Mahzor

New York Public Library

Churches

Sarajevo Haggadah

Mah Nishtanah

Sarajevo haggadah

Antaea Darom

Israeli women's art

Action

Torah as music

Ben Heine

Action

ceramic bowl

Mohammad Said Kalash, "Offering Reconciliation" exhibit (photo: Ilan Amihai)

Action

Punch and Judy/Pinchas and Jamila

Avi Katz

Action

David Grossman

Ben Heine

Action

Eldrige Street shul

Lower East Side

Action

Dove

Ben Heine

Action

Two birds

Hoda Jamal

Action

Israeli and Palestinian boys

from documentary, Promises

Action

Cat in the Hat

Yiddish version

Action

Daylight through the Wall

Banksy: graffiti art on Separation Wall

Action

Maurice Sendak's Brundibar set

New Victory Theater (photo: Nan Melville/NYT)

Action

Daniel Barenboim, West-Eastern Divan Orchestra

Palestinian-Israeli musical ensemble (photo: Kerstin Joensson/AP)

Action

Great Day on Eldrige Street

N.Y.'s klezmer greats celebrate shul rededication (photo: Leo Sorel)

Action

Joint Appeal for Peace

(Avi Katz)

Joint Appeal for Peace

Ketubah, Ancona, Italy (1772)

(Jewish Theological Seminary library)

Ancona ketubah

Posts Tagged ‘iran’

U.S. Continues Deadly Game: Drone Beast Busted Over Iran

Sunday, December 4th, 2011
rq 170 stealth drone

U.S. Air Force's RQ-170 stealth drone

The deadly game the U.S. and Israel are playing with Iran continued today with news that a U.S. advanced technology stealth drone had fallen or been downed (depending on who you talk to) inside Iran.  The Iranians claim the vehicle was the U.S.’ most advanced Sentinel stealth drone also known as the Beast of Kandahar.  This plane was likely unarmed and had a solely surveillance mission.  The U.S. is not only interested in spying on Iran’s nuclear program, it is seeking proof of the extent of the damage in Isfahan to the uranium enrichment plant there from an explosion last week.  Since the Beast was used to surveill Osama bin Laden’s compound in the week’s before his assassination, the craft might also be tracking individuals or spying on military/government compounds as well.

The U.S. says the drone had a malfunction and that operators lost contact with it, which caused it to enter into Iranian airspace and crash.  The Iranian claim that it shot down the plane seems contradicted by the accompanying claim that there was little damage to the craft that was recovered.  Whatever the truth of the story, the Iranians may now have access to a fairly complete version of the most advanced aerial surveillance technology in the U.S. arsenal.  As the NY Times notes, negotiations are probably underway as we speak with Russian or Chinese representatives who would be dying to have a crack at it so that they can steal the technology and incorporate it into their own designs.  Not to mention they will be able to develop systems to counter the drone and its capabilities.  So if Hezbollah can’t now bring the plane down, it may be able to shortly.

Bloggers on the left, some of whom have been taking potshots at me as a dupe of Israeli intelligence for my reporting on Israeli acts of sabotage against Iran and Hezbollah, have claimed that the Iranians may’ve discovered ways to jam ground communications with the drones, thus enabling them to cause them to crash.  Hezbollah has also leaked such stories to the Lebanese press attempting to explain an Israeli drone that crashed a few weeks ago in southern Lebanon.  The theory might be that if Iran has developed such technology it may’ve shared it with Hezbollah.  The only problem is that Hezbollah has not taken credit for downing the Israeli drone and Iran doesn’t say it jammed the U.S. drone, but that it shot it down.

I’m doubtful that Iran shot the Sentinel down for the reason I mentioned above, and as it has made similar claims regularly over the past few years which the U.S. has disputed.  If the Iranians have figured out how to fool the drone’s communications systems I still haven’t seen any evidence of it.  But I remain open to the possibility if anyone can offer any.

Missile Blast Disrupted Research on New Iranian Weapon Designed to Counter Israel

Thursday, November 17th, 2011

Earlier today, Iranian officials made two contradictory sets of statements about the blast at the missile base two days ago, which killed 17 IRG soldiers including the “father of the Iranian missile program.  Majlis speaker Lariani denied any Israeli involvement in the incident saying it was a “fiction” not even worth wasting time discussing.

An IRG official, while denying Israeli involvement, revealed that the weapon which Brig. Gen. Moghadam was testing, and which caused the explosion, was a new one specifically designed to counter the Israeli threat:

“The incident happened during a research program which could have become a severe punch on [the] Israeli regime’s mouth,” General Hassan Firouzabadi said…

ISNA news agency quoted the general as saying that due to the incident “the program was only temporarily stopped but would resume again soon.”

AFP reported the story with an important difference in nuance:

…The base was being used in the production of “an experimental product” being developed to unleash “a strong fist in the face” of the United States and Israel.

He did not elaborate, but said development of the military product had been delayed by “two weeks” because of the blast.

You tell me: if Lariani is right and Israel had nothing to do with it and it was an accident, why would the IRG feel the need to reveal anything about the nature of the incident or the research that was involved in it?  Why would they also pointedly note that the weapon was designed to counter an Israeli-U.S. threat?  Also, the Iranians have claimed officially that the explosion occurred when ammunition was being moved at the base.  If the testing of a new weapon (“experimental product”) was the actual cause, then this is a flat-out contradiction to the original.

Further, Iranian reports now concede that the number of dead was almost double what was reported originally.  There were funerals yesterday for 36 soldiers.  This too indicates a desire to conceal the full extent of the damage caused by the event.  There might be many reasons they would want to do so, but one might be to conceal from the enemy what was damaged and the extent of the damage caused by the sabotage.

One can speculate on the identity of the “research” in question that might cause Israel grief.  Iran is reported to be developing the latest version of the Shehab which, according to some reports, is the Shehab 4.  There are also reports that Iran is testing ways of adapting the Shehab so that it can carry a nuclear warhead.  Either of those might be candidates for weapons that might’ve been tested and which could’ve caused the disaster.

 

 

Iran Missile Base Blast: Annals of Israeli Terror Redux

Sunday, November 13th, 2011

Yesterday’s report here based on an authoritative Israeli source, that the explosion which rocked an Iranian Revolutionary Guard missile base and killed one of the IRG’s top commanders, was the work of the Mossad and MEK, received a flurry of attention in the Israeli media.  I was cited by one of Israel’s pre-eminent intelligence correspondents, Ronen Bergman, in the Telegraph, and interviewed for two shows on Channel 10 (5PM news–7 minutes into the video, and Tzinor Layla) and the 6PM news on Channel 2.  While it’s exhilarating to get ones voice into the Israeli mainstream media, it takes a lot out of you when you have to do your interviewing between 3-4AM (due to the 10 hour time difference)!

One result has been a cascade of angry, sometimes menacing comments here from the Israeli audience claiming that my report was bogus, or that I hate Israel, or that I’m fomenting war against the Jewish people.  As to the first, it’s important to note that other independent sources are now coming forward confirming the substance of my source’s claim.  Time Magazine’s Israel correspondent features a boastful “western intelligence source” (cf., American):

For Israeli readers, the coy implication is that their own government was behind Saturday’s massive blast just outside Tehran. It is an assumption a Western intelligence source insists is correct: Mossad — the Israeli agency charged with covert operations — did it. “Don’t believe the Iranians that it was an accident,” the official tells TIME, adding that other sabotage is being planned to impede the Iranian ability to develop and deliver a nuclear weapon. “There are more bullets in the magazine,” the official says.

Former senior Mossad officer, Gad Shimron all but confirms the agency’s involvement in this Channel 10 TV interview (at 11:20 on the video–in Hebrew).

I especially like another objection by the pro-Israel crowd: that this wasn’t an act of terror because you don’t commit terror against a military target.  To which I reply: fine it’s not terror.  Then let’s just call it a naked act of military aggression why don’t we, a casus belli?  That’ll send us to war right now.  So which do you prefer?  Terror or naked act of aggression?  Either one is fine by me.

gen. hassan moqqadam

Senior Iranian Revolutionary Guard commander Hassan Moqqadam killed in likely Israeli bomb blast at Iranian missile base

In Israel, leading politicians are embracing the explosion as something like Divine Providence.  When Ehud Barak was asked for comment he said obliquely, and almost obscenely (my translation is more colloquial than the one offered in the linked article):

May there be many more.

Ronen Bergman further reports today on Hassan Moqaddam, the Iranian general who died in the explosion.  Aside from his key role in the development of the Iranian missile program (which included all those capable of hitting Israel, notably the Shihab III), he had played a key role in the transfer of Iranian weapons to its proxy allies.  He was supposedly a special favorite of Iran’s Ayatollah Khamenei.  Bergman also calls him one of Mahmoud al-Mabouh’s key contacts in arms transfers to Hamas, providing it many of the rockets in its arsenal.  You’d have to have been hibernating for the past half decade not to know that the Palestinian arms dealer met his untimely end at the tip of a Mossad needle in Dubai several years ago.

Further, the Syrian general Muhammad Suleiman, who served the same role of intermediary between Syria and Iran on behalf of Bashar al-Assad, was also mysteriously assassinated several years ago while relaxing at his oceanfront home.  Another major part of his role was to arrange for transfer of Iranian weapons to Hezbollah through Syrian territory.  In other words, the Mossad is systematically eliminating key figures among Iran’s proxy allies who would serve to amplify any Iranian reply to an Israeli attack.

Bergman pointedly notes the only remaining figure alive who served a similar role on behalf of Hezbollah is Hassan Lekis.  This is a pointed indirect warning from Israel’s Mossad to watch his back.  They have his eyes on him.

Nowhere does Bergman explicitly say Mossad killed Moqqadam or inspired the missile base explosion.  Perhaps he doesn’t feel able to say so if he does know due to Israeli military censorship.  But there is a strong subtext here that is: we did it and here’s why we did.

Israeli media reports like Bergman’s tend to recite a litany of achievements of the murdered individual, turning him into a veritable fiend of an enemy.  The implication is that in killing him they have rid the world of yet another Jew killer–and thank God for that.  Bergman cites Iranian eulogies which boast that the Iranian general single-handedly enabled Hezbollah to beat Israel in Lebanon and Hamas to beat Israel during Operation Cast Lead.  Any Israeli reading this will breathe a sigh of relief and harbor the lingering thought: next time they’ll lose to us because they won’t have this monster fighting for them.

No matter how evil the enemy may be (and in my opinion there is little that Iran or any of these dead men did that isn’t done by Israeli generals and Mossad killers), there is absolutely no chance of destroying him or even weakening him through such methods.  For every Moqaddam, there are ten who will take his place.  Yes, some may do their jobs worse than he did his.  But a good number may do it better (eg. Hassan Nasrallah).  And their zeal will be fortified by the memory of their martyred predecessors, just as Jewish zeal is fortified by remembrance of our martyrs.  In other words, this is a zero sum game.  An epic fail.

Just as an aside, I note the outrage that pro-Israel figures express against Hezbollah, blaming it for the bombings of the Israeli embassy and Jewish cultural center in Buenos Aires.  While I will on no account countenance the murder of innocent Jews by such means, it’s important to note that these tragic events occurred shortly after Israel had assassinated Abbas al-Musawi, the Hezbollah leader who preceded Hassan Nasrallah.  IF (and I note that the charges against them are only charges and not yet proven facts) Hezbollah or its Iranian ally were involved, from their point of view (though not mine) they had eminent reason to seek such revenge.

Which brings me to one of my main messages tonight: do not think that Israeli assassinations, bombings, cyberwarfare, etc. are risk-free and bear no price.  There is always a price.  You may have to pay it tomorrow or you may pay it next year.  But you will pay it.  And you don’t know what form that payment may take.  It may be a tiny innocent baby in a stroller.  It may be a cabinet minister.  It may be a lost UN vote.  But pay Israel will.

There are many foolish people in the world like Ehud Barak and Israeli commenters here who cheer these assassinations.  As if the more of them that happen the less dangerous Iran will be.  The less capable of destroying Israel and the Jewish people.  Those who feel this way can only see an unending war to the death between Gog and Magog, in which Israel is the Force of Good and Iran the force of Evil.  This may play well for the Book of Revelations and similar apocalyptic world views.  But it fails in the real world.

UPDATE: I’m proud to say I ate Haaretz’s lunch on this story.  They made the missile base blast their top story today referring to Time’s report (linked above) quoting a “western intelligence source” that Mossad was behind the attack.  When yesterday, they could’ve had an Israeli source telling them the same thing.  But it would’ve meant acknowledging my reporting, which apparently is verboten in the pages of Israel’s so-called quality liberal paper.  This is typically tepid, follow-the-leader stuff, not bold, challenging reporting.  It only hurts them that they shut themselves off from my contributions.  Others lead, they follow.

UPDATE I: My comments in the Update above were based on the English translation of the Haaretz article which I read first.  Israeli friends have sent me the original Hebrew version and it does indeed credit my work in that article (though it calls this blog, Brit Olam!).  So I apologize for my overhasty condemnation.  Instead I guess I blame the editor of the English edition and translator of the article, who thought my contribution wasn’t important enough to include in the English version.

The Guardian’s Julian Borger wrote two stories about the missile blast today and credited Time Magazine’s story (the second one to publish a claim of Mossad involvement) but left my original scoop out of the mix.  The MSM seems to have a congenital disposition to ignore us political bloggers for some strange reason.

U.S. Miscalculates on IAEA Report: Russia Repudiates New Sanctions as “Instrument of Regime Change”

Thursday, November 10th, 2011

Russia has reminded the U.S. what happens when you stack the deck and then ask your opponent to pick a card: he might just upset the table and storm out of the room.  Russia did the equivalent when it dismissed the IAEA report on Iran’s nuclear program and rejected calls for further economic sanctions against that country, calling it a step toward “regime change”:

“The world community will see all additional sanctions against Iran as an instrument of regime change in Tehran,” Gennadi M. Gatilov, Russia’s deputy foreign minister, said in comments to the Interfax news agency. “This approach is unacceptable to us, and the Russian side does not intend to consider such a proposal.”

There are a number of issues bugging the Kremlin.  First, the IAEA rejected Russian and Chinese entreaties that the final report not include certain material that they deemed objectionable.  Second, the IAEA’s director, Yukio Amano is increasingly seen as a creature of the U.S. and Israel, thus rendering his credibility close to nil.  Third, the Russians are bridling at the pressure the U.S. and Israel are trying to exert on them to invoke draconian new sanctions.  Fourth, they can’t have enjoyed seeing a scientist, Vyacheslav Danilenko, who worked at one time in Russia deceitfully raked over the coals in the report.

When you put your relationship with a country under such pressure it’s only natural that it might break.  That’s what happened today.  The reaction may help quiet the braying dogs here and in Israel calling for a military attack.  If you can’t even get Russia and the Chinese to go for more sanctions imagine what they and others similarly disposed in the world community might do if Israel attacked Iran.

My only concern is that Israel may not care what anyone says or thinks.  It may go ahead with an attack and leave the U.S. to clean up the mess that will remain of the Russian relationship afterward.

Tzinor Layla Interview on Jericho III Missile Launch

Sunday, November 6th, 2011


On the day that Israel launched the newest prototype of the launch vehicle for its Jericho III missile, Channel 10′s Tzinor Layla interviewed me.  There was a gag on reporting the exact nature of the missile that was launched. But as long as a foreign reporter said it, it was OK for the Israeli censor. We’re sometimes very useful in that way.  To this day, the New York Times and its “ground-breaking” Israel bureau still insist on reporting only that a “missile” was launched, despite the fact that both AP and my own Israeli source have reported that it was a Jericho III. Ground-breaking indeed.

Israel Censors Details of Eilat Terror Attack Implicating Iran

Monday, October 24th, 2011
alex fishman eilat terror attack screenshot

Headline for Alex Fishman's expose on Eilat terror attack ('Error in Identifying Enemy')

I reported here several days ago that Alex Fishman, Yediot’s military correspondent, was the first journalist to reveal the contents of the secret IDF report on its failings during the Eilat terror attack.  Among the jaw-droppers he exposed, was a claim that the terrorists who attacked Israel were not Gazans, but Sinai-based Egyptian Islamists whose attack was supported by Iran.  Intriguingly, Fishman offered no further evidence to support the claim.  But unlike other generally unsupported Israeli charges that Iran arms Hamas, etc. Fishman is one of Israel’s most credible and serious journalists.  So I take his claims seriously.

I’ve now learned that the reason this report doesn’t reveal any further substantiating evidence about Iranian involvement is that the military censor has forbidden it.  Again, this doesn’t mean that the claim is true, but it does at least explain why Fishman could not substantiate the charge.

Lest pro-Israel apologists jump on this story and use it as an “Aha” moment to verify the charges that Iran is a terror state, let’s keep in mind the reasons why Iran might initiate a proxy terror attack against Israel.  As I reported earlier, Israel is widely believed even by its own security correspondents to have orchestrated widespread acts of assassination, military sabotage and cyberwarfare against Iran over the past few years.  If Iran initiated the Eilat attack, it surely did so in revenge for the mayhem the Mossad and its likely MEK proxies have waged inside Iran.

What goes around comes around, and if Israel (and the U.S., which participated in the creation of the Stuxnet computer worm) want to play with the fire of terrorism they too can, and likely will, get burned.

Iran Does It Again, Saudi Crown Prince Murdered in NYC Hospital Bed

Saturday, October 22nd, 2011
crown prince abdul azis

Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Abdul Aziz offed by Iranian agents

Don’t you believe a word of what you’re hearing from the U.S. media about the Saudi Crown Prince dying today in a New York hospital.  Nor a word about his long term illness which allegedly killed him.  Those of us who’ve lapped up the convincing conspiracy theories spun by the Justice Department about Iranian terror plots against Saudi targets in the U.S. know what really happened today in New York.

Those wily Al Quds agents fed Arbabsiar to the FBI dogs last week in order to put them off the scent of their real prey, Crown Prince Abdul Aziz.  It was a masterful bit of sleight of hand too, convincing the feds that a drug-dealing, low-life scum plotted with Mexican drug assassins to bomb the Saudi ambassador while he ate felafel in a DC restaurant.  While the G-men were looking for Gholam Shakuri and on the trail of the $100K in bounty money, those clever IRG assassins slipped into the Crown Prince’s hotel room while his entourage wasn’t looking and pumped him with an overdose of his favorite whiskey and pigs in a blanket, mixed with a bit of Saudi crude to wash it all down.  The chatter  I hear is that he died with a smile on his face and the feds are none the wiser.

But if FBI director Mueller and his boys read this blog don’t be surprised if you hear a press conference tomorrow at which they’ll announce criminal charges against the Iranian assassins who offed the Saudi Crown Prince.

Yediot: Secret Israeli-Egypt Efforts to Counter Iran Threat, IDF Report Confirms Eilat Terror Cells Not from Gaza

Friday, October 21st, 2011

Yediot Achronot’s veteran military correspondent, Alex Fishman, reveals for the first time the substance of the secret IDF report about the Eilat terror attack.  He also reveals secret Israeli-Egyptian meetings designed to unblock the Shalit prisoner exchange and counter the alleged Iranian regional threat.  I should add that I don’t agree with or accept many of the premises offered by Fishman below.  But it’s instructive to hear what he has to say because it reveals the thinking of the Israeli military-intelligence apparatus.

Fishman says that in the wake of the siege against the Israeli embassy in Cairo, a senior Israeli military official made a secret trip to Egypt where he met with Field Marshall Tantawi, Egypt’s de facto military junta leader.  According to the Yediot reporter, the primary goal of the meeting was how to stop the “Islamic wave” sweeping the region, in other words, how to sweep Iran from the field.  The implicit overarching goal of all future initiatives by Israel, Egypt and the U.S. would be to frustrate Iran’s Islamist agenda.

In the meeting, the Israeli official and Egyptian leader tried to resolve the disagreements resulting from the Eilat terror attack during which five Egyptian security officers were killed by Israeli fire on Egyptian territory.  The general subject of Islamist terror originating in the Sinai was also discussed.  Implicit in all these discussions was the notion that Egypt needed to be built up as a regional power in order to combat the influence of Iran.

One element in this process would be negotiating the release of Shalit, whom Iran wished to see continue in captivity.  As long as he was held, it was a fire burning in relations between Israel and the Palestinians, which helped Iranian interests.

The visits of U.S. defense secretary to both Israel and Egypt in recent weeks was also intended to advance this goal of turning Egypt into a buffer against Iran in the region.  Similarly, Egypt is meant to act as a stabilizing force among those Arab regimes that remain pro-western.  Fishman uses the term “etrog” to describe Egypt alluding to the Sukkot fruit used by observant Jews in their holiday ritual.  The fruit must be perfect, not injured in any way.  An etrog with a blemish, bruise or any damage is not permissible for the ritual.  In this sense, Egypt becomes a delicate fruit which must be coddled so that it can perform its proper function as a bulwark against Islamist militancy.

Israel too has a role to play in this grand strategy and it is expected to pay a price for bringing such stability.  Part of the price was agreeing to the Shalit deal.  Another part was Ehud Barak’s public apology to Egypt for Israel’s assault on Egyptian territory and its police forces.  Egypt needed the apology in order to establish its street cred and could not act as an honest mediator without it.  The apology, according to Fishman’s Israeli military sources, reinforced Egypt’s status in the region, thereby diminishing Iran’s.

Fishman notes that the most important consequence of the IDF secret report on the Eilat terror attack is the fundamental error that it made in anticipating that the attack would come from Gaza instead of from Sinai.  He offers a shocking, but unsubstantiated claim that the Sinai terrorists were affiliated with Iran.

This confirms the judgment of independent analysts like myself and Israeli bloggers like Idan Landau, that the Israeli government lied when it claimed the Popular Resistance Committees were behind the attack and when it launched a targeted killing campaign against the PRC.  Israel’s post-Eilat Gaza assault was a bluff, an attempt to mollify Israeli public opinion because Israel couldn’t or wouldn’t attack the real originators of the attack whether they were in Sinai or Teheran.

The Yediot reporter notes that even the IDF concedes that despite the report’s minute analysis of what happened in Eilat, gigantic holes remain in its fundamental understanding of the event.  The most fundamental of the collapsing theories formerly held by the IDF, was its expectation that it was trying to trap a Gaza terror cell.  In doing so, the IDF itself fell into a trap set for it by the actual Sinai-based terrorists.

Israel expected the attack was planned in Gaza and executed by Gazans and that it would follow a route from Gaza through Sinai to Israel.  The military capabilities of the Gazans were known, which caused Israel to led down its guard.  Though Israel knew the Sinai terror option was present, until the genie popped out the bottle, the IDF simply hadn’t expected it.  The possibility was right in front of them, Fishman says, but they never saw it because they didn’t think it was possible.  From now on, the demon of global jihad will hover over Israel-Egypt relations.

The actual attackers brought far more firepower and far more sophisticated tactics and numbers than Israel had anticipated.  There were, in fact, three groups which attacked and coordinated their complex assault.  This is likely why Israel believes that a force like Iran must be involved, though again no proof of the charge is offered.  Therefore, it must be taken with a grain of salt.

I’m expecting Avi Issacharoff, Eli Lake and all the other analysts who swallowed the IDF line that the terrorists were from Gaza to apologize for failing in their journalistic duty to ferret out the truth.  But I may be waiting quite a while to hear it from them.  By the way, Avi and Eli, those 20 Gazans killed in Israeli revenge attacks after the Eilat tragedy?  Killed for nuthin’  Avi said I was nuts for calling that a potential war crime.  Now who’s nuts?

Performance Optimization WordPress Plugins by W3 EDGE