Iraqi troops were going to cross into Palestine from Trans-Jordan by the Allenby Bridge on a certain date and requested the British to take appropriate action to prevent this passage. The troops crossed unmolested. It is impossible for the British to patrol the whole Palestinian border to prevent illegal crossings but such flagrant violations should certainly have led to some sort of action.
Five weeks ago I saw several thousand non-Palestinian Arab troops in Palestine, including many of the famed British-trained and equipped Arab legionnaires of King Abdullah [of Trans-Jordan]. There were also soldiers from Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Trans-Jordan, and they were all proudly pointed out to me by a spokesman of the Arab higher committee. He warned me against walking too extensively through Arab districts as most of the inhabitants there were now foreign troops. Every Arab to whom I talked spoke of thousands of soldiers massed in the “terrible triangle of Nablus-Tulkarem-Jenin” and of hundreds that were pouring in daily.
When I was in Lebanon and asked a dean at the American University at Beirut if many students were leaving for the fight in Palestine he shrugged and said, “Not now – the quota has been oversubscribed.” When journeying by car from Jerusalem to Amman I passed many truckloads of armed Arabs and even then Jericho was alive with Arab troops. There is no question that it was taken over by the Arabs for an armed camp long before May 15.
The Arabs in command believe that eventually victory must be theirs. It is against all law and nature that this Jewish state should exist. They trace expectantly its long boundary and promise that if it does become a reality it will never have as neighbors anything but hostile countries, which will continue the fight militarily and economically until victory is achieved.
The fight continues.
Comment on this story
by Gil Ronen
On June 6, 1968, Robert F. Kennedy succumbed to gunshot wounds inflicted a day earlier by an Arab terrorist, Sirhan Sirhan. His daughter later said that this was because of his support for the Jewish state.
Lenny Ben-David, former head of AIPAC, writes in his blog that “Years later his daughter told me, ‘My father was killed by a Palestinian terrorist [Sirhan Sirhan] because of his strong support for Israel.’ He was killed on the first anniversary of the 1967 Six Day War."
Ben-David links to another blog that contains excerpts from a series of articles written by RFK for a now-defunct Boston newspaper, after his visit to “Palestine” in March 1948.
The articles show some things have not changed at all and point to the roots of the Arab-Israeli conflict which are no different 63 years later.
The Arabs are most concerned about the great increase in the Jews in Palestine: 80,000 in 1948. The Arabs have always feared this encroachment and maintain that the Jews will never be satisfied with just their section of Palestine, but will gradually move to overpower the rest of the country and will eventually move onto the enormously wealthy oil lands. They are determined that the Jews will never get the toehold that would be necessary for the fulfillment of that policy.
They are willing to let the Jews remain as peaceful citizens subject to the rule of the Arab majority just as the Arabs are doing in such great number in Egypt and the Levant states, but they are determined that a separate Jewish state will be attacked and attacked until it is finally cut out like an unhealthy abscess.
While the Arabs are unabashedly hostile, the Jews appear naively proud about the benefits they have brought their neighbors:
The Jews point with pride to the fact that over 500,000 Arabs in the 12 years between 1932 and 1944, came into Palestine to take advantage of living conditions existing in no other Arab state. This is the only country in the Near and Middle East where an Arab middle class is in existence.
One thing that seems different in the period RFK describes is Jewish national spirit and morale, which he describes as “101-percent”:
The Jewish people in Palestine who believe in and have been working toward this national state have become an immensely proud and determined people. It is already a truly great modern example of the birth of a nation with the primary ingredients of dignity and self-respect. (...)
The die has long since been cast; the fight will take place. The Jews with their backs to the sea, fighting for their very homes, with 101 percent morale, will accept no compromise.
On the other hand, the Arabs say: “We shall bring Moslem brigades from Pakistan, we shall lead a religious crusade for all loyal followers of Mohammed, we shall crush forever the invader. Whether it takes three months, three years, or 30, we will carry on the fight. Palestine will be Arab. We shall accept no compromise.”
Kennedy describes “annihilation” of the Jews as the Arab purpose:
Within the Old City of Jerusalem there exists a small community of orthodox Jews. They wanted no part of this fight but just wanted to be left alone with their wailing wall. Unfortunately for them, the Arabs are unkindly disposed toward any kind of Jew and their annihilation would now undoubtedly have been a fact had it not been that at the beginning of hostilities the Haganah moved several hundred well-equipped men into their quarter.
Jews in that period were actually proud of their settlements:
The Jews have small settlements or community farms such as Givat Brenner in completely hostile territory. They take pride that, despite the great difficulties, they have not evacuated any of them. From the very tip of Galilee right down to the arid Negev these communities exist...
Kennedy agreed with the Jewish claim of British hostility toward the Jews:
The British government, in its attitude towards the Jewish population in Palestine, has given ample credence to the suspicion that they are firmly against the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine.
When I was in Cairo shortly after the blowing up of the Jewish Agency [March 11, 1948] I talked to a man who held a high position in the Arab League. He had just returned from Palestine where he had, among other things, interviewed and arranged transportation to Trans-Jordan for the Arab responsible for that Jewish disaster. This Arab told him that after the explosion, upon reaching the British post which separated the Jewish section from a small neutral zone set up in the middle of Jerusalem, he was questioned by the British officers in charge. He quite freely admitted what he had done and was given immediate passage with the remark “Nice going.”
RFK described preparations for the war which would result in the "Nakba" Arabs cry about today:
When I was in Tel Aviv the Jews informed the British government that 600 Iraqi troops were going to cross into Palestine from Trans-Jordan by the Allenby Bridge on a certain date and requested the British to take appropriate action to prevent this passage. The troops crossed unmolested. It is impossible for the British to patrol the whole Palestinian border to prevent illegal crossings but such flagrant violations should certainly have led to some sort of action.
Five weeks ago I saw several thousand non-Palestinian Arab troops in Palestine, including many of the famed British-trained and equipped Arab legionnaires of King Abdullah [of Trans-Jordan]. There were also soldiers from Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Trans-Jordan, and they were all proudly pointed out to me by a spokesman of the Arab higher committee. He warned me against walking too extensively through Arab districts as most of the inhabitants there were now foreign troops. Every Arab to whom I talked spoke of thousands of soldiers massed in the “terrible triangle of Nablus-Tulkarem-Jenin” and of hundreds that were pouring in daily.
When I was in Lebanon and asked a dean at the American University at Beirut if many students were leaving for the fight in Palestine he shrugged and said, “Not now – the quota has been oversubscribed.” When journeying by car from Jerusalem to Amman I passed many truckloads of armed Arabs and even then Jericho was alive with Arab troops. There is no question that it was taken over by the Arabs for an armed camp long before May 15.
The Arabs in command believe that eventually victory must be theirs. It is against all law and nature that this Jewish state should exist. They trace expectantly its long boundary and promise that if it does become a reality it will never have as neighbors anything but hostile countries, which will continue the fight militarily and economically until victory is achieved.
The fight continues.
Comment on this story
6. Shalit Supporters to Call: Block Money to Gaza
by Elad Benari
A demonstration is expected to be held on Friday near Israel’s border with Gaza, during which protesters will call on the Israeli government to stop transferring funds to the Hamas leadership in Gaza.
The demonstration is being organized by Orna Shimoni, a founder of the Four Mothers movement that helped bring about the IDF's withdrawal from southern Lebanon in 2000. She explained during an interview on Monday with Arutz Sheva’s Hebrew website what led her to organize the protest.
Shimoni explained that the main purpose of her struggle is to stop the transfer of funds into Gaza, since these funds enable the Hamas leadership to purchase weapons that can then be used against Israelis. She noted that in the past, these weapons were purchased and smuggled into the Strip through the underground tunnels, but that today it is much easier for Hamas to bring the weapons into Gaza openly (through the recently reopened Rafiah border crossing between Gaza and Egypt).
She reminded that every month, Israel allows for the entry of $13.5 million into the Gaza Strip, and that the money comes out of accounts belonging to the Bank of Israel.
“Eighty percent of the dollars transferred to Gaza are used to smuggle weapons which then return to us in the form of missiles fired at buses and towns, and twenty percent of the funds are used to pay the wages for Hamas leaders, including the captors of Gilad Shalit,” said Shimoni, adding that no one disputes these figures. “At least until the day Gilad Shalit is released, we should not transfer money to Gaza through the State of Israel.”
She said she does not accept the official claim that the money, which sometimes comes from countries belonging to the European Union and sometimes comes from the Palestinian Authority itself, belongs to the PA Arab residents of Gaza. She added that she sees this as a matter of principle, just as Israel would not enable the transfer of money to a Nazi organization or to the Hizbullah terror group. She emphasized that the funds are not intended to benefit local residents and that the residents do not see any of the money. “The money goes to the Hamas leadership in Gaza and is streamlined towards salaries and weapons, and we must stop this money from going through, even if we are only used as a pipeline.”
Shimoni said that the original idea was to hold the demonstration in front of the home of Bank of Israel Governor Stanley Fischer, as he is the one responsible for transfers of funds from the Bank of Israel. She added, however, that the plan was dropped at the request of Gilad’s father, Noam Shalit, who believes that the focus of the pressure to release his son should be the decision-makers, i.e. the Prime Minister, government ministers, and other members of Knesset. As such, the location of the protest was changed, though she said she herself believes Fischer, as the one who pressured Israel to transfer the funds to Gaza, should also stand up to public pressure to cancel the move.
Shimoni noted that she believes the motive behind Fishcher’s move may have been his longtime friendship with PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad. The two had met when both had worked for the World Bank. She also brought up the possibility that Fischer wanted to please the European Union and the World Bank and for this reason decided to push for money to be transferred to Hamas. She said, however, that despite her deep appreciation for Fischer, his move cannot be accepted when it leads to attacks on Israel’s security.
According to Shimoni, if Hamas knows that Israel is serious and would actually stop the transfer of funds, it will be frightened and will drop the price it is requesting for Shalit’s release.
“Without the money, there is no Hamas,” she said, adding that during Friday’s demonstration she plans to bring up the issue in public and thus interrupt the silence over the transfer of funds to Gaza.
Meanwhile, Shalit’s parents were in France Monday to file a lawsuit in a Paris court regarding their son being held hostage. They say he may have “suffered acts of torture or of barbarism.”
Shalit is a French citizen and the legal action is intended to put more pressure on the French government to work for his release.
Last week, French first lady Carla Bruni responded to a personal letter from Sara Netanyahu on the subject of Shalit, with a note of her own in which she said that France was sparing no effort in its attempts to mediate Shalit’s release.
“Like you, I wish with all my heart that this episode will be over soon,” Bruni wrote.
The issue of the price that Israel should pay for Shalit’s release has been one of controversy in the country. Hamas has demanded that Israel release thousands of Arab prisoners being held in Israeli prisons, some of whom were involved in deadly suicide terror attacks and are behind the deaths of hundreds of innocent Israeli civilians.
Some groups, mostly from the left, are saying Israel should pay any price for Shalit, including releasing potentially dangerous terrorists. Those who oppose such deals are saying that Israel cannot release prisoners who are likely to go back to terror, and thus endanger the lives of hundreds of more Israelis.
Click here to view one such debate, which took place this week between Meir Indor of the Almagor Terror Victims Association and Shimshon Liebman, Chairman of the Gilad Shalit Action Committee.
Comment on this story
by Elad Benari
A demonstration is expected to be held on Friday near Israel’s border with Gaza, during which protesters will call on the Israeli government to stop transferring funds to the Hamas leadership in Gaza.
The demonstration is being organized by Orna Shimoni, a founder of the Four Mothers movement that helped bring about the IDF's withdrawal from southern Lebanon in 2000. She explained during an interview on Monday with Arutz Sheva’s Hebrew website what led her to organize the protest.
Shimoni explained that the main purpose of her struggle is to stop the transfer of funds into Gaza, since these funds enable the Hamas leadership to purchase weapons that can then be used against Israelis. She noted that in the past, these weapons were purchased and smuggled into the Strip through the underground tunnels, but that today it is much easier for Hamas to bring the weapons into Gaza openly (through the recently reopened Rafiah border crossing between Gaza and Egypt).
She reminded that every month, Israel allows for the entry of $13.5 million into the Gaza Strip, and that the money comes out of accounts belonging to the Bank of Israel.
“Eighty percent of the dollars transferred to Gaza are used to smuggle weapons which then return to us in the form of missiles fired at buses and towns, and twenty percent of the funds are used to pay the wages for Hamas leaders, including the captors of Gilad Shalit,” said Shimoni, adding that no one disputes these figures. “At least until the day Gilad Shalit is released, we should not transfer money to Gaza through the State of Israel.”
She said she does not accept the official claim that the money, which sometimes comes from countries belonging to the European Union and sometimes comes from the Palestinian Authority itself, belongs to the PA Arab residents of Gaza. She added that she sees this as a matter of principle, just as Israel would not enable the transfer of money to a Nazi organization or to the Hizbullah terror group. She emphasized that the funds are not intended to benefit local residents and that the residents do not see any of the money. “The money goes to the Hamas leadership in Gaza and is streamlined towards salaries and weapons, and we must stop this money from going through, even if we are only used as a pipeline.”
Shimoni said that the original idea was to hold the demonstration in front of the home of Bank of Israel Governor Stanley Fischer, as he is the one responsible for transfers of funds from the Bank of Israel. She added, however, that the plan was dropped at the request of Gilad’s father, Noam Shalit, who believes that the focus of the pressure to release his son should be the decision-makers, i.e. the Prime Minister, government ministers, and other members of Knesset. As such, the location of the protest was changed, though she said she herself believes Fischer, as the one who pressured Israel to transfer the funds to Gaza, should also stand up to public pressure to cancel the move.
Shimoni noted that she believes the motive behind Fishcher’s move may have been his longtime friendship with PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad. The two had met when both had worked for the World Bank. She also brought up the possibility that Fischer wanted to please the European Union and the World Bank and for this reason decided to push for money to be transferred to Hamas. She said, however, that despite her deep appreciation for Fischer, his move cannot be accepted when it leads to attacks on Israel’s security.
According to Shimoni, if Hamas knows that Israel is serious and would actually stop the transfer of funds, it will be frightened and will drop the price it is requesting for Shalit’s release.
“Without the money, there is no Hamas,” she said, adding that during Friday’s demonstration she plans to bring up the issue in public and thus interrupt the silence over the transfer of funds to Gaza.
Meanwhile, Shalit’s parents were in France Monday to file a lawsuit in a Paris court regarding their son being held hostage. They say he may have “suffered acts of torture or of barbarism.”
Shalit is a French citizen and the legal action is intended to put more pressure on the French government to work for his release.
Last week, French first lady Carla Bruni responded to a personal letter from Sara Netanyahu on the subject of Shalit, with a note of her own in which she said that France was sparing no effort in its attempts to mediate Shalit’s release.
“Like you, I wish with all my heart that this episode will be over soon,” Bruni wrote.
The issue of the price that Israel should pay for Shalit’s release has been one of controversy in the country. Hamas has demanded that Israel release thousands of Arab prisoners being held in Israeli prisons, some of whom were involved in deadly suicide terror attacks and are behind the deaths of hundreds of innocent Israeli civilians.
Some groups, mostly from the left, are saying Israel should pay any price for Shalit, including releasing potentially dangerous terrorists. Those who oppose such deals are saying that Israel cannot release prisoners who are likely to go back to terror, and thus endanger the lives of hundreds of more Israelis.
Click here to view one such debate, which took place this week between Meir Indor of the Almagor Terror Victims Association and Shimshon Liebman, Chairman of the Gilad Shalit Action Committee.
Comment on this story
7. Iranian Lawmakers Tour Lebanon-Israel Border
by Gil Ronen
Lebanon prevented rioters from coming near Israel’s border on “Naksa Day” Sunday, but allowed an Iranian parliamentary delegation to tour the Lebanese-Israeli border.
The delegation was led by Ghulam Ali Hadad Adel, a member of the Iranian Majlis (parliament), who is also an adviser to Iran’s top leader Ayatollah Ali Khameini, and is married to Khameini’s daughter.
Accompanied by Iran’s Beirut ambassador Ghazanfar Roknabadi, the delegation visited the town of Maroun a-Ras, where heavy fighting took place between Hizbullah and the IDF in the 2006 Lebanon War. Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad also made a point of visiting the town on his Lebanese tour last year.
Adel waved the PLO flag and gave a speech expressing his “appreciation and admiration for the martyrs and the Palestinian nation for their determination to return to their homes and land.” Iran, he said, would continue to support “the resistance in Lebanon and
Palestine” – a reference to Hizbullah and Hamas.
Ambassador Roknabadi said that “the Palestinian nation is determined to achieve its rights in any way and by any means, after it turned out that the United Nations Security Council cannot implement its resolutions on refugees.”
Comment on this story
by Gil Ronen
Lebanon prevented rioters from coming near Israel’s border on “Naksa Day” Sunday, but allowed an Iranian parliamentary delegation to tour the Lebanese-Israeli border.
The delegation was led by Ghulam Ali Hadad Adel, a member of the Iranian Majlis (parliament), who is also an adviser to Iran’s top leader Ayatollah Ali Khameini, and is married to Khameini’s daughter.
Accompanied by Iran’s Beirut ambassador Ghazanfar Roknabadi, the delegation visited the town of Maroun a-Ras, where heavy fighting took place between Hizbullah and the IDF in the 2006 Lebanon War. Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad also made a point of visiting the town on his Lebanese tour last year.
Adel waved the PLO flag and gave a speech expressing his “appreciation and admiration for the martyrs and the Palestinian nation for their determination to return to their homes and land.” Iran, he said, would continue to support “the resistance in Lebanon and
Palestine” – a reference to Hizbullah and Hamas.
Ambassador Roknabadi said that “the Palestinian nation is determined to achieve its rights in any way and by any means, after it turned out that the United Nations Security Council cannot implement its resolutions on refugees.”
Comment on this story
8. Obama Toying With American Jewry over Pollard?
by Hillel Fendel
The Long Island-based Jewish Star has published a particularly bold editorial regarding Jonathan Pollard – less about Pollard himself than about the U.S. treason inherent in its refusal to release him.
Entitled “Our America and Pollard,” the paper asks: “What is the sentence for a nation that commits treason against all its citizenry [in failing] to carry out justice without prejudice?”
The paper starkly compares the plight of Pollard with others who have been incarcerated: “As Russian spies in the U.S. are sent back to their homes in Russia within hours of capture, and as Israel has negotiated the release of thousands of terrorists from its prisons, and as Gitmo inmates are sent to the Bahamas with U.S. dollars in their pockets, and as murderers, pedophiles and rapists leave U.S. jails, one Jew sits in an American maximum security prison for 26 years.”
Warning to American Jewry
It then warns American Jewry that it is, essentially, unprotected: "…we should not discount for a moment the gravity of the [U.S. government’s] offense on each and every Jew who thinks he is entitled, as an American, to equal justice by the law that governs the rest of the society of this country.”
“There is an equitable set time of detention for an individual who commits a non-violent crime against his country,” the Jewish Star writes. “What is the sentence for a nation that commits treason against all its citizenry for its failure to carry out justice without prejudice? … [The fact that] our America allow[s] him to languish for decades in prison most certainly diminishes this nation's very essence, strength, foundation and security.”
Congressman Asks: Pollard Worse than Lockerbie Bomber?
At the same time, another prominent American has joined the ranks of those asking U.S. President Barack Obama to release Pollard – and taking a novel approach to this end. Rep. Allen West (R-Fl.), a former U.S. Army lieutenant-colonel who fought in several wars, wrote to Obama, ““If [your government] can consent to the release by the British of the Lockerbie Bomber back to Libya due to health concerns, how can we justify keeping Mr. Pollard behind bars when his crimes were clearly not as serious as a terrorist who murdered hundreds of Americans?”
An Election Ploy?
Another recent article on the topic calling for Pollard’s release stated that Obama needs to take measures to improve his standing among Jewish voters –and that the most concrete step to this end would be to free Pollard.
Farley Weiss, second-vice president of the National Council of Young Israel, wrote in the Arizona Republic that one of Obama’s options, “one that would correct an injustice, would be to release Jonathan Pollard from prison. Pollard has been incarcerated for more than 25 years for having passed classified information to an ally - Israel. He committed an offense for which the average sentence is two to four years. He has expressed remorse for his actions and cooperated with the government. More than a dozen prominent former American governmental powerbrokers, including former secretaries of State George Shultz and Henry Kissinger and Sen. McCain, have publicly stated they favor his release.”
In the event that Weiss, a longtime Pollard supporter, is correct, Obama is liable to wait at least another year - shortly before the next national elections in the U.S. - before actually signing Pollard’s release papers. American Jewry would thus be well advised to wake up to the warnings of the Jewish Star, and ensure that Obama is not led to believe that he can succeed in toying treacherously with them, and with Pollard, to gain Jewish votes.
Comment on this story
by Hillel Fendel
The Long Island-based Jewish Star has published a particularly bold editorial regarding Jonathan Pollard – less about Pollard himself than about the U.S. treason inherent in its refusal to release him.
Entitled “Our America and Pollard,” the paper asks: “What is the sentence for a nation that commits treason against all its citizenry [in failing] to carry out justice without prejudice?”
The paper starkly compares the plight of Pollard with others who have been incarcerated: “As Russian spies in the U.S. are sent back to their homes in Russia within hours of capture, and as Israel has negotiated the release of thousands of terrorists from its prisons, and as Gitmo inmates are sent to the Bahamas with U.S. dollars in their pockets, and as murderers, pedophiles and rapists leave U.S. jails, one Jew sits in an American maximum security prison for 26 years.”
Warning to American Jewry
It then warns American Jewry that it is, essentially, unprotected: "…we should not discount for a moment the gravity of the [U.S. government’s] offense on each and every Jew who thinks he is entitled, as an American, to equal justice by the law that governs the rest of the society of this country.”
“There is an equitable set time of detention for an individual who commits a non-violent crime against his country,” the Jewish Star writes. “What is the sentence for a nation that commits treason against all its citizenry for its failure to carry out justice without prejudice? … [The fact that] our America allow[s] him to languish for decades in prison most certainly diminishes this nation's very essence, strength, foundation and security.”
Congressman Asks: Pollard Worse than Lockerbie Bomber?
At the same time, another prominent American has joined the ranks of those asking U.S. President Barack Obama to release Pollard – and taking a novel approach to this end. Rep. Allen West (R-Fl.), a former U.S. Army lieutenant-colonel who fought in several wars, wrote to Obama, ““If [your government] can consent to the release by the British of the Lockerbie Bomber back to Libya due to health concerns, how can we justify keeping Mr. Pollard behind bars when his crimes were clearly not as serious as a terrorist who murdered hundreds of Americans?”
An Election Ploy?
Another recent article on the topic calling for Pollard’s release stated that Obama needs to take measures to improve his standing among Jewish voters –and that the most concrete step to this end would be to free Pollard.
Farley Weiss, second-vice president of the National Council of Young Israel, wrote in the Arizona Republic that one of Obama’s options, “one that would correct an injustice, would be to release Jonathan Pollard from prison. Pollard has been incarcerated for more than 25 years for having passed classified information to an ally - Israel. He committed an offense for which the average sentence is two to four years. He has expressed remorse for his actions and cooperated with the government. More than a dozen prominent former American governmental powerbrokers, including former secretaries of State George Shultz and Henry Kissinger and Sen. McCain, have publicly stated they favor his release.”
In the event that Weiss, a longtime Pollard supporter, is correct, Obama is liable to wait at least another year - shortly before the next national elections in the U.S. - before actually signing Pollard’s release papers. American Jewry would thus be well advised to wake up to the warnings of the Jewish Star, and ensure that Obama is not led to believe that he can succeed in toying treacherously with them, and with Pollard, to gain Jewish votes.
Comment on this story
More Website News:
 |
Syrian Soldiers Massacre 120 in Own Ranks  |
|
New Shavuot Feature: Unusual Vegan / Dairy Soup Recipe  |
|
VIdeo, Photos: Gantz Tours Northern Command |
|
25 Mayors from 6 Continents to Visit Israel |
|
Netanyahu: Syria Allowed Rioters to Reach Border |
