64 thoughts on “Israeli Air Force Personnel Ordered to Form Google Logo at Airbase – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.

  1. Ahh, back in the day, we were told as recruits to “write” (using large stones) a message on the side of a hill. Hours of running up and down carrying stones. This was a punishment for something, though possibly the something was an excuse.

    Much harder work than standing in formation for 10 minutes.

    This could’ve been a local initiative. The Israeli media only really picked this up because it involved a commercial name – If they were to spell “am yisreal chai” or something like that no one would’ve said a word.

      1. Actually it is quite the team building exercise. You have a mountain side, a bunch of rocks and a task to complete in a given time. Planning needs to happen, leadership needs to emerge and hard work needs to be done.

        But then, one couldn’t expect understanding from those who clearly never wore a uniform a day in their lives.

        1. @ OneI: actually lepxii was wearing the IDF uniform at the time & the exercise was punishment & definitely didn’t build unit cohesion. Sounds like it was sheer tedious hour-long punishment.

          No wonder the IDF is such a mess.

          1. Not to make a tempest in a teacup, but during basic training (where he experienced this, I’m ready to bet) a lot is experienced as “punishment” which actually isn’t – meaning, these are building exercises doled out under the guise of punishment.

            Just another of those things one learns on the other side of the service divide.

          2. @ OneI: It is typical of Israeli males to think that they know everything and that anything others perceive differently than them is simply wrong. I think lepxii’s experience speaks for itself and doesn’t need any “interpretation” on your part.

            And cut the crap about your military service giving you some special perch from which you may look down on others who haven’t served. I find that tiresome. The more you repeat it (& you’ve done so twice) the more bored & annoyed I will become.

  2. I recall some meetings recently between Israel and EU representatives regarding controlling “hate” speech. I think it was just Israel trying to squash free speech on social media like it is trying to squash free speech across the US with anti-BDS legislation (no doubt written in Israel!). All of these events are the tips of the iceberg of Israel’s apparently succeeding effort to dominate now social media. Given the record, Israel seeks domination of all media and therefore what anyone can hear or, possibly, think. RS’s report has something t do with all this. Israel is a world class disaster for all of us.

    1. @ Abby: If you read Hebrew, read the Marker story which I linked a few minutes ago. Soldiers had traveled four hours after Shabbat to return to base. They were immediately ordered to report to formation in the hot Beersheva sun in the middle of the afternoon. THey were not given a choice. It was a command. There, without any water, they spent an hour and a half doing formations for the pleasure of Google CEO Eric Schmidt. If you don’t find that bizarre then you’re farther gone than I thought. Israel journalists from Chico Menashe to the Marker thought it bizarre & inappropriate. I guess they have a greater sense of the bizarre than you.

        1. I thought it was macabre, because of the showing off of what are basically machines of death as the representative achievement of Israeli independence.

          1. Once more, learn how to read:

            Are they shown as the representative achievement of my nation’s independence?


            (How old are you, ‘Abby-with-the-eight-year-old-kid’? You seem pretty juvenile.)

          2. @ Abbeleh: I used the word correctly & don’t need vocabulary tutorials from the likes of you. You are skating on very thin ice. Call anyone here “toady” or any other insulting name again & you’re history. Are you ready for your departing flight from Ben Gurion?

          3. I wrote: “I thought it was macabre, because of the showing off of what are basically machines of DEATH.”

            The term macabre comes from Medieval French ‘danse Macabre’ (dance of DEATH), ergo I simply do not agree with you that the term was used inappropriately.

            You keep trying to be clever, but your reading comprehension keeps getting in your way.

          4. You really have a reading comprehension problem. If I were Richard I would ban you for groundless accusations of anti-Semitism and insufferable stupidity. But I’m not Richard.

          5. @Elisabeth -“But I’m not Richard.” – are you not? You seem to have here extra privileges other commentators do not enjoy.

            I started to wonder. Thank you for clarifying.

        2. @ Abby: The idea that the IAF is pimping for Google is bizarre. Can you name another military in the world which has engaged in such shameless exploitation on behalf of commercial interests?

          “Perhaps” you are a Zio-troll. Oh wait, there’s no perhaps about it. If you comment in this thread again you’ll be moderated.

          1. The Google exec wanted to see the Israeli Air Force, or just as likely, the vintage airplanes on display at this air base, and the Air Force put on a show for a rich guy, Big f—ing deal. Money talks bullshit walks.
            That’s the way of the world. The real world.

            And all of a sudden, Richard Silverstein finds compassion for the poor Israeli soldiers who had to go on parade in the heat. Richard feels for the IDF!
            The utter hypocrisy.

            Where’s my vomit sound effect?

          2. @Abby: The nausea is all on our side I assure you. You are moderated. Wave good bye as you leave the departure lounge. Feel free to introduce us to your hasbara successor. His flight arrival is expected momentarily.

          3. You can call a commenter like me a ‘zio-troll’, but I can’t call your commenters ‘toadies’.

            Hypocritical? Power trip?

        3. Abby the Palestinians in Gaza should form human chains to form the text GOOGLE GAZA AND SEE THE IMAGES. A “macabre” addition to that would be: OF WHAT JEWS WITH THEIR PLANES AND BOMBS HAVE DONE TO US.

          What is really macabre is that the Google uses the “text” of the Israeli killing machine, but certainly not the text of those on the other end of the bombs. Well if Google uses that IAF “text” as the logo text here, it is time to end using Google search and find a less “semitic” option for searches.

          1. One may think (I do), the use of the word JEWS in the last comment is inappropriate.


          2. @Israel, I was struck by that too at first, and though about saying something about it, until I realized that SimoHurtta was answering ‘Abby’ who wrote:

            “If a Dutchman pilots a jet fighter, that’s okay, but when a Jew poses in front of a jet fighter, it’s sickening.”

            I you are taunting people, accusing them of discriminating against Jews without basis, you can expect to get something back.

          3. So childish!!!
            I obviously not violate the “if an individual monopolizes the threads”. As I made comments on different subjects and was communicating with other readers.

            Just write in the rules, I may moderate anyone whose posts I don’t like because free speech is for democracies while this blog is a private enterprise.

            So much for ‘progressiveness’.

          4. @Israel: the rule is if you consistently publish more than 3 comments a day you are monopolizing the threads. Only pro-Israel commenters here do that. The progressives simply don’t.

            If you don’t like or can’t follow the rules you have an alternative. Go read the Jerusalem Post.

          5. @ Israel
            Abby – to whom SimoHurtta responded – was the one to use the word “Jew”, how come you didn’t react to that ? Is it okay when an Israeli try to conflate ‘Jew’ and ‘Israeli’ ?

          6. Deir Yassin, I must say I cannot figure out the meaning of what Israel wrote just now. I read it several times, and I have no idea what he means. But anyway, it seems you understood my comment. 🙂

          7. Are you serious? We all know perfectly well who are bombing the people in Gaza and who are building their settlements in the West Bank. Why on earth is it improper to identify them? Surely many Germans did and do not like when their nation is mentioned in less pleasent context of the WW2 era, but we still use the term Germans and are not using missleading expresions to hide their origin even only a tiny portion of Germans in that time contributed to the actual crimes.

            I do not use the term ISRAELI, because it in the normal sense it means all those who live in the country named Israel. One of five Israelis is a Palestinian and if we take in notice the occupied the ratio is 1 to 1. More importantly using the term Israeli efectively hides the core of this miserable conflict, namely the Jews an Judaism and their role and responsibilities. Palestine was invaded by Jews and for even the non religious Zionists the ground for their ideology lays in their religion, which alone defines their “origin”. The Jews made Israel what it is today in good and bad, not hindus or scientologs. Those are facts.

            If somebody asks who are those who march on Jerusalem Day marches? Can we answer honestly they are Israelis or is the bitter reality more describing, namely that they are …

          8. @Simohurtta: I strenuously object to your articulation of this issue. It is not “Jews” or Judaism which is the root of the problem. The proper term is “Israeli Jews” & you should know that. Whether you like it or not Israel exists as a country with a national identity. You & I may quarrel with that identity, bit it exists & denying it does out of some extreme ideological posturing is profoundly toxic.

            I would even go so far as to say that your view betrays an absolute ignorance of Judaism. You know what you know & disregard the rest as Paul Simon wrote. That’s pandering, not analysis.

          9. Well may I ask who established Zionism and from where did they find their reasonings? They were not Israeli Jews and they did not use the history books of Island. Those who invaded Israel/Palestine became to be so called Israeli Jews. They also “developed” Israel to what it is today and do what there is done. So in that sense the responsibility is limited. But on the other side Israel has got and still gets enormous support from local Jewish communities and individuals around the world. Jews have always been a very well interconnected relative small ethnic-religious group, which “unity” has made their undeniable succes possible. AIPAC etc organizations supporting today Israel did not emerge from “nowhere”.

            Jews and Judaism are not centrally ruled, which makes blaiming the whole group and religion ofcourse impossible and I certainly have never intended to blame everybody. I know perfectly well that many Jews are the fiercest critics of Israel and to what is done there. I use the term Jews in the exactly same style when people/media says Americans invaded Iraq or Britts decided to resign from EU. Not all Britts did not want to leave EU even the fact is said like that. Few Americans invaded Iraq and Grenada. Few Germans …

            Isreal demands to be the Jewish state and without doubt most non-Israeli Jews want it to exist and be also in future what it has become. Many Jewish regious authorities, not all naturally, use directly their religion in justifying what is done in and around Israel. If we use the term Israelis and pretend that this other “side” doesn’t exist, then it is really difficult to understand who and why do they behave so in Israel/Palestine.

            “Israelis do bomb the Muslim terrorists in Gaza with the bombs North-Americans donate to them in order to defend themselves and their properties”. Is that acceptable vision right and makes it understanding the reasons for bombing more clear? The political/religious reality and aspects vanished almost totally from the claim from the bombers side, what without doubt is their wish.

  3. What fun! Maybe the National Rifle Association can organize a similar logo on Bill of Rights Day, consisting of bullets and decorated with assault rifle’s of the Orlando nightclub shooting type.

  4. FYI – Chico Manashe (M) and Carmela Manashe (F) are different people. Seems themarker got them mixed up as well

  5. A minor point, but those aren’t F-16s,

    They are actually Italian-built trainers, the Aermacchi M-346 Master.

    Combat-capable, of course, so I don’t doubt that they will be used to drop a few bombs on Gaza.

    1. Finally someone who can actually recognize an airplane.

      They were named Lavi, like the 80s program that got cancelled.

      I’m pretty sure they aren’t combat ready. It’s not like you can just throw a bunch of bombs on them and drop them. The wings have to be able to carry them and the aircraft computer need to be programmed for such tasks. Even more so with a cannon on the front. Anyone who follows the F-35 development know how long it took to certify it for the cannon, and that for an aircraft that was developed from scratch to be a fighter, not a trainer like in the Lavi case.

      1. “I’m pretty sure they aren’t combat ready. ”

        Fully combat-capable, nine hardpoints, can be fitted with a gun pod and air-to-air missiles, chaff dispensers, fire-control radar, the works. It can lift, aim and fire up to 3,000kg of bombs, air-to-ground and anti-ship missiles, what-have-you.

        It’s a trainer, sure, but it can also be used as a very handy ground-attack warplane in a “hot” environment.

        That’s a big part of its appeal, and the major reason why the Israelis chose it.

        After all, how many other times have the Israelis chosen an Italian-built derivatives of a Russian-designed aircraft?

        Because, let’s face it, if the Israelis had chosen a US designed trainer then they could have “paid” for them using one of Uncle Sam’s $3billion Gift Vouchers i.e. the Israelis would be getting them for free.

        But these? The Israelis had to use their own money, precisely because they wanted something that could also be used to drop bombs on people.

        1. Uncle Sam haven’t produced a trainer in almost 30 years and the and a variant of it is actually competing for the USAF T-X Program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-X_program which suppose to have 1st batch in 2023. IS that a good enough reason to go with the newest designed aircraft. Oh YES!!

          About the 9 hardpoints, interesting – I didn’t know about it. Cheers

        2. “That’s a big part of its appeal, and the major reason why the Israelis chose it.”

          Not really.

          The IASF chose the M-346 primarily because of the added ground based training system and its better suitability as a lead-in to the F-35 and other advanced platforms.

          1. “The IASF chose the M-346 primarily because of the added ground based training system and its better suitability as a lead-in to the F-35 and other advanced platforms.”

            If that were the case then the IAF would have waited to see who won the USAF T-X program.

            I’ll give you two hints:
            1) Aeromacchi could only partner with a minnow (Ratheon, who don’t make combat aircraft) to go up against partnerships headed by Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, and Boeing (all of whom have been known to make the odd fighter plane or two).
            2) Northrop Grumman are planning to submit a 100% made-in-the-USA contender, everyone else plans on submitting a not-made-here design.

            So the chances of Aeromacchi emerging as the winner of the T-X program is close to zero.

            The M-346 is a fine trainer, no question. But it isn’t a particularly good “lead-in to the F-35” because, you know, those two engines……

            But it’s a fine trainer that can tote quite a bit o’ baggage of the Watch ’em Go Boom! variety, and that’s the main attraction for the Israelis.

            Because the IDF sure does love to See Thing Go Boom!

          2. Oh were to begin.

            “If that were the case then the IAF would have waited to see who won the USAF T-X program”

            You do realize that the USAF and the IASF are two separate entities, with two completely different training programs, correct?

            “I’ll give you two hints:”

            Your definition of ‘hints’ apparently differs from the mostly accepted one.

            “So the chances of Aeromacchi emerging as the winner of the T-X program is close to zero.”

            Congratulations. You raised a strawman and promptly managed to bring it down. You’re a “Real Interwebz Hero(TM)” !!!

            “But it isn’t a particularly good “lead-in to the F-35” because, you know, those two engines……”

            Trainers usually have two engines. You know, because of those engines – when the instructor can idle one as the student learns to deal with the emergency, and still maintain fly-ability.

            The lead-in capabilities are mostly measured in the cockpit and in the procedures necessary to exercise the plane’s capabilities. Nothing to do with the amount of engines onboard.

            Btw for someone that wants to sound so knowledgeable, you should be aware that it is Aermacchi, not “Aeromacchi”, and “Raytheon”, not “Ratheon”.

      2. @Israel:

        Hopefully they crash before they manage to bomb anything. Maybe they’ll crash into an illegal “settlement” or an IDF column or something.

        1. The cost may have been that high but that bc they didn’t enter mass production.

          Same story with the B2 each cost over a billion USD bc only 20 were ever built

          1. Well if a expensive product development project doesn’t enter mass production as planned, what is it? It is called a failure. Big entities like USA, Russia, EU and China can afford such prototypes and projects, but not small nations with a population of 5-6 million (+ millions of gentiles in ghettos).

            Sweden has been developing own fighter aircraft for decades (Draken and JAS Gripen). The problem is not so much in developing a good plane, the problem is to get enough customers to get the costs of one produced aircraft to a sensible level. And more importantly (from the customers side) being able to provide a long term reliable spare part and upgrading services. If customer states have not valued very high Sweden’s “trustworthiness” in such giant sensitive military trades, it is more than likely that no one would have turned to use Israel’s “products” like Lavi. Buying a couple of drones is a bit different than buying 50 – 100 modern fighter planes.

            By the way the Lavi project was brilliant. Americans paid much of the costs and provided willingly or unwillingly much of technology. When the project failed, Israelis made a healthy profit by selling the collected know-how to China. That is real admirable business talent. Well some Americans might have a different opinion.

          2. “The cost may have been that high but that bc they didn’t enter mass production. ”

            No, the cost was high because the US government decided they weren’t going to let their military aid money be used to bankroll a foreign competitor. Nor should they.

            Once that decision was made then the Lavi was doomed, because the Israeli government would have to spend Israeli shekels.

            The choice was then:
            a) Underwrite IAI so that it could afford to build the Lavi, which would mean that the Israeli government wouldn’t have any money left over to buy the planes no matter how “cost-effective” it was, or
            b) Refuse to underwrite IAI’s productions costs, which would mean that each one would cost the company so much to build that….. it wouldn’t be “cost-effective”.

            What the Israelis wanted was for the US government to underwrite the cost of production, because that’s the only way that the project was ever going to be economically-viable for the Israelis.

            The USA refused (again, quite correctly), and from that point on the project was never going to be economically-viable.

          3. “Sweden has been developing own fighter aircraft for decades”

            True enough, and it is an important to underline that SAAB has decades of knowledge of jet fighter design already in its back pocket every time it sits down to design its next aircraft.

            But when IAI started to work on the Lavi it was pretty much starting from scratch, which is why the Lavi amounted to little more than an F-16 fuselage with a new wing. And even then much of the challenging design and testing was done in the USA by people who knew what they were doing.

            Which is why Sweden can afford to built jet fighters but Israel can’t. It’s an incredibly expensive business to break into, and Sweden made that breakthrough back in the 1940s when it was (relatively) easy.

            Israel didn’t try until the 1980s, and by then the business had become too complex for a startup nation.

            China could afford to do it. India too, though even they have found it to be a struggle.

            But they are much, much bigger economies that Israel.

          4. “When the project failed, Israelis made a healthy profit by selling the collected know-how to China.”

            Not really. This is a story published in 2007 by Jane’s, sourcing “Russian engineers that heard it from Chinese engineers”.

            The Chinese J-10 design can be linked back to the Chengdu J-9, which had its first flight in 1975, 11 years before the Lavi.

            Notice that the J-10 chief designer is on record establishing that relationship and negating any with Israel.

          5. “The Chinese J-10 design can be linked back to the Chengdu J-9, which had its first flight in 1975, 11 years before the Lavi”.

            Do yourself a favour by finding profile plans of:
            a) An F-16
            b) An IAI Lavi
            c) A Chengdu J-10

            Put them side-by-side and your immediate thought will be “But They Are The Same Aircraft!”.

            Then take a profile plan of a Chengdu J-9 and throw it into that mix.

            Your next thought will be “But that looks NOTHING like any of these guys!”

            The J-10 can be “linked back” to the J-9 only because Chengdu is a common thread between the two, not because the former is an updated development of the latter.

            It isn’t.

            The J-10 is a Chinese development of the Lavi, which in turn was an Israeli knockoff of the F-16.

            “Notice that the J-10 chief designer is on record establishing that relationship and negating any with Israel.”

            Sure. Just as Slick Willie is on record establishing that he never had relations with that intern.

          6. “Put them side-by-side and your immediate thought will be “But They Are The Same Aircraft!”.”

            There are only so many ways one can put together a pair of wings, a cockpit and an engine and make it fly efficiently under a number of requirements. By your “argument”, the F-15, F-18, Su-27 and MiG-29 are all the same aircraft, the Typhoon, the Saab Grippen and the Rafale are all the same aircraft. See how that works?

            ” not because the former is an updated development of the latter”

            Because – clearly! – a development means copying the exact same airframe and engines and design and so on and so forth. God forbid that a company improves on their designs and learns from their processes from one product to another! Seriously.

            “Sure. Just as Slick Willie is on record establishing that he never had relations with that intern.”

            So you prefer to listen to “some Russian engineers who claim to have heard it from some Chinese engineers” than from the designer, on record. Your sourcing standards are outstanding, keep up the good work. I am sure you also believe everything that “anonymous but highly placed sources” say, as long as it confirms your already established beliefs.

          7. Was the project a failure? – YES.
            Was it b/c Uncle Sam didn’t want to sponsor the competition? YES

            But how is all of that relevant to the fact the cost of the Lavi was due to not entering mass production? I have no idea.

            Just taking an opportunity to celebarte an Israeli failure? You arrived to the right blog!

  6. Richard, the “Lavi” name is simply being recycled for this aircraft. It’s not the same as the 1980’s boondoggle.

  7. I love how the original argument in this post has been buried by the pointless back-and-forth over aircraft types and other unnecessarty esoterica, deliberately avoiding the idiocy of airmen being forced to stand in a formation spelling out “Google” for a dumb photo opportunity.

    1. @Strelnikov: Amen to that brother!

      I would add to that that the hasbarati like nothing more than for the threads to get bogged down in minutiae & trivia so that the eyes of readers glaze over. I urge folks to stay to the bigger ideas and not get stuck in a thicket. Leave that to the hasbarati.

    1. @ Hed Shaket: The claim that a film producer personally paid an aircraft carrier commanding officer $25,000 for a film stunt is patently absurd. If that was so, the officer would be summarily fired.

      Further, the film producer paid the Navy for use of its personnel & equipment. This was a standard film production commercial procedure. Google didn’t ask for this IAF promotion nor did it pay the IAF. Entirely different circumstances.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Share via
Copy link