The 'We Didn't See A Thing' Alter-Reality

This is from the Ma'an report on the stabbing near Shiloh today:

Locals told Ma'an that Israeli forces also raided several areas surrounding Ramallah including Sinjil, Turmusayya, al-Luban al-Sharqiya, and al-Luban al-Gharbiya.  Israeli forces detained seven Palestinian youths and took them to identify the suspect's body, but none were able to identify him, witnesses said. The suspect was not been carrying an ID card.

Some of the youths taken to identify the body said the suspect was injured with a bullet in the head, and that there was a "clean knife with no blood on it" next to him.

"Clean"?

There are two soldiers wounded from stab wounds.

Do Arabs always deny reality?

The site (the red X) of the attack and nearby Arab villages and Jewish communities:

_______________-

Naftali Bennett's reaction. ^ 

Obama's 'Bar Mitzva Present'

From the transcript of Obama's NPR interview:

STEVE INSKEEP: So many of the concerns and questions about the Iran deal seem to me to focus on what kind of a country you think Iran is.

People are asking, "what will happen in 10 or 15 years as the deal starts to expire," or they're asking "what will Iran do in the region during the period of the deal?"

All of those concerns seem to get down to the nature of the government itself, which makes me begin this by asking: Do you believe that Iran's government is a government that is capable of changing its ways?

OBAMA:  ... Let me flip the question, Steve...We're now in a position where Iran has agreed to unprecedented inspections and verifications of its program, providing assurances that it is peaceful in nature. You have them rolling back a number of pathways that they currently have available to break out and get a nuclear weapon. You have assurances that their stockpile of highly enriched uranium remains in a place where they cannot create a nuclear weapon.

And that lasts not only for the first 10 years, but the inspections and verifications that are unprecedented go for another decade after that.

Now, ideally, we would see a situation in which Iran, seeing sanctions reduced, would start focusing on its economy, on training its people, on reentering the world community, to lessening its provocative activities in the region.

But if it doesn't change, we are so much better if we have this deal in place than if we don't.

And so I'm not trying to avoid your question. I — I think that there are different trends inside of Iran.

I think there are hard-liners inside of Iran that think it is the right thing to do to oppose us, to seek to destroy Israel, to cause havoc in places like Syria or Yemen or Lebanon. And then I think there are others inside Iran who think that this is counterproductive. And it is possible that if we sign this nuclear deal, we strengthen the hand of those more moderate forces inside of Iran.

But the key point I want to make is, the deal is not dependent on anticipating those changes. If they don't change at all, we're still better off having the deal.

INSKEEP: But you raise a very interesting point there when you're talking about Iran's enriched uranium.

Most of its enriched uranium is supposed to be set off to the side and diluted; it may, however, remain inside Iran. Eventually, the deal expires. Perhaps the uranium is still there, which is why...

... where the regime changes is a significant question.

OBAMA: Actually, that's not how it works, Steve, because once you've diluted a process or...

INSKEEP: It can't be...

OBAMA ... stockpiles have — have maintained at 300 kilograms or below, they're not going to have been able to horde a bunch of uranium that somehow they then convert to weapons-grade uranium.

What is a more relevant fear would be that in year 13, 14, 15, they have advanced centrifuges that enrich uranium fairly rapidly, and at that point the breakout times would have shrunk almost down to zero.

Keep in mind, though, currently, the breakout times are only about two to three months by our intelligence estimates. So essentially, we're purchasing for 13, 14, 15 years assurances that the breakout is at least a year ... that — that if they decided to break the deal, kick out all the inspectors, break the seals and go for a bomb, we'd have over a year to respond. And we have those assurances for at least well over a decade.

And then in years 13 and 14, it is possible that those breakout times would have been much shorter, but at that point we have much better ideas about what it is that their program involves. We have much more insight into their capabilities. And the option of a future president to take action if in fact they try to obtain a nuclear weapon is undiminished.

So, it's a hard argument to make that we're better off right now having almost no breakout period, no insight, and letting them rush towards a bomb, than saying, over the course of 15 years, we have very clear assurances that they're not going to do anything.

And at that, at the end of that period, maybe they've changed, maybe they haven't. If they haven't changed, we still have the options available to me — or available to a future president that I have available to me right now.

INSKEEP: Obviously, the tradeoff for the concessions on the nuclear program is the lifting of many sanctions against Iran.

OBAMA: Yes.

A friend wrote to me this:

the President brought up the issue - the 13-year 0 breakout time scenario - as a way to dodge a question about letting Iran keep its stockpile. What could he possibly be so afraid of on the stockpile issue, that he would instead talk about how a decade from now Iran will be able to go nuclear at will?

Thirteen years, you know, marks a Bar Mitzva.


^

Najis

Consider this:

Najis Things
Issue 84: * The following ten things are essentially najis:
• Urine
• Faeces
• Semen
• Dead body
• Blood
• Dog
• Pig
• Kafir

Najis?

In Islamic law, najis are things or persons regarded as ritually unclean. According to Islam, there are two kinds of najis: the essential najis which cannot be cleaned and the unessential najis which become najis while in contact with another najis.  Contact with najis things brings a Muslim into a state of ritual impurity (in opposition to ṭahārah, ritual purity). 

Kafir?

Najis things » Kafir
107. An infidel i.e. a person who does not believe in Allah and His Oneness, is najis. Similarly, Ghulat who believe in any of the holy twelve Imams as God, or that they are incarnations of God, and Khawarij and Nawasib who express enmity towards th e holy Imams, are also najis. And similar is the case of those who deny Prophethood, or any of the necessary laws of Islam, like, namaz and fasting, which are believed by the Muslims as a part of Islam, and which they also know as such. As regards the people of the Book (i.e. the Jews and the Christians) who do not accept the Prophethood of Prophet Muhammad bin Abdullah (Peace be upon him and his progeny), they are commonly considered najis, but it is not improbable that they are Pak. Ho wever, it is better to avoid them.

108. The entire body of a Kafir, including his hair and nails, and all liquid substances of his body, are najis.

109. If the parents, paternal grandmother and paternal grandfather of a minor child are all kafir, that child is najis, except when he is intelligent enough, and professes Islam. When, even one person from his parents or grandparents is a Muslim, the child is Pak (The details will be explained in rule 217)...

^

Wrongly Written Headline

The headline reads:

Palestinian Shot Dead After Stabbing 

Two Israeli Soldiers In West Bank

Now, why couldn't that have been written so:

After Stabbing Two Israeli Soldiers 

Near Shiloh Arab Attacker Shot Dead

Well, why not?

_______________________

Well, here is the headline for Loulla-Mae Eleftheriou-Smit's story in The Independent:

Palestinian shot dead after stabbing 

two Israeli solders in the West Bank

At least the JTA did it correctly:

2 Israeli soldiers stabbed in West Bank, attacker killed

BBC did it the wrong way:

Palestinian killed after stabbing two Israeli soldiers

^

Marie Ha-Ha Harf on Iran's Centrifuges

.

The context:

QUESTION: May – I just want to follow up on the inspections. I asked you yesterday about precedent, if there is any precedent --

MS. HARF: Yes.

QUESTION: -- that the IAEA could follow. Absent precedent – or maybe there is in Iraq precedent – by the way, this reminds me of the Iraq (inaudible).

MS. HARF: This is amazing.

QUESTION: So how would they do it? I mean, they would have offices, they would come like in (inaudible)? How would they do it?

MS. HARF: In terms of the centrifuge storage – I’m trying not to laugh; this is just amusing to me – but in terms of the centrifuge storage, so they will be stored by – they will not – excuse me. The centrifuges will not be stored by the IAEA. It will be stored under IAEA surveillance and monitoring. And yesterday I said they will be stored in facilities that are monitored by the IAEA. They – we have confidence in their ability to do this. I don’t have more details for you on where else they might have done this – in other countries, I think you’re asking, right?

GraphicZionism: How Wonderful the World Is

.

BTW.

^

Medad's Rule #1 in the Arab-Israel Israel Conflict

Medad's Rule #1 in the Arab-Israel Israel Conflict: 

In the final analysis, Arabs kill more Arabs than the number of Arabs claimed killed by the "Zionists".

Latest example:

Syria says it is ready to offer Palestinians its firepower to support their battle with the ISIL Takfiri terrorist group, which has besieged a Palestinian refugee camp near the capital Damascus.  ISIL, which currently controls parts of Iraq and Syria, launched an attack on the Yarmouk refugee camp in southwestern Syria on April 1...On Tuesday, Syrian Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal Mekdad met with a delegation from the umbrella group of Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) headed by Ahmad Majdalani.

"Syrian authorities are ready to support the Palestinian fighters in a number of ways, including militarily, to push ISIL out of the camp," said PLO official Anwar Abdul Hadi, who was at the meeting.

More rules to follow as I develop them.

The next one will be based on this:

A Palestinian member of the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, has condemned the Arab world for its silence on the ISIL militants' attacks and takeover of parts of the Yarmouk refugee camp in Syria...More than 1,000 Palestinians have been reportedly killed since the ISIL took over some 90 percent of the camp, Press TV reported.

Ahmed Tibi, a member of the Arab Joint List party, called the ISIL attack on the Palestinian refugee camp “a crime against humanity” and condemned the international community, particularly the Arab countries, for remaining silent on the deadly violence in Yarmouk.

Rule #2:

The Arab world cares much less about the issue of 'Palestine' than the Jews.


^

A Portrayal of History

How can history be twisted?

One example, from The King's Speech:

Christopher Hitchens and Isaac Chotiner challenged the film's portrayal of Winston Churchill's role in the abdication crisis. It is well established that Churchill encouraged Edward VIII to resist pressure to abdicate, whereas he is portrayed in the film as strongly supportive of Prince Albert and not opposed to the abdication. Hitchens attributes this treatment to the "cult" surrounding Churchill's legacy. In a smart, well-made film, "would the true story not have been fractionally more interesting for the audience?" he wondered. They also criticised the film for failing to indict the appeasement of the era. While the film never directly mentions the issue, Hitchens and Chotiner argue that it implies that George VI was against appeasement, especially in the final scene portraying "Churchill and the King at Buckingham Palace and a speech of unity and resistance being readied for delivery". Far from distancing himself from Chamberlain's appeasement policy, King George VI dispatched a car to meet Neville Chamberlain when he returned from signing the Munich Agreement with Hitler in September 1938. The King and Chamberlain then stood on the balcony of Buckingham Palace, acclaimed by cheering crowds. This led historian Steven Runciman to write that by acting as he did to endorse Chamberlain's foreign policy, King George VI perpetrated "the biggest constitutional blunder that has been made by any sovereign this century."

How will today's appeasers be portrayed?

^ 

The Obama 'Iffy' Speech

Remarks of President Barack Obama

Weekly Address

The White House   April 4, 2015

This week, together with our allies and partners, we reached an historic understanding with Iran, which, if fully implemented, will prevent it from obtaining a nuclear weapon and make our country, our allies, and our world safer.

This framework is the result of tough, principled diplomacy. It’s a good deal -- a deal that meets our core objectives, including strict limitations on Iran’s program and cutting off every pathway that Iran could take to develop a nuclear weapon.

This deal denies Iran the plutonium necessary to build a bomb. It shuts down Iran’s path to a bomb using enriched uranium. Iran has agreed that it will not stockpile the materials needed to build a weapon. Moreover, international inspectors will have unprecedented access to Iran’s nuclear program because Iran will face more inspections than any other country in the world. If Iran cheats, the world will know it. If we see something suspicious, we will inspect it. So this deal is not based on trust, it’s based on unprecedented verification.

And this is a long-term deal, with strict limits on Iran’s program for more than a decade and unprecedented transparency measures that will last for 20 years or more. And as a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran will never be permitted to develop a nuclear weapon.

In return for Iran’s actions, the international community, including the United States, has agreed to provide Iran with phased relief from certain sanctions. If Iran violates the deal, sanctions can be snapped back into place. Meanwhile, other American sanctions on Iran for its support of terrorism, its human rights abuses, its ballistic missile program, all will continue to be enforced.

As I said this week, many key details will need to be finalized over the next three months, and nothing is agreed to until everything is agreed. And if there is backsliding, there will be no deal.

Here in the United States, I expect a robust debate. We’ll keep Congress and the American people fully briefed on the substance of the deal. As we engage in this debate, let’s remember—we really only have three options for dealing with Iran’s nuclear program: bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities—which will only set its program back a few years—while starting another war in the Middle East; abandoning negotiations and hoping for the best with sanctions—even though that’s always led to Iran making more progress in its nuclear program; or a robust and verifiable deal like this one that peacefully prevents Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

As President and Commander in Chief, I firmly believe that the diplomatic option—a comprehensive, long-term deal like this—is by far the best option. For the United States. For our allies. And for the world.

Our work -- this deal -- is not yet done. Diplomacy is painstaking work. Success is not guaranteed. But today we have an historic opportunity to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons in Iran, and to do so peacefully, with the international community firmly behind us. And this will be our work in the days and months ahead in keeping with the best traditions of American leadership.

So, it's all iffy?

If only Obama wasn't president.

^

Iran and The Wife Who Slit Her Husband's Throat

I'm serious.

If you do not think that Iran is serious about eliminating Israel and that it is rational, read this news item and replace, where appropriate, the words wife/woman with Iran and husband with Israel:

DILLONVALE, Ohio – A Dillonvale woman charged with attempted murder and aggravated assault after authorities say she claimed she was dreaming about filleting a fish when she sliced her husband's throat in his sleep went before a Jefferson County judge for her arraignment Monday. Bond was set at half a million dollars for Judy Jones, 44, in a shocking case of domestic violence that authorities say could have ended in murder if the couple’s daughter hadn’t acted. "She made threats that she was going to kill him,” Jefferson County Sheriff Fred Abdalla said. “And she almost did early Saturday morning. So she's been charged now with the prosecutor handling the case got her charged with felony 1s and 2 for attempted murder and aggravated assault." This all happened at the family's home at 19 2nd Street in Dillionvale and Abdalla said this isn’t the first time Judy Jones thought about killing her husband.

My point?

One would think people just do not do these things.

But they do.

And Iran will seek to attack Israel when convenient and continue its terrorism program to destabilize the Middle East and then attack, eventually, the democratic West.

It has happened before.

It will happen again.

^ 

Seder Fun

^

GraphicZionism: On the Iran Agreement

^

Jeremy (J Street) Ben-Ami Coming to the West Bank

Really.  He'll be on the West Bank:

Jeremy Ben-Ami, president and founder of J Street, will speak on “Prospects for Arab-Israeli Peace in the Wake of the Israeli Elections” 5 p.m. Tuesday, April 14
 in the Humphrey Forum
 at the Humphrey School of Public Affairs, 
301 19th Ave. S., on the U of M West Bank campus, in Minneapolis.  Ben-Ami will be joined by Humphrey School Professor Brian Atwood, chair of Global Policy and former dean.

I presume the construction and residency there on that West Bank is legal?


(kippa tip: JW) 

-----------------------------

A response:

__________________

Seems that George Washington University also has a problem with J Street.

^

Fifth Seder Question

Why is this deal any different than any previous one?

^

"Droves" Follow-up

Peace Index Poll finding:

“The Arabs are voting in droves”: We looked into the level of opposition or support for Prime Minister Netanyahu’s call to the Jewish population on election day to go out and vote since, with “the Arabs voting in droves,” the right was in danger of losing. The Jewish public is definitely divided on this question. Forty-eight percent think the criticism of the prime minister’s words is justified while 47% feel it is unjustified.

Oh, and

only 13% of the Jewish public thinks Netanyahu sincerely supports a two-state solution. Twenty-two percent believe that he indeed supports this solution but views it as infeasible in the near future, while the majority (52%) says that he does not sincerely support this solution. 

^

Temple Mount Construction - Illegal? Or Not?

There's a new structure, albeit not that large, inside the Temple Mount.

Not Jewish, though.

I do not know if they have a building license and doubt they do and am pretty sure they didn't ask for one but if anyone knows - and that goes to all my Muslim Waqf friends reading this - let me know.

In any case, this poster, borderline satire but which led to the arrest of two activists who were placing them on the walls of the Muslim Quarter in the Old City,

asks, nicely, that the Temple Mount compound by vacated by seven o'clock tonight so that the necessary construction for the Paschal Sacrifice could begin.

The vagaries of life.

^

Another Novel With A Temple Mount Theme

I have noted the many novels in this last decade or so that incoporate the Temple Mount as a main theme (TV series not counted).

Here is yet another:

From the blurb:

Moments before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., the seven Archangels remove powerful, ancient artefacts from the Jewish temple. These are given into the safekeeping of seven men. Throughout the ages, these men and their descendants become known as the Seven Sentinels.

^

GraphicZionism: Kerry's Iranian Progress

.

^

Iran's Negotiating Stance

.

^

By The Sweat Of Our Brows We Live

The vagaries of political history and semantics.

Back in 2000, you could read this

Middle East peace was given the slimmest of second chances yesterday after President Bill Clinton browbeat Israel and the Palestinians to agree to end the violence.

In 2013, you could read this:

Obama, a Democrat, never enamored himself to the Israeli people, nor to their prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu.  The U.S. leader was accused of trying to browbeat Israel into making concessions to the Palestinians, particularly in his efforts to halt settlement-building in the occupied West Bank, and of refusing to impose red lines on Iran's atomic project.

Back in 1992, Bill Clinton told the New York Community Relations Council that he would not

browbeat Israel

Here:

He had accused President Bush Sr. of doing that:

in 1992 candidate Clinton ostentatiously denounced George Bush for coddling dictators and for having "chosen to browbeat Israel, the region's sole democracy, while nurturing ties to Syria's despotic regime." 

Even Tom Friedman of the NYTimes recorded it. The term was pronounced in Clinton's second major foreign policy address of the election campaign a Manhattan hotel five days before the New York primary before the Foreign Policy Association in early April.

Last month, it was Hillary Clinton's turn at browbeating admission:

Clinton has called Netanyahu a “complicated figure” and admitted that, as secretary of state, “I was often the designated yeller,” browbeating Netanyahu as she represented the Obama administration’s insistence that Netanyahu make concessions to Israel’s enemies.

Oh, and the term has been used again to describe President Obama's actions, like here:

...after the Obama administration browbeat Israel into accepting a separate inquiry by a panel appointed by Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, the HRC investigation continued. That’s what “fair and balanced” means at the U.N.: two panels, one biased, one supposedly not.

And in a phone call to Netanyahu.  A Republican congressman used the term:

Allen West, a Republican running against Democratic Rep. Ron Klein in Florida's 22nd District, said Obama was "browbeating" Israel.

I guess we Israelis are still livining by the sweat of our brows. 

^