web analytics
January 23, 2017 / 25 Tevet, 5777

Posts Tagged ‘wrong’

Keith Ellison – The Wrong Man at the Wrong Time

Wednesday, December 7th, 2016

What should a political party that has just lost its white working-class, blue-collar base to a “make America great again” nationalist do to try to regain these voters? Why not appoint as the new head of the party a radical left-wing ideologue who has a long history of supporting an anti-American, anti-white, anti-Semitic Nation of Islam racist? Such an appointment will surely bring back rust-belt voters who have lost their jobs to globalization and free trade! Is this really the thinking of those Democratic leaders who are pushing for Keith Ellison to head the Democratic National Committee?

Keith Ellison is, by all accounts, a decent guy, who is well liked by his congressional colleagues. But it is hard to imagine a worse candidate to take over the DNC at this time. Ellison represents the extreme left wing of the Democratic Party, just when the party — if it is to win again — must move to the center in order to bring back the voters it lost to Trump. The Democrats didn’t lose because their candidates weren’t left enough. They won the votes of liberals. The radical voters they lost to Jill Stein were small in number and are not likely to be influenced by the appointment of Ellison. The centrist voters they lost to Trump will only be further alienated by the appointment of a left-wing ideologue, who seems to care more about global issues than jobs in Indiana, Wisconsin and Michigan. Ellison’s selection certainly wouldn’t help among Jewish voters in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania or pro-Israel Christian voters around the country.

Ellison’s sordid past associations with Louis Farrakhan — the long time leader of the Nation of Islam — will hurt him in Middle America, which has little appetite for Farrakhan’s anti-American ravings. Recently, Farrakhan made headlines for visiting Iran on the 35th anniversary of the Islamic Revolution where he berated the United States, while refusing to criticize Iran’s human rights violations. Farrakhan also appeared as a special guest speaker of the Iranian president at a rally, which featured the unveiling of a float reenacting Iran’s detention of 10 U.S. Navy sailors in the Persian Gulf.

In addition to embracing American enemies abroad, Farrakhan has exhibited a penchant for lacing his sermons with anti-Semitic hate speech. Around the time that Ellison was working with the Nation of Islam, for example, Farrakhan was delivering speeches attacking “the synagogue as Satan.” He described Jews as “wicked deceivers of the American people” that have “wrapped [their] tentacles around the U.S. government” and are “deceiving and sending this nation to hell.” Long after Jesse Jackson disavowed Farrakhan in 1984 as “reprehensible and morally indefensible” for describing Judaism as a “gutter religion,” Ellison was defending Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam in 1995 as a role model for African-Americans, calling him “a tireless public servant of Black people, who constantly teaches self-reliance and self-examination to the Black community.”

Ellison has struggled to explain his association with Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam. He has acknowledged working with the Nation of Islam for about 18 months to organize the Minnesota delegation to Farrakhan’s 1995 Million Man March in Washington. However, Ellison insists that he never joined the Nation of Islam and more recently, he has held himself out as a friend of the Jewish people and of Israel. This late conversion coincided with Ellison’s decision to pursue elected office in Minnesota, and an apparent realization that his association with the Nation of Islam might hurt his political fortunes. In 2006, he wrote a letter to the Jewish Community Relations Council in Minneapolis, in which he apologized for failing to “adequately scrutinize the positions” of Farrakhan and other Nation of Islam leaders. “They were and are anti-Semitic, and I should have come to that conclusion earlier than I did.” In his recently released memoir “My Country, ‘Tis of Thee: My Faith, My Family, Our Future,” Ellison writes of Farrakhan:

“He could only wax eloquent while scapegoating other groups” and of the Nation of Islam “if you’re not angry in opposition to some group of people (whites, Jews, so-called ‘sellout’ blacks), you don’t have religion.”

Ellison’s voting record also does not support his claim that he has become a “friend” of Israel. He was one of only 8 Congressmen who voted against funding the Iron Dome program, developed jointly by the U.S. and Israel, which helps protect Israeli civilians from Hamas rockets. In 2009, Ellison was one of only two dozen Congressmen to vote “present” rather than vote for a non-binding resolution “recognizing Israel’s right to defend itself against attacks from, reaffirming the United States’ strong support for Israel, and supporting the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.” And in 2010, Ellison co‐authored a letter to President Obama, calling on him to pressure Israel into opening the border with Gaza. The letter describes the blockade of the Hamas-controlled Gaza strip as “de facto collective punishment of the Palestinian residents.”

Even beyond Ellison’s past associations with anti-American and anti-Semitic bigotry and his troubling current voting record with regard to Israel, his appointment as head of the DNC would be a self-inflicted wound on the Democratic Party at this critical time in its history. It would move the party in the direction of left-wing extremism at a time when centrist stability is required. The world at large is experiencing a movement toward extremes, both right and left. The Democratic Party must buck that dangerous trend and move back to the center where the votes are, and where America should be.

Alan M. Dershowitz

The Politically Foolish American Jews Get it Wrong – Again

Thursday, October 20th, 2016
I can’t believe that I’m finding myself passionately defending U.S. Republican candidate Donald Trump and hoping (probably in vain) that he wins. I even decided to cast my vote, although I wavered back and forth about it so many times over the past several months. Trump has flaws, no doubt, but the vicious campaign against him is so disgusting that I can’t stand it, and the mainstream Jewish community is as stupid as ever.

I keep telling myself not to be so obsessed, it takes up too much time and energy, but something always happens that gets me to the core. This time, after Shabbat ended, when I saw all the hysteria about his comments regarding Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton and the “international bankers” – hysteria instigated by the likes of the agenda-driven ADL, spread by the left-wing media and swallowed by the gullible masses – I was so furious. He never mentioned the word “Jew.”

Instead, they should be worried about the Nazis of THIS generation, the Radical Islamists, and the fact that the White House has so many ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. They’re acting exactly as they did during WWII, when American Jews worshiped FDR, who was an anti-Semite, and ruined any efforts by groups like the Bergson Group, which tried to save Jews but were foiled by leading Reform Rabbi Stephen Wise and the mainstream Jewish organizations. If you don’t know what I’m talking about, check out sources like the Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies (wymaninstitute.org).

Trump is definitely not an anti-Semite. It’s lucky he has Jewish grandchildren (unlike many of the mainstream Jews who no longer do), because if he didn’t, he could become an anti-Semite only because of all the unwarranted vicious attacks.

So many otherwise intelligent people fall for Michelle Obama’s eloquent denunciation of Trump while ignoring all of the equally repulsive information about the Clintons.

To those who worry about the likes of KKK supporting Trump, there are plenty of vicious anti-Semites on the Clinton side – modern-day anti-Semites – such as the actively anti-Israel Black Lives Matter movement and the violent anti-Semites across U.S. campuses.

I’m seriously worried about the future of America. If either of the main candidates has dictatorial tendencies, it has to be Hillary, who, for example, was involved in stealing so many votes from her Democratic competitor, Bernie Sanders. I’m no fan of Sanders, to say the least, but the American people have the right to vote for the candidate of their choice. How amazing it is that there was no uproar when that scandal broke.

The Islamic threat today is probably the most threatening situation facing not only Jews, but Western civilization, since the 1940s. The American Jewish establishment – admittedly – failed back then. But it seems they haven’t learned their lesson.

Atara Beck

Foreign Leaders Eulogize Peres – for the Wrong Reason

Sunday, October 2nd, 2016

{Originally posted to the author’s website, Abu Yehida}

As I write, the funeral for Shimon Peres is in progress at Mt. Herzl in Jerusalem.

Numerous “world leaders” like Barack Obama, Prince Charles, Justin Trudeau, Francois Hollande, Bill Clinton, Ban Ki-Moon, Tony Blair, the EU’s Donald Tusk, and many other important and not-so-important personages are there. Even Mahmoud Abbas, whose Fatah movement demonized Peres as recently as yesterday, is present. Obama will be the last foreign speaker.

The main roads between Jerusalem and Tel Aviv will be closed before and after the event. Many streets in Jerusalem are closed, and traffic on alternate routes is expected to be nightmarish. Hamas has declared today a “day of rage” in honor of “criminal” Peres. I can imagine that every policeman and security person in the country is on duty. Arab and Jewish “extremists” have been preventively detained. The funeral itself will be closed to the Israeli public for security reasons.

I am sure that this is what Peres wanted – enjoying adulation was a weakness of his – but personally, I find it distasteful, even offensive.

The funeral should have been held on the day that he died, as is customary in Judaism. Then it would have been impossible for most of these political celebrities to be here, and that would have been as it should be. The people of Israel who actually care for Peres would have come, the Israelis who know about his tireless work in the 1950s and 60s when he managed the relationship with France that got Israel military hardware that no one else would sell us, when he created the Israeli arms industry and spearheaded the development of Israel’s nuclear deterrent. There are even some that remember and appreciate Peres’ support for the settlement project in the 1970s.

The foreign guests don’t know much about Peres’ contributions to our security, and I suspect he wouldn’t be quite so popular with them if they did. What they admire about him was his leading role in the Oslo Accords, which several commentators have called “the greatest strategic mistake in Israel’s history,” and his continued support of the “peace process,” despite its profound and bloody failure. They are sorry to see him go because he could be used to support their objective of piecemeal dismemberment of the land of Israel.

Future historians will decide whether Peres’ early successes cancel his later disastrous failure. But there is no doubt of his sincerity. He did his almost superhuman best, sacrificing his personal life for his work. He dedicated himself to the state of Israel and the Jewish people. And there is no doubt that many of our guests would like to see that state disappear and that people finally leave the stage of history, which is why they laud Peres’ worst hour as his finest.

I wish they weren’t here, not the ones responsible for the millions that European nations give to subversive Israeli NGOs, or the one who freed Iran to develop nuclear weapons and gave them billions for terrorism. We don’t need to listen to another lecturing, self-serving Obama speech, or to Bill Clinton comparing Shimon Peres to John Lennon. We certainly don’t need more traffic and security headaches.

But all things pass. Later today, the politicians that are praising Peres for the wrong reasons will go home. Hotel guests that were kicked out of their rooms to accommodate their entourages will be able to return, and the traffic jams will finally thin out. Soon it will be Shabbat, and then the Jewish people will mourn their loss among themselves.

Vic Rosenthal

HEADING in the Wrong Direction

Monday, September 19th, 2016

{Originally posted to the author’s eponymous blogsite}

Last night, I saw a post on Facebook that should cause any G-d fearing individual to shudder upon reading it. Recently, a young boy had sustained a head injury (according to some, by being hit in the head with a baseball) and a Rav in their local community made the following suggestion:

aa

Yes, according to this post, the way to ensure this young boys has a refuah shlema is that women should wear a snood or a scarf instead of a sheitel/wig for the next 30 days.

I fully understand the GENERAL idea of people taking an act upon themselves that corresponds to the part of the body wherein someone was injuredת in order to act as a zechut (merit) for the injured. HOWEVER….Why, oh whyת is it always, always, always women who need to make an adjustment to help bring about a refuah for an injured or sick individual??

You might ask yourself: What in the world would a man be able to do that would have a similar efficacious result? As the post says, since the injury was in the head, then zechuyot from various actions by others, in the area of the head, may be able to affect refuah.

So, let’s look at some of the ways a MAN can do something in this situation:

  1. Check your Tefillin shel Rosh (the tefillin that go on the HEAD). Perhaps there is something that is not in order with the parshiot inside?
  2. Make sure the Tefillin shel Rosh is always straight when on your HEAD.
  3. Make sure that your payot are not cut too short on the side of your HEAD.
  4. Your mind, residing in your HEAD, is one of the most powerful tools to combat evil and with which to do good….exercise that mind/brain for GOOD.
  5. Your eyes, that are in your HEAD, should be used for proper things and not for improper areas.
  6. Your mouth that is in your HEAD–lashon hara, speaking ill of anyone; eating without a proper bracha; davening as if you were reading the NY Times; lying, etc etc…all are actions that can be worked on as well.

Yes, indeed the permanent, knee-jerk reaction is to tell WOMEN to make a change that may help bring about a refuah for someone sick or for some other ill that plagues a community.

BUT…it is time that the rabbanim look inward and tell their MALE constituency that there is plenty that can be done by them, too!

We can not ever pretend we know how G-d thinks, for His thoughts are not like humans. Yet, we can do our best to bring about different zechuyot (merits) for those in need and in pain. Yes, we can indeed take upon ourselves certain actions that MAY make a difference to another person or group of people. Again, we do not know how G-d works, but as humans and His servants can only do our best.

But there are men and women out there, and BOTH can and should participate in these actions.

May Hashem send a refuah shlema to Dov Ber ben Shoshana Raiza!

Rav Zev Shandalov

INTO THE FRAY: Ethnic Cleansing—Why Bibi was Quite Right…and Dangerously Wrong

Sunday, September 18th, 2016

…the Palestinian leadership actually demands a Palestinian state with one precondition: no Jews! There’s a phrase for that. It’s called ethnic cleansing. And this demand is outrageous. What is even more outrageous is that the world doesn’t find this outrageous. Some otherwise enlightened countries even promote this outrage. – Benjamin Netanyahu, September 9, 2016

Late last Friday, the Prime Minister’s office—for no immediately obvious reason—released a video, in which Benjamin Netanyahu condemned the frequently raised demand by the Palestinians, that any future state of theirs must be devoid of Jews, as “Ethnic Cleansing”.

Incandescent response

The video produced an incandescent response from the Obama administration. Thus, U.S. State Department spokeswoman Elizabeth Trudeau berated Netanyahu in a Washington press conference last Friday. Disapprovingly, she proclaimed: “We obviously strongly disagree with the characterization that those who oppose settlement activity or view it as an obstacle to peace are somehow calling for ethnic cleansing of Jews from the West Bank,” She added tartly: “We believe that using that type of terminology is inappropriate and unhelpful.” “Strongly disagree”, “inappropriate”, “unhelpful” is about as barbed and caustic as formal niceties of protocol allow diplomatic rebukes to get—especially when the target of the censure is, allegedly, a close ally.

Trudeau then went on to catalogue a long list of so-called Israeli “transgressions”, denouncing “ongoing settlement activity [a]s an obstacle to peace”—as if that had any bearing on Netanyahu’s decrying Palestinian demands to purge Jews from existing settlements. Calling “on both sides to demonstrate with actions and policies a genuine commitment to the two-state solution” she lamented: “We have repeatedly expressed our strong concerns that trends on the ground continue to move in the opposite direction”…

Then, reading from an obviously pre-prepared document, she launched into a tirade, castigating Israel for building “thousands of [housing]units for Israelis in the West Bank”; seizing “West bank land for exclusive Israeli use; a dramatic escalation of demolitions of…Palestinian structures, displacing more than 1000 Palestinians”—conveniently omitting that the bulk of these demolitions were of structures initiated and

funded by the EU, with the express purpose of flaunting Israeli authority and provoking Israeli response.

Alluding to nefarious Israeli intent, Trudeau added darkly: “…this does raise real questions about Israel’s long-term intentions in the West Bank.”

Outrageous and outlandish

But the US wrath was not only outrageous; it was equally outlandish. Indeed, it did not even address the point that Netanyahu raised—and for which he was being so severely admonished.

After all, whatever one might believe regarding the legality of the Jewish communities in Judea-Samaria (pejoratively, known as “settlements”), or the prudence of their ongoing expansion, this is a totally separate issue from the admissibility of the presence of Jews within the frontiers of any future Palestinian entity.

This is particularly true because not only is the legality of the Jewish communities a matter hotly debated by an array of prominent jurists and legal experts, but Trudeau herself states: “Settlements are a final status issue that must be resolved in negotiations between the parties.”

And it is here that Netanyahu has put his finger precisely on the point: For it is the Palestinians’ clearly stated position on this “final status issue” that the presence of Jews is so odious and objectionable that any future peace agreement is feasible only if Palestinian-controlled territory is totally purged of them.

Purposely conflating & obfuscating two separate issues

Thus, in its wrathful response to Netanyahu’s video, the Administration is purposely conflating—and obfuscating—two entirely separate issues:

(a) Undisguised and un-denied Palestinian demands for Judeophobic ethnic cleansing; and

(b) The legal status and political significance of existing Jewish communities..

Accordingly, Netanyahu was being bitterly rebuked for what he didn’t refer to (i.e. the status of the “settlements”), while what he did refer to (i.e. Palestinian Judeophobic demands) was not even addressed! This was hardly an inadvertent oversight on the part of the State Department—as Anne Bayefsky deftly points out in her “All Jews out of Palestine is not a peace plan”, (September 14, 2016). She argues that the reason for the “sudden [US] histrionics” is that “the charge of ethnic cleansing directed against Palestinians is the quintessential inconvenient truth.”

And indeed it is!

For to acknowledge the blatant Judeophobic—indeed, Judeocidal—impulses that characterize Palestinian society, and reflect themselves in their pervasive presence throughout all walks of Palestinian life, is to critically undermine the rationale of the two-state doctrine. After all, this is a doctrine that aims at creating a reality of two-states, living harmoniously side-by-side in peace and prosperity. Clearly, it makes little sense to strive for such a reality if the enmity of one side is so profound and abiding that it cannot tolerate the presence of the other side’s citizens within its frontiers.

From the silly to the surreal

Thus, by raising the issue of Palestinian Judeophobic bigotry, Netanyahu’s video has induced public scrutiny of Palestinian society—something two-state advocates are understandably reluctant to do. For, indeed, the spectacle is not an encouraging one—hardly conducive to their vision of a peaceful resolution of the conflict. Hence the anger it has aroused.

The vehement responses the video elicited ranged from the silly, through the surreal, to the sinister. The mainstream media quickly rallied around the Bibi-bashing banner.

Thus, the LA Times headline blazoned: “U.S. slams Netanyahu after he equates opposition to Israeli settlements with ‘ethnic cleansing’”—which of course he didn’t. What he did was to equate the demand to remove all Jews from any prospective Palestinian state with ethnic cleansing – which of course it is.

Then, there was the particularly disturbing and disappointing op-ed by the national-director of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), Jonathan Greenblatt, who took Netanyahu to task for invoking the term “ethnic cleansing”. He conceded that “Israel has many legitimate concerns about Palestinian policies and behavior, not the least of which is Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas’s rash accusations that Israel commits acts of genocide and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians.”

“However” he complained, “the charge that the Palestinians seek ‘ethnic cleansing’ of settlers is just not one of them.” But of course it is—unless you can think of another term for the coercive purge of a group of people because of their collective identity…

“Haaretz” unhinged

The Netanyahu video unleased a maelstrom of almost apoplectic radical Left-wing ire. This expressed itself in an unsurprising kneejerk display of “groupthink” in “Haaretz”, which, ironically, once advertised itself as the “paper for people who think”. It ran a frenzied anti-Bibi spate of largely similar and repetitive news reports and opinion pieces in rapid succession. The list of titles is instructive in itself:

“U.S. Slams Netanyahu’s ‘Ethnic Cleansing’ Video, Calling It ‘Inappropriate and Unhelpful’” (Barak Ravid, Sept. 10); “Netanyahu Accused of Twisting History in ‘Ethnic

Cleansing’ Video (Jack Khoury and Barak Ravid, Sept. 10); “ Netanyahu’s Claim of ‘Ethnic Cleansing’ Sets a Guinness Record for Chutzpah” (Chemi Shalev Sept. 10); “Yes, Netanyahu, Let’s Talk About Ethnic Cleansing (Gideon Levy, Sept. 11); “Netanyahu’s ‘Ethnic Cleansing’ Video Pushes Obama Closer to UN Security Council (Barak Ravid, Sept.11); “The Real Message Behind Netanyahu’s ‘Ethnic Cleansing’ Speech” (Yitzhak Laor ,Sept. 13); Where’s the outrage over Trump campaign’s shocking statement on ‘ethnic cleansing’? (Asher Schechter , Sept. 13); “Trump Would Be Proud of Netanyahu’s anti-Palestinian Ethnic Cleansing Canard” (Peter Beinart, Sep 14); “Netanyahu’s ‘Ethnic Cleansing’ Video Is Leading Us Down the Road to Masada Redux” (Nehemia Shtrasler Sept. 13).

All these portend the gloom and doom that will befall Israel because Netanyahu had the temerity to designate the demand to expel the members of a community from their homes because of their group affiliation, as “bigotry”—which it undeniably is!

Caveat: Them ain’t Us

But not all the criticism against Netanyahu is without merit. Several critics took him to task for drawing a potential parallel between Israel’s Arab minority within pre-1967 lines and the Jewish communities located in Judea-Samaria. He raised the possibility that this could serve as a model for a peaceful future.

While this might be an enticing scenario to entertain in some parallel universe, where the Palestinian-Arabs are very different to those in this one, in the realities of today, and those likely to prevail in any policy-relevant future, it is a recipe for gory disaster.

Little imagination is required to envision the gruesome fate of any Jewish enclave inside Palestinian-Arab territory and subject to Palestinian-Arab authority—especially if there was no territorial contiguity with sovereign Israel. Indeed, according to far-left Peter Beinart, even the ultra-concessionary Tzipi Livni balked at the idea of abandoning Jews inside areas controlled by the Palestinians. Now, although Beinart is not my preferred source of reference, he does raise a valid point in his previously cited Haaretz piece. He recalls talks that took place in 2008, in which the theoretical possibility of leaving Jewish communities within Palestinian territory was raised. Beinart notes that although these “discussions were speculative…the clear implication [was] that Israeli negotiators had a bigger problem with Jews remaining in a Palestinian state than did their Palestinian counterparts.”

And therein lies the perilous pitfall entailed in Israel disapprovingly brandishing the issue of allegedly implacable Palestinian demands for ethnic cleansing of Jews from any territory transferred to their control. For, quite apart from the fact that transferring/abandoning Jews living under Jewish authority to live under alien sovereignty is the very antithesis of the Zionist ethos, there is another more immediate impediment: While non-Jewish minorities may well flourish in

Israel, Jewish minorities in “Palestine” are very likely to be massacred. For the bitter truth is: Them ain’t us.

The limits of gimmicks

Regrettably, for anyone who nominally endorses the Palestinian-Arabs claim to statehood, flaunting their ostensible demand for the “ethnic cleansing” is a gimmick of limited efficacy—for at least two reasons:

(a) If the Palestinians are indeed seen as an authentic national entity, then their demand to national independence cannot be conditioned on the form of government they choose to institute. It certainly cannot be made dependent on it having a tolerant, open society –just as this is not invoked to negate the sovereignty of an array of brutal tyrannies across the globe—whether Iran, Saudi Arabia or North Korea to name but a few. Strangely enough, I find myself in agreement with Beinart, when he states that “potential future misdeeds do not justify holding a people as non-citizens under foreign control”.

(b) It is far from certain that the Palestinians will continue insisting on purging all the Jewish residents in the territories to be transferred to their control. Indeed, they may well agree to it, even as a temporary tactic. Thus, corroborating Beinart’s earlier remark, Elias Zananiri, vice-chairman of the PLO Committee for Interaction with the Israeli Society, writes in his “Netanyahu’s ‘ethnic cleansing’ gimmick” (Sept. 13): “In the Annapolis peace conference in November 2007, the Palestinian side expressed readiness in principle to host those settlers who would choose to stay where they live in the West Bank. Of course, these settlers would live under Palestinian sovereignty and law.”

Clearly, if the Palestinian-Arabs were to drop their demand for having a “Judenrein” state but demanded that any non-Palestinian resident accept these conditions, with expulsion now no longer a demand, Israel would have with little reason to object.

Gimmicks are not policy

Thus, raising the issue of Palestinian Judeophobic bigotry is an effective measure only if it is invoked to permanently deny, not temporarily delay, Palestinian statehood. While gimmicks may well be effective in promoting policy, they are not a substitute for policy. For Israel, such policy must be the total dis-creditation, de-construction and de-legitimization of the Palestinian narrative and the resultant claim for statehood. In so far as the exposure of the scope and scale of the Palestinian Judeophobic bigotry can be used to promote this policy, it should be utilized.

Using it for other short term, tactical purposes, is liable to be a dangerous double-edged sword.

Dr. Martin Sherman

IDF Kills Arab Bystander in 443 Terrorist Ambush

Tuesday, June 21st, 2016

A well orchestrated ambush by Arabs on Rt. 443, the alternative highway connecting the Tel Aviv metro area with Jerusalem via Modi’in, which resulted in three Israelis injured from stones and broken glass and damage to a dozen vehicles, also ended with an IDF rescue force shooting an apparently innocent Arab youth who was in a car that drove by the incident.

An IDF spokesperson said that after a group of Arab youths had hurled rocks and Molotov cocktails at moving Israeli vehicles on route 443, “Israeli forces acted to protect additional vehicles from immediate danger and fired toward the suspects and bystanders were mistakenly hit.”

According to motorists who spoke to News 0404, late Monday night masked Arab terrorists poured oil on the highway about two miles east of the Maccabim check post, then stood by the side of the road and as each Israeli car arrived and started swerving on the oil, they smashed it with very large stones. At least 12 vehicles were seriously damaged, as windows and windshields were cracked and broken, as well as the sides and roofs.

David Israel

Experts: Putin Sent Israel the Wrong Missing Tank

Friday, June 17th, 2016

Last week, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accepted in a heartfelt ceremony from Russian President Vladimir Putin a Magach-3 Israeli tank that had been captured by the Syrians in the 1982 Battle of Sultan Yacoub in the First Lebanon War, and had been on display in a museum in the Moscow area. Netanyahu posted in his Facebook page: “My wife Sara and I have participated today in an emotional ceremony of returning the tank that had fallen in Syrian captivity during the Battle of Sultan Yacoub in the First Lebanon War.” But now, according to Yedioth Aharonoth, one week after Israel received the tank in which the still missing in action Israeli fighters had met their demise, it appears, to the chagrin of the mourning families, that it may not be the same tank.

On June 10, 1982, IDF 90th Armored Division was rushed forward with orders to gain as much ground as possible before a cease-fire would come into effect. Late that night the force fought its way through Syrian infantry in the Lebanese village of Sultan Yacoub, in the eastern Beqaa Valley, only four miles from the Syrian border. Apparently, in its rush to gain ground, coupled with intelligence failures, the force was cut off and surrounded by Syrian army units. At dawn, the force broke out and escaped to the south, supported by Israeli artillery. The battle lasted six hours resulting in the force losing eight tanks and 30 men. The force was unable to destroy the disabled Magach-3 tanks they left behind and those were recovered by the Syrians, and were put on display in Russia and in the Tishreen Panorama Military Museum in Damascus. Three IDF soldiers remain missing in action: Zachary Baumel, an Israeli-US citizen, Yehuda Katz and Zvi Feldman. These soldiers were captured and paraded through Damascus on top of their captured tank.

Returned tank lands in Israel / Courtesy

Returned tank lands in Israel / Courtesy

In his Facebook post, Netanyahu noted that the returned tank is “the only testimony to our missing soldiers from that battle… For 34 years we’ve been searching for our fighters and will not cease the search until we inter them in a Jewish cemetery in the State of Israel. For these 34 years the Baumel, Katz and Feldman families have not had a gravesite to visit. Now they’ll have this tank, a remnant from the Sultan Yacoub battle which they can visit and touch and remember their sons in Israel.”

Not really, says tank expert Lt. Col. (Ret) Michael Mas, who told Yedioth the returned tank is not the one inside which the three missing soldiers were fighting. “It’s very sad that the prime minister and the media follow misinformation,” Mas said. “This is not the tank that belonged to the missing. What was returned is a whole tank, and the tanks where the missing fought look different. While this is for sure one of the eight tanks captured by the Syrians in the battle, this tank bears no mark of any injuries. When Netanyahu said that the families who haven’t had a gravesite to visit will now find peace, he committed two errors: one, it’s not their tank; and two, they’re missing, not dead.”

Returned tank in Israel / Courtesy

Returned tank in Israel / Courtesy

Pirchia Heiman, Yehuda Katz’s sister, responded angrily, telling Yedioth: “All the families of the missing are enraged. What do we need all these spins for?” She asked, adding, “Since I’ve heard of the plan to return the tank I waited eagerly, I couldn’t sleep at night. Ten days ago they conducted the ceremony in Russia and there Ndetanyahu said the families would have this tank ‘to be able to touch it and the memory of their sons,” and he already knew it was the wrong tank, but we didn’t. Only the next day did we get the right shield number for the tank, not through the IDF, and I realized this wasn’t Yehuda’s tank.”

At this point it should be noted that PM Netanyahu could have avoided this embarrassment had he read up IDF reports filed 18 years ago, which determined after a thorough examination of the tank on display in Russia that it’s not the tank that belonged to the missing soldiers, and that the soldiers who fought in this tank were able to flee the scene unharmed and are alive and well.

Here’s another embarrassing point Netanyahu could have saved himself had he read the IDF reports: the three missing soldiers fought in two different tanks, one of which was burnt beyond recognition, and neither of which is the returned tank. Like cars, tanks receive identifying numbers, and this tank, 817581, is not the one.

Or, as Lt. Col. (res) Danny Krief put it, “Clearly, the Russians didn’t care which tank they handed over, and that’s what Netanyahu used for his gimmick.”

JNi.Media

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/experts-putin-sent-israel-the-wrong-missing-tank/2016/06/17/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: