Tag Archives: Arutz Sheva

The Bibi-Barry tape

Sure sounds like the imperious Wormtongue “demanding” an Israeli ceasefire in this transcript by Arutz Sheva:

Obama: Within a week of the end of Israel’s military activities, Qatar and Turkey will begin negotiations with Hamas on the basis of the 2012 understanding [following the end of Operation Pillar of Defense – ed.], including Israel’s commitment to removing the siege and restrictions on Gaza,

Netanyahu: Qatar and Turkey are the biggest supporters of Hamas. It is impossible to rely on them to be fair mediators.

Obama: I trust Qatar and Turkey, and Israel is in no position to choose its mediators.

Barry’s and Bibi’s minions have issued denials, calling the tape/transcript a fabrication. Curiously, however, according to Artuz Sheva, the wording of their denials is almost exactly the same. Makes you wonder what’s really up with that.

UPDATE:  More on the denials at Times of Israel. Don’t miss the comments below the report. I repeat, sounds just like Wormtongue. He always makes demands. He doesn’t negotiate with anyone.

For & against a ground invasion

In favor:

“…the lack of a ground invasion empowers our enemies, diminishes our sovereignty, and will, in the long run, cost Israel more money, terrorist attacks and blood.”

Opposed:

A tank has no advantages in urban areas as it has limited maneuverability, cannot aim at upper floors and is a slow-moving, easily hit target…Soldiers…are sitting ducks for snipers. Hamas has laid mines, built tunnels underneath the houses, fortified sniper positions in strategically placed buildings.”

Gaza is a rat’s nest. IDF casualties could be high. But bombs are slow and, eventually, will have to be replaced by one of the campaign’s chief critics. Which may not be willing to cooperate.

Which move would you favor?

Via Arutz Sheva

UPDATE:  The die is cast, the ground invasion has begun. After Hamas broke the so-called truce.

Why Iran won’t build nukes

Or so says Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, vice president and prime minister of the United Arab Emirates, because, despite the war drums getting louder and louder….

“What can Iran do with a nuclear weapon?” he asked rhetorically. “For example, will they hit Israel? How many Palestinians will die? And you think if Iran hits Israel, their cities will be safe? They will be gone the next day.”

Makes sense, as far as it goes, especially coming from someone whose country is just fifty miles across the Persian Gulf from Iran. But do the Persian Mullahs have any sense? They haven’t made much so far.

The chip on Obama’s shoulder

Military affairs analyst Ralph Peters’ take on Obamalot’s Israel policy:

“It’s become a credo of the left-wing that Israel is always the oppressor,” Peters continued, “and that the Palestinian terrorists are freedom fighters, etc. … Obama’s mother [was] extremely left, his university chums are on the left, he spent 20 years with the Rev. Wright – all of their doctrines say that the Palestinians are wonderful and that the Israelis are basically Nazis… I think that the President has gotten that by osmosis… This is our first anti-Israeli President; it’s bewildering and astonishing.”

Via Arutz Sheva.

UPDATE:   Is it really a chip, or more evidence of a serious personality disorder? We’d better hope it’s no more than ignorant arrogance.

Checkpoint value

To hear the media tell it, Israel’s checkpoints don’t do much more than harrass the long-suffering Palestinians. The Palis are always trying to get the "peace process" to eliminate the security checkpoints. They usually fail because every so often, another suicide bomber tries to get through, like the 20-year-old Arab man wearing five pipe bombs who was shot and killed by the IDF at a Samaria checkpoint last night.

UN abets the Jihadis

The sins of the dictator’s club are manifest. What’s being overlooked is just who they actually help.

"When was the last time the UN sat down to condemn any of the 20-plus Muslim countries that practice wonderful social phenomena like: fostering terrorism; teaching and preaching hatred and racism; recruitment and brainwashing of children as suicide bombers; violence against women; and repression of legitimate democratic expression by civilians? The list could go on, but maybe we should ask this question a slightly different way: When was the first time the UN sat down to condemn such a country? The answer is, of course, never."