web analytics
July 31, 2015 / 15 Av, 5775
At a Glance

Posts Tagged ‘Katyusha’

Gaza Rockets Attacks and Related Retaliations

Sunday, April 28th, 2013

IAF attacked targets in Gaza, after rockets from Gaza hit Israel on Saturday night.

The IAF says they hit a weapons cache in southern Gaza.

In response to the Gazan terror attack, Israel also completely closed the Kerem Shalom crossing. The Erez crossing has also been closed to all transfers and traffic except for humanitarian purposes.

Photo-essay: Southern Israel Under Attack

Tuesday, March 13th, 2012

Life did not go on as usual today in southern Israel, for those within range of Gazan rockets.

The Iron Dome system took care of most of the more dangerous rocket strikes, but that doesn’t mean it got them all, as some still managed to hit in Israeli population centers.

Here are some pictures of what life was like today in Israel’s southern cities and towns.




Evacuating an injured woman in Ashdod


This car didn’t fare too well against a rocket


Windows got blown out from rocket strikes in Ashdod


Premature baby being moved to a bomb shelter at Barzilai Hospital in Ashkelon


(Photo credits: Flash90)


Rocket Shot at Israel Lands in Lebanon

Monday, December 12th, 2011

An Arab woman was wounded in southern Lebanon on Sunday when a Katyusha rocket aimed at Israel landed short of its mark.


The rocket was fired from the area of Bint Jbeil, a town a mile from Israel and the site of a major battle of the 2006 Second Lebanon War, and landed on an apartment building in the Lebanese border village of Hula.  Hizbullah denies connection to the attack.


Two weeks ago, rockets were fired from Lebanon to Israel, the first time since 2009.  The rockets, which landed in the western Galilee, caused property damage but no injuries.  An Al-Qaida-affiliated terror group called the Abdullah Azzam Brigades initially issued a statement taking responsibility for those attacks on “the settlements of the Zionist enemy in northern Palestine,” but later retracted.


The United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) has been deployed in Lebanon since 1978 to serve as an observing and peacekeeping force.  Its almost 14,000 troops are charged with preventing violence and terrorism in the region.

IDF Fires on Lebanon After 3 Rockets Land in Galilee

Tuesday, November 29th, 2011

The IDF fired at Lebanese targets just after midnight on Tuesday after the firing of three rockets into northern Israel.


Three rockets fired from Lebanon were located in Israeli communities near the Lebanese border in the Western Galilee.  No injuries were reported.  Police are searching for a possible fourth rocket.  The rockets are believed to have been Katyushas.

Katyusha Lands in Israel, Oct. 2009

Katyusha Lands in Israel, Oct. 2009. Hamad Almakt/Flash90


Two of the rockets landed in Netua, a small Moshav of 250 people.  A chicken coop and propane gas tank were damaged.


Another rocket has been confirmed in Biranit, with no damage reported.


Police conducted searches for a fourth rocket in the woods  near Kfar Vradim, a town of approximately 6,000 people 14 kilometers from the border with Lebanon, where residents reported hearing an explosion.


The IDF Northern Command has gone on full alert.


IDF spokespersons said the IDF considers the incident severe, and holds the Lebanese government responsible for not preventing the attacks.  The IDF said in a statement that it views the rocket attacks as a severe incident and it holds the Lebanese government and the Lebanese military responsible for preventing such actions.  Israel will file a complaint with the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), which was charged by the UN under Resolution 1701 with monitoring the border in order to prevent hostilities between Israel and Lebanon.  Under the resolution, UN troops which stood at 2,000 prior to the 2006 war were increased to a maximum of 15,000.


Army Radio reported this as the eight rocket attack on the North since Israel’s war with Hizbullah in 2006.  IDF officials believe the attacks were all conducted by Al-Qaida or Palestinian terror groups.

We Are All Gilad Shalit

Wednesday, July 9th, 2008


When Gilad Shalit was abducted two years ago, we were told that the kidnappers were part of a clandestine terror group, some sort of popular front over which Hamas had no control. But then Hamas realized that it could drop the pretense, for even if it took full responsibility for abducting Shalit, no harm would befall it. And so, without blinking an eye, the elected government that rules as a sovereign in Gaza embarked upon direct and open negotiations for the release of the abducted Israeli soldier. Ismail Haniyeh doesn’t even pretend to be a mediator. He, the Hamas leader, sets the price that will convince him – in his current capacity – to release the Israeli soldier.

In plain English, that is a declaration of war. But Israel is paralyzed. Why?

What would have happened in the Yom Kippur War if the Syrians had stationed an artillery unit in the Syrian village of Kuneitra and shelled Tiberias from its heights? Would anybody have thought it improper to retaliate because of the civilian casualties that would inevitably result? That would be ridiculous. If a sovereign government decides to go to war, it does so in the name of the entire nation. Everybody is included. There are no “innocent civilians.” If the elected government goes so far as to use a civilian platform for its attack, the responsibility for the results of any counterattack is clearly on its shoulders.

But in Israel’s case, the logic does not hold. Hamas enjoys the best of both worlds: It has territory, a democratically elected government, and international aid and recognition – all the while bearing no responsibility for its actions. It shells the Jews from inside its sovereign territory, and the Jews restrict themselves to policing the attackers alone – as if they were a gang smuggling drugs from Mexico to Texas.

Can Israel win under these circumstances? Obviously not! That is precisely the cause of the insane situation in Israel today – unique to this country alone.

Israel cannot defeat Hamas because defeating the Arabs of Judea, Samaria and Gaza (or actually dealing with the rising nationalism of Israel’s Arabs) would leave Israel alone with its Jewish identity. Victory means a return to the Biblical Land of Israel. It means reconnecting to our Biblical role models, encouraging Arabs to emigrate from our Biblical homeland, declaring sovereignty over our homeland and massive Jewish settlement. Israel’s short history proves that anything less than that is not victory.

Actually, the only real victory that Israel ever enjoyed was that of the 1948 War of Independence. In that war, Israel actualized the four principles mentioned above: conquest, Arab emigration, sovereignty and settlement. That triumph triggered a true peace process. For a while it looked like the process would end like most wars, whereby one side defeats the other and in the end both sides shake hands.

But that did not happen. The Arabs eventually realized that the Jews did not establish an independent Jewish state, but a new Israeli state. This identity-less state desperately needed the Arabs to prove just how normal it really was: no Jewish identity, just a collection of Jews, Arabs and whomever else living together without roots or religion. The logical result is that the Arabs, who hold the key to the new Israeli identity, have an insurance policy against any Israeli aggression or retaliation. That is why Israel cannot deal with the missiles flying into its sovereign territory on a near daily basis. That is also why an “Israeli” Arab MK can direct the Katyusha missiles into Haifa and laugh all the way from his interrogation in Israel to the bank in Jordan with his hefty Israeli compensation.

What will we do? Will we continue to raise white flags all the way from Gaza to Tel Aviv? Israeli mentality can no longer integrate a solution based on the principles of the War of Independence. Tens of years of leftist brainwashing have deleted the concept called “victory” from the Israeli lexicon. Concepts like “Land of Israel” or “Jewish nation” are virtually unthinkable.

The real threat to Israel is not from the military might of Iran or the Arab states. The real threat is that they won’t even need to attack. They have already discovered Israel’s weak spot, and they can watch it crumble away without a battle.

Israel must change direction and elect leadership with a Jewish orientation, leadership that draws on its internal resources for its sense of self-worth and is not dependant on the approval of other nations. If we don’t do that soon, we will all turn out to be – in the best-case scenario – Gilad Shalit.

To learn more about Manhigut Yehudit (Jewish Leadership), and to read its plan for Israel’s future, visit http://www.jewishisrael.org/.

The War Israel Chose To Lose

Wednesday, August 23rd, 2006

         It was a war Israel was more afraid of winning than of losing.
         It was a war whose battlefield strategy was based on posturing – on acting as if Israel were conducting an actual all-out war.
         It was a war in which Israel attempted to defeat the enemy by not defeating him.
         It was a war of the make-pretend.
         Let us be clear. Every war has its share of mishaps, glitches, and human errors, and this one was no exception. But this war was fought after many years of massive budget cuts for the military. Convinced that the era of peace was anon, the politicians had conducted a sort of fiscal hari-kari on the army in order to allocate far more funding for nice things like social spending and pork projects.
         The result was tanks going off to battle without basic protective electronics, and troops marching off without medicine, ammunition and food.
         But the real problem in this war was that the political elite decided to prevent the armed forces from really fighting. As a result, Israel failed to achieve any of the declared goals it had set for itself. It failed altogether to stop the Katyusha blitz on northern Israel. The day before the “cease-fire” went into effect, 250 rockets hit Israel, the largest number of any day in the war, demonstrating that Israel had not even put a crimp into the terror machine of the Hizbullah savages.
         Despite early talk of disarming Hizbullah as part of the cease-fire, within days it was revealed that Hizbullah would in fact keep all its arms but would not parade about too openly with them.
         The military tactics imposed on the Israel Defense Forces by the politicians were guaranteed to create failure. At times it seemed that the strategy of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Defense Minister Amir Peretz consisted of hoping that if Israel waited long enough, Hizbullah would just run out of rockets.
         For the first 32 days of the fighting – five times the period of time it took Israel to defeat the combined Arab military machine in 1967 – Israeli ground troops and armor were still huddled en masse inside the Israel-Lebanon border or camped just a short distance across it.
         For the first 32 days of the war Israel tried to defeat Hizbullah by bombing empty buildings, empty bunkers and “infrastructure” across Lebanon. It may well be that the air attacks on Hizbullah’s buildings failed to kill even a single terrorist.
         It was only after those 32 days, and with a UN cease-fire stopwatch already ticking, that a half-hearted “ground offensive” was launched. With the government announcing that Israel was driving for the Litani river in the final days, the ground troops made it less than a third of the way there. Bravado by the generals in announcing a massive paratroop landing at the Litani itself, or commando raids behind the enemy lines in the Baalbek Valley, proved to be nothing more than empty grandstanding. They achieved nothing. Olmert was trying to knock out rockets with a 40-mile range by taking one or two kilometers of Lebanese territory.
         The air campaign was a waste of time and resources. The film clips of empty buildings being blown to smithereens were designed to give the Israeli public little morale boosters, but not to defeat Hizbullah.
         The Olmert government, which had gone to war to win the release of the kidnapped soldiers being held hostage by the terrorists, signed a cease-fire agreement in which it gave up the demand for the soldiers’ immediate and unconditional release.
         The cease-fire was a complete capitulation by Israel, which got a promise of a few more UN troops to sunbathe in Lebanon. But UN troops have been “patrolling” the south of Lebanon since 1978 and have yet to stop a single Katyusha or mortar attack, or even a single stone from being thrown over the border fence. As Haaretz’s Avi Shavit asked sarcastically, “Did we go to war so that French soldiers will protect us from Hizbullah?”
        Throughout the war, the near-total failure of Israeli intelligence in Lebanon was obvious. But this was the direct consequence of Israel’s 2000 unilateral capitulation, in which Ehud Barak ordered all Israeli troops out of south Lebanon in what amounted to a Monty Python version of Dunkirk. As part of that capitulation, Israel abandoned its networks of informants and allies there, many of whom were murdered by Hizbullah.
         At the time of the Lebanese retreat, it was argued that the move would at least unite Israelis behind any future military retaliation should Hizbullah misbehave. But Hizbullah had been misbehaving ever since, such as when it kidnapped and murdered three Israeli soldiers soon after the withdrawal.
         Up to a point, a closing of ranks in Israel did indeed take place, with polls showing near unanimity among the general Jewish public in backing massive military retaliation. But as the days dragged by with no serious progress, the Peace through Surrender forces came back into public view. Small demonstrations led by communists were reinforced when Peace Now and Meretz joined in demanding an instant Israeli withdrawal.
         The Israeli Literary Left and much of the chattering classes had backed the war at first, but toward its end they reverted to their gut instincts, with many denouncing Israel for “war crimes” and calling for “talks” with Hizbullah. (Olmert’s own daughter was among those denouncing Israel’s actions as criminal.)
         The real problem is that Israel has been captive to the Peace through Surrender mindset for so long that it is now second nature. The open terrorist aggressions by Hizbullah, combined with the near unanimous public support for serious military action, were insufficient to put fire into the bellies of the politicians. They meowed their rage at the terror.
         The day the cease-fire went into effect, Hamas fired rockets, including a Katyusha, into Ashkelon from Gaza. So we now know where the next front will be. In the middle of the fighting Olmert announced that the war was designed to create conditions under which he could go ahead with his “contraction” plan, which in effect would turn the West Bank into a new Katyusha base for bombarding Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. Who says the Wise Men of Chelm is just a fable?
         Unless Israel’s pusillanimous leadership is replaced with people possessing vision, willingness to fight, and determination to deal effectively with the genocidal Islamofascist terrorists, Iran’s president may yet get his wish.

         Steven Plaut, a frequent contributor to The Jewish Press, is a professor at the University of Haifa. His book “The Scout” is available at Amazon.com. He can be contacted at stevenplaut@yahoo.com.

Letters To The Editor

Wednesday, April 5th, 2006

No Leadership

Last week two of my friends, Rafi and Helena HaLevy, were killed in Israel by a suicide bomber. Rafi was the town’s gardener. Helena was one of seven women in the leadership of the government of Kedumim. Rafi and Helena were gentle people. They had tremendous love for life, for the Jewish people, for the land of Israel. Their death is not only my loss but also your loss.

Today, the Jewish people are floundering because we do not have leaders who have a clear vision of what life is about. Today’s leadership does not follow in the footsteps of our ancestors. If our leadership could lead us with our forefathers’ and foremothers’ vision, the other nations would bestow respect upon and honor the Jewish people.

David Lazowick
Philadelphia, PA

Katyushas Coming Closer

While Kadima partisans were busy celebrating the election results, a Katyusha rocket was fired from the Gaza Strip into Israel for the first time.

The Katyusha rocket has a far greater range than the Kassam and can carry over 20 kilograms of explosives. Israeli military officials are alarmed but say they’ll be able to deal with the situation. Unfortunately, for all of Israel`s reliance on the goodwill of the Egyptians, this particular Katyusha was smuggled into the Gaza area from Egypt. There is no safe border crossing any longer, and as Israel chooses to ignore this situation it will only get worse.

Israelis had better wake up before the Katyushas start falling closer to the country’s population centers.

Toby Willig
Communal Effort

Your article on Yeshiva University’s Center for the Jewish Future was appreciated by many (“”New Center for the Jewish Future Attempts to Reshape More Than YU,” news story, March 31). It is, however, appropriate to acknowledge that the tuition crisis is an issue of great concern to the broader Jewish community and the Center for the Jewish Future and the Orthodox Caucus are not alone in this effort. The Rabbinical Council of America plays a role in this issue and the lead organization working on it is the Orthodox Union.

Rabbi Kenneth Brander
Center for the Jewish Future
Yeshiva University

Chabad Outreach

Re the article on Yeshiva University’s Center for the Jewish Future: I think credit should have been given to the Chabad-Lubavitch shluchim and their outreach program which has been flourishing for many years. They have been bringing back to Yiddishkeit not only to the distantly located Jew, but to the distantly affiliated Jew. No credit should be taken away from Rabbi Brander and his kollel ideas – they have worked beautifully in the Boca Raton area. But so have all the thousands of Chabad Houses and their shluchim all over the world.

Carol Walter Seidman
Boca Raton, FL
Lesson Wasted

I was shocked and disgusted when I read Shlomo Kleinbart’s letter “Sensible Shaloch Manos” (March 31). If Mr. Kleinbart is opposed to his daughters having too much nosh, was it really necessary to throw it in the trash?

Food pantries and homeless shelters welcome donations of all kinds of food, not just the canned goods they usually receive. Public workers also appreciate being remembered with gifts of food. Why not drop a bag of candy off at the fire station?

Finally, think of the thousands of troops stationed overseas. I know from experience how receiving “care packages” lifts the spirits and helps to alleviate the loneliness of these courageous men and women. The nosh that Mr. Kleinbart so callously sent off to the city dump could have gone a long way toward brightening the lives of the less fortunate and those who are making sacrifices to protect us.

If Mr. Kleinbart wants his daughters to learn about the Purim spirit, that would have been a powerful lesson to teach them.

Sharon R. Bloch, Ph.D.
(Via E-Mail)

Evolution And The Arguments Against It

Apes And Yichus

I am writing regarding the letter of Dr. Zev Stern (March 17) which was filled with insults against haredi Torah authorities, those whom he labels “so-called gedolim,” and anyone who does not believe in the theory of evolution.

He writes that he was “bemused that so many otherwise intelligent people could brush aside mountains of evidence and deny one of the most robust and fructifying theories of science.”

The reality is, there are no “mountains of evidence” for evolution.

In a letter dated 18 Teves 5722, the Lubavitcher Rebbe wrote: “.I can tell you without fear of contradiction that [evolution] has not a shred of evidence to support it. On the contrary, during the years of research and investigation since the theory was first advanced, it had been possible to observe certain species of animal and plant life of a short life-span over thousands of generations, yet it has never been possible to establish a transformation from one species into another, much less to turn a plant into an animal. Hence, such a theory can have no place in the arsenal of empirical science.

“This illustrates how a highly speculative and scientifically unsound theory can capture the imagination of the uncritical, so much so that it is even offered as a ‘scientific’ explanation of the mystery of Creation, despite the fact that the theory of evolution itself has not been substantiated scientifically and is devoid of any real scientific basis.”

The Lubavitcher Rebbe once related the following story: “When I was a child in cheder, someone came to my melamed during recess and excitedly told him about the theory of evolution. I got into a lengthy discussion with this individual attempting to show him that the theory is incorrect. The melamed then called me and said: “Mendel, why do you have to argue with him; if he doesn’t accept that he was created in Hashem’s image, and he is satisfied with the yichus of descending from an ape, let him keep his yichus.”

Rabbi Y. Minkowitz
Montreal, Canada

Wormy Theory

All the talk by evolutionists has finally gotten to me. I’m beginning to see their point of view.

Recently I picked up a few worms crawling in an old railroad yard and put them under a powerful electron microscope. What I saw was absolutely astounding: A worm’s cell magnified three billion times has an uncanny resemblance to a train window. This led me to the conclusion that if you incubate a handful of worms in a solution of amino acids and carbon compounds for approximately one and a half million years, they will eventually evolve into the Long Island Railroad.

The only problem with this otherwise solid theory is that worms have never actually been observed commuting between Long Island and Manhattan. So I went back to the railroad yard for some more research.

I lined up some of the old cars side by side and noticed how each car was slightly bigger and better developed than the one before it. The car at one end had a highly sophisticated and powerful air conditioning system, while the car at the opposite end had not even a fan. The only trace of air conditioning found in one underdeveloped car was the fossil of a conductor slapping an elderly woman with his cap to create some air disturbance. (His cap, incidentally, has been known to be extinct for at least seven and a half billion years – it had no union label.)

It’s quite obvious that my discovery overshadows the somewhat popular but fanatical notion that trains may have been manufactured by intelligent beings. The “intelligent beings” theory would imply a labor union. So far, none of the trains studied shows any traces of major medical benefits, pension funds, or sick leave. How such a ridiculous theory even got started is beyond me.

But how did the first worm come into existence?

Well, in the beginning there was one big hook. Nature found it rather absurd to have one big hook without worms. In a few short billions of years, worms began to materialize around the hook. When the first trout started biting, nature found it necessary to produce more worms to keep up with the fishing season. Eventually, there was an abundance of worms, which led to the invention of the can (you have to keep the worms somewhere).

I now call this the Big Bait theory. And yes, it all began with a can of worms. Find all this a little hard to believe? Wait until I find the missing link – a train without wheels that used to crawl on its caboose.

Josh Greenberger
Brooklyn, NY

Skeptical Scientists

“Evolution is baseless and quite incredible.” – John Ambrose Fleming, president, British Association for Advancement of Science, in The Unleashing of Evolutionary Thought.

“The theory [of evolution] is a scientific mistake.” – Harvard University professor and glaciation pioneer Louis Agassiz, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation.

“The fact is that the evidence was so patchy one hundred years ago that even Darwin himself had increasing doubts as to the validity of his views. His general theory, that all life on earth had originated and evolved by a gradual successive accumulation of fortuitous mutations, is still, as it was in Darwin’s time, a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct factual support and very far from that self-evident axiom some of its more aggressive advocates would have us believe.” – Australian molecular biologist Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis.

“There is no evidence in the fossil record of one kind of creature becoming another kind. No transitional links or intermediate forms between various kinds of creatures have ever been found.the evolutionist claims that it took perhaps fifty million years for a fish to evolve into an amphibian. But, again, there are no transitional forms.Nowhere do we see animals with partially evolved legs, eyes, brains, or various other tissues, organs, and biological structures.” – Genetecist B.G. Ranganathan, Origins? :

“I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science.” – Charles Darwin, in a letter to Harvard professor of biology Asa Gray, N.C. Gillespie, Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation.

“To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.” – Charles Darwin, On the origin of Species by Means of Natural Selections, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life.

Yosef Hertzman
(Via E-Mail)

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/letters-to-the-editor/letters-to-the-editor-131/2006/04/05/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: