FresnoZionism.org — ציונות פרסנו

Recently I was looking at reports of outrageously unfair media treatment of Israel, such as HonestReporting on the UK Independent’s Mark Steel, or Camera on Christiane Amanpour’s CNN documentary. And another blow will almost certainly fall soon, with the upcoming release of “Jimmy Carter Man From Plains“, a documentary about Carter’s recent book tour.

HR, Camera, and others do a good job of exposing the bias and, often, the outright lies. But the damage is done, and the people who read Mark Steel, for example, are not likely to check HR’s website.

There is a veritable industry producing anti-Israel material, films, TV programs, articles, books, websites, etc. It’s impossible to counteract this only by responding to them. It’s necessary to tell the true story pro-actively, and it must be done in the most effective — that is, emotionally powerful — way.

Probably the best way to do this is by the visual media, film and TV. Nothing else has the emotional impact or the reach.

Israel has a well-developed film industry, but most of its products are aimed at the domestic market, and many of them present a dark vision of Israel or have a definite left-wing slant.

I am not suggesting that Israeli studios should start cranking out propaganda films. What I would like to see are films aimed at the foreign market which will simply tell the truth, from an Israeli — OK, a Zionist — point of view.

I would like to see feature films, documentaries, TV programs, etc. The media are hungry for content, why can’t we give them some?

What needs to happen is that the conventional wisdom — the everyday assumptions about the Israeli-Arab conflict that most people make when they read or hear about events — needs to change. The tendentious nonsense written by Mark Steel about how Israel does not recognize the Palestinians’ right to exist came from somewhere, and I don’t think Hamas paid him to write it.

Steel won’t read my blog, and if he did he’d dismiss it as just more Israeli propaganda rubbish. Having watched TV in the UK, I know what he and others are seeing on a day-in day-out basis, and I’m not surprised at the assumptions that underlie his writing.

Turning things upside down will not be easy. It will be expensive, which means that the Government of Israel and the Diaspora Jewish community will have to bear some of the burden, at least at first; and they will have to do so with sensitivity and the understanding that the creative people will have to be allowed enough freedom to do what they want.

But after all, the Arabs and their friends managed to change perceptions worldwide starting in 1967. Isn’t it time for the pendulum to swing back in our direction?

Technorati Tags: Israel, media

Apparently even the carefully calibrated statement made yesterday by the ADL, which stopped short of saying “the Ottomans committed genocide”, was too much for the Turks:

The Turkish ambassador is set to end his vacation two weeks early to return to Israel and register Turkey’s concerns about the Anti-Defamation League’s statement that Turkish actions toward the Armenians from 1915-1918 were “tantamount to genocide,” The Jerusalem Post has learned.

The decision to send Namik Tan back on Thursday came at a high-level meeting at the Turkish Foreign Ministry in Ankara on Wednesday. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan is also expected to call Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in the coming days to discuss the matter.

The Turkish Foreign Ministry issued a statement calling the ADL statement “unfortunate,” and said Turkey expected that the statement would “be corrected.” — Jerusalem Post [my emphasis]

What exactly does Erdogan have to say to Olmert about this? Or, more precisely, what will he threaten to do if Olmert can’t get Abraham Foxman of the ADL to take back his statement?

The thuggish Turks are also irritated that Foxman implied that a lack of Jewish support for the Turkish position might endanger the Turkish Jewish community:

“The Turkish Jewish community is part and parcel of our society, and there is no reason for them to have concerns,” the ministry said in its statement.

Keep in mind that the ADL’s original statement was made after a meeting with representatives of the Turkish Jews.

There is no question that Turkey is employing a “Jewish strategy”: What could be more effective than to get the Jews, victims of one of the most widely known genocides in history, to deny that the Ottomans had committed genocide? And how easy: Israel will do almost anything to be able to say that they have good relations with at least one Muslim nation, and the Turkish Jews are already hostages — it’s not even necessary to kidnap them Hamas-style.

But the Turks have made at least two serious miscalculations. First, Foxman is a very stubborn man. It is surprising to me that he went as far as he did to take the original statement back, even in the somewhat legalistic formulation that he used. He is not likely to recant at this point.

And this brings us to the second miscalculation. Why did Foxman change his stance? Because, like most Jews today, he has learned something from the Holocaust, and perhaps also from the denial of the Holocaust that is supported today by the greatest enemies of the Jewish people: there is a limit. Genocide is genocide. A Jew simply must be on the right side of this question.

So I doubt that the Turks’ “Jewish strategy” will work.

Technorati Tags: ADL, Foxman, Armenian Genocide, Israel

Abraham Foxman of the ADL has issued a new statement regarding the Armenian Genocide, which includes the following truly remarkable paragraph:

We have never negated but have always described the painful events of 1915-1918 perpetrated by the Ottoman Empire against the Armenians as massacres and atrocities. On reflection, we have come to share the view of Henry Morgenthau, Sr. that the consequences of those actions were indeed tantamount to genocide. If the word genocide had existed then, they would have called it genocide. [my emphasis]

Does Mr. Foxman think he is writing some kind of international treaty whose language must be creatively ambiguous? Or perhaps one of those software licensing agreements?

What he should be saying is that the ADL was wrong in not applying the word ‘genocide’ to the aforesaid events, which in fact were a genocide committed by the Ottoman Empire. It would have been much easier to write than the tortured prose above, which is not going to win him a lot of friends among either Turks, Armenians, or Jews who understand the importance of calling genocide by its name.

The statement also includes the following explanation:

Having said that, we continue to firmly believe that a Congressional resolution on such matters is a counterproductive diversion and will not foster reconciliation between Turks and Armenians and may put at risk the Turkish Jewish community and the important multilateral relationship between Turkey, Israel and the United States.

Of course I don’t know what threats the Turkish government has made. However, if they are attempting to hold the Turkish Jewish community hostage for actions taken by the US Congress, this should be exposed as a clear violation of their human rights, and Turkey should be censured for it.

Technorati Tags: ADL, Foxman, Armenian Genocide

The Jerusalem Post reports,

Fatah’s armed wing, the Aksa Martyrs Brigades, announced Tuesday it would no longer honor understandings reached with Israel, and called on its members to carry weapons to defend themselves against the IDF.

“We call on all our members who handed over their weapons to the Palestinian security forces to report to their commanders so that they can be issued new weapons,” said a leaflet distributed in Ramallah.

The group said the decision was made after the IDF arrested two Fatah gunmen who had been given amnesty by Israel in line with understandings reached between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

I wonder what the two were doing when they were arrested? This is beginning to sound exactly like the on-again-off-again ‘truce’ with Hamas in Gaza last year.

In any event, there will be plenty of weapons available to issue to them, thanks to the US, with Israel’s cooperation.

What did anybody think would happen?

Technorati Tags: Israel, al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades, IDF

The forces that fed Mideast conflict in 1967 were primarily external. The local issues were reflections of the cold war between the Soviet bloc and the West. Now there is still fuel being poured on the fire from the new US-Russian conflict, but there are newer, internal pressures at work. Barry Rubin describes them.

Nationalists Versus Islamists: The Middle East’s Core Issue

By Barry Rubin

The Middle East is in a new era, very different from the politics and strategic situation we have been used to for so long.

For 55 years the region has lived under Arab nationalist dominance. Every Arab regime, except perhaps Sudan, is Arab nationalist, governed by that basic system and world view.

Of course, these regimes have governed badly, not keeping pledges to unite the Arab world, minimize Western influence, destroy Israel, or bring rapid social and economic progress. Still, they know how to stay in power.

Remember that the last real regime change from within an Arab state happened 37 years ago when Hafiz al-Asad seized power in Syria. Since then, surprisingly little has changed in Arab ideology, political structure, economic organization, or society.

It has also been 28 years since Iran’s Islamist revolution took power in 1979. Since then–though not solely because of that event–Islamism has been on the upsurge. Certainly, it also suffered setbacks, and almost three decades later Islamism had been unable to seize power anywhere, at least until Hamas’s recent triumph in Gaza.

What has happened now, however, is that radical Islamism has reached a critical mass. It now poses serious challenges to Arab nationalism as the leading opposition in every Arabic-speaking country. Islamism plays a key role in governing Iraq; Hamas defeated Fatah on the Palestinian front; and Hizballah is close to gaining at least equal power in Lebanon.

For years, probably decades, to come, the Middle East will be shaken by a titanic battle between Arab nationalism and Islamism for control. This struggle, and certainly not the Arab-Israeli conflict, is the central theme and underlying factor in every regional issue.

This is so for several reasons. One is that the Islamist cause is now promoted by an alliance including two regimes, Iran and Syria, as well as by Hamas and Hizballah, which both rule territory. Syria’s government, technically “secular” and ruled by a non-Muslim Alawite minority no less, behaves like an Islamist one, especially in its foreign policy, as to keep loyal its Sunni Muslim majority.

It is folly to think that this HISH alliance (Hamas-Iran-Syria-Hizballah) can be split. After all, the parties have common aims and ideologies, their cooperation is so mutually beneficial, and last but not least they think they are winning.

Historically, there were two barriers for Iran’s trying to become the Middle East’s leading power: the Persian-Arab and Shia-Sunni divides. How could Persian, Shia Iran appeal to Arabs who mostly were Sunni? The HISH alliance solves that problem. Three of the four members are Arab, and Hamas is Sunni as is the majority of Syrians. If one adds Iraq’s Sunni Arab insurgency that breakthrough becomes even clearer.

Nor does this exhaust the Islamist forces working today to seize state power throughout the region. Al-Qaida is a factor, mostly in Iraq–where it cooperates closely with Syria–and Saudi Arabia. Al-Qaida is far more a threat in terms of terrorism, however, than in a strategic sense. Since it has only one tactic, in comparison to other Islamists’ flexibility, al-Qaida is unlikely to take over any countries.

A third Islamist set of groups are Muslim Brotherhood movements. While Hamas arises from the Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood, its Egyptian, Jordanian, and Syrian counterparts do not particularly like Iran or Shia Muslims. Still, they are also trying to transform Arab nationalist into Islamist states. Even if they use elections in pursuing this objective the goal remains the same.

To understand the region today all its issues have to be seen in the context of this nationalist-Islamist battle. If Iran gets nuclear weapons, it will greatly increase the power of HISH, the Arab regimes’ readiness to appease it, and the recruitment for Islamists of all types throughout the area.

In Lebanon, Hizballah, backed by Iran and Syria, seeks to control the government, or at least have veto power over its policies. In Iraq, Syrian-backed Sunni insurgents fight Shias among whom Iran has considerable influence. HISH hedges its bets but on both sides tries to turn Iraq into a client state. Among Palestinians, Hamas seeks full power over the movement by ensuring that war with Israel continues and by driving Fatah out of the West Bank.

On the other side, in theory, are all the Arab regimes except Syria plus Israel. In practice, though, these forces are far from united. Arab governments will try to cut their own deals or pursue their own interests. They may be privately happy if Israel defeats Hamas or Hizballah but they will scarcely provide any help or make peace.

A good example here is Saudi Arabia. The Saudis fight Iran but do so by giving money and recruits to the Iraqi insurgency or their ill-fated attempt to buy off Hamas by brokering a deal between that group and Fatah. Neither of these tactics has been very helpful. And the incompetence, corruption, and dictatorial nature of the Arab regimes–plus their Islamist-style extremist propaganda–all help foster more opposition.

Still, this does not at all mean the Islamists will win. No one should underestimate the Arab nationalist regimes, and there are huge problems with the Islamists’ strategy. What is vital, however, is to understand that past realities are now outmoded, and myths all-too-often dominant in media and academia are even more misleading.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, Interdisciplinary Center (IDC), editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs, and author of the recently published The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan).

Technorati Tags: Mideast Conflict, Islamism, Arab Nationalism

The Jerusalem Post reports:

Syria has begun delivery of the first batch of anti-aircraft missile and gun range land-based Pantsyr-S1E defense systems (SA-22 E in NATO terminology), the Web site of Russian newspaper Nezavisimaya Gazeta reported Saturday.

The SA-22 E, produced by KBP, a precision weaponry manufacturer based in Tula, Russia, is a combined surface-to-air missile and anti-aircraft artillery weapon system. The versatile platform can be mounted either on a tracked or wheeled vehicle.

According to Nezavisimaya Gazeta, the recently developed SA-22 E will be dispatched to Syria even before its deployment in the Russian military.

This is exactly the kind of weapon that Syria shouldn’t have. Let’s look at the Iranian-Syrian strategy: Iran wishes to develop nuclear weapons unmolested. She hopes to deter Israel and the US from a preemptive strike at her facilities by threatening Israel with missile attacks — especially mobile short-range missiles, which are very difficult to counter — from her clients Syria and Hezbollah.

I believe that Israel’s leadership considers an actual Iranian nuclear capability an existential threat, and will take action once some red line is crossed. We don’t know when this will be, but it’s obvious that Iran and Syria think it will be soon and are rushing to prepare for it. I do not believe that the US administration has the political capital or will to launch an attack themselves, but they would probably support an Israeli one.

I doubt that the Russians would be especially happy with a nuclear Iran. However, it appears that a new global struggle for influence is developing between the US and Russia, and of course the Mideast is a major theater in that struggle. Israel represents a strong point for the US side, and the Russians would probably like to see it neutralized.

Indeed, the scenario of an Israeli strike setting back Iran’s nuclear program by a decade or so, followed by an Iranian-Syrian-Palestinian war which Israel loses would probably be just fine with the Russians.

What a pity for the folks who gave us the word ‘pogrom‘ if Israel were to destroy the Iranian nuclear program, and then turn around and deal a crushing blow to Mr. Assad and his missile collection.

Or maybe it will happen in the reverse order?

Technorati Tags: Syria, Russia, Israel, Iran, SA-22, Pantsyr

On Thursday I wrote as follows about the response of the ADL to an article critical of its position against legislation to recognize the Armenian Genocide, specifically a letter signed by Andrew H. Tarsy, then Regional Director in New England:

…the argument that efforts to force the Turks to accept the truth will be ‘counterproductive’, that one is somehow preventing them from “coming to grips with their past” by supporting such resolutions — please. This argument is disingenuous, and is enough to make me blush on behalf of Tarsy and the ADL.

Apparently Mr. Tarsy himself, who is now out of a job, agrees with me.

Tarsy, 38, said he had been struggling with the national position for weeks and finally told Foxman in a phone conversation Thursday that he found the ADL’s stance “morally indefensible.”

…”I regret at this point any characterization of the genocide that I made publicly other than to call it a genocide. I think that kind of candor about history is absolutely fundamental.”

As recently as Tuesday night, however, Tarsy defended the ADL’s position before a hostile crowd at the Watertown Town Council meeting. In explaining why he did it, Tarsy said yesterday that he was doing the best he could to explain the ADL policy while struggling at the same time to change the policy internally. Neither side would back down and he was fired. — Boston Globe

The ADL’s position is not only “morally indefensible” as Tarsy has said, but is unlikely to have any effect on the Turkish government’s policy toward Israel, or Turkish Jews.

Ironically, the result of the ADL’s stubbornness on this issue has been to seriously weaken the respect in which the ADL is held in the broader Jewish and non-Jewish community, and to diminish its effectiveness in anti-bias activism.

Kol hakovod to Mr. Tarsy, who took the moral high road that his boss would not.

Technorati Tags: Tarsy, ADL, Armenian Genocide

Here comes Columbia University again (specifically Barnard College), where another Palestinian propagandist masquerading as a scholar is about to receive tenure:

Nadia Abu El-Haj, an assistant professor of anthropology at Barnard, is the author of “Facts on the Ground,” a 2001 book that questions archaeological claims regarding the ancient Jewish presence in Israel and argues that Israeli archaeologists legitimize the Jewish state’s “origin myth.”

An online petition against Abu El-Haj had garnered nearly 1,000 signatures as of Tuesday, the bulk of them from students and graduates of Barnard or Columbia University, its institutional parent.

The controversy over El-Haj threatens to raise questions anew about the integrity of Columbia’s scholarship on the Middle East, which first came under fire in 2004 with the release of a documentary film alleging university professors intimidated and embarrassed pro-Israel students who challenged them in class. A committee of inquiry subsequently found only one example of improper behavior, leading critics to call the report a whitewash. — JTA

“Facts on the Ground: Archaeological Practice and Territorial Self-Fashioning in Israeli Society” is Abu El-Haj’s only book. An anthropologist of Israeli society who doesn’t speak or read Hebrew and who knows little about archaeology, she nevertheless can deny such well-known facts as the existence of the Hasmonean and Davidic dynasties, as well as explain the psychological motivations of the Israeli archaeologists who have studied such things.

The Solomonia blog has an article discussing the controversy in detail (”Who’s Coming Up For Tenure: Nadia Abu El-Haj“), including references and excerpts of reviews of the book. I want to quote one short passage from it — which, in my opinion, says it all — and then recommend that you read the whole article:

Abu El Haj’s scorn for evidence-based scholarship is explicit. In her own words, she writes within a scholarly tradition that “Reject(s) a positivist commitment to scientific methods…” Rather, her work is “rooted in… post structuralism, philosophical critiques of foundationalism, Marxism and critical theory… and developed in response to specific postcolonial political movements.”

Naturally, the discussion is turning into one of how Jews get what they want by applying pressure rather than one about Abu El-Haj’s scholarship or lack of it. But regarding the latter, here is a detailed review by historian and archaeologist David Meir-Levy, (also thanks to Solomonia).

Technorati Tags: Columbia, Nadia Abu el-Haj

Question: What is the difference between US support for the Fatah-dominated Palestinian Authority (PA) in the West Bank and support for Hamas?

Answer: not much. Consider the recent ‘accidental’ payment of a full year’s salary to 3,500 members of the Hamas ’security’ forces by the PA:

In defending his move, [PA Prime Minister Salam] Fayad initially claimed that the payment was a regrettable error caused by a computer glitch. In his updated story, Fayad claimed that a Hamas agent in his Ministry of Finance was responsible for the move.

Fayad’s excuses naturally raise the question: If Fatah opposes Hamas, why are all the names and bank account numbers of Hamas’s soldiers conveniently located in Fatah’s Ministry of Finance’s computer files? Aside from that, it is hard to believe that Fayad objected to paying the jihad forces. Since Hamas took over Gaza in June, Fayad has regularly paid the salaries of Hamas legislators, civil servants in Hamas’s government, and Hamas terrorists imprisoned in Israeli jails.

Moreover, Fayad’s assertions that Fatah opposes Hamas are hardly believable given that Fatah is engaged in intense negotiations with Hamas toward a reunification of their forces. Wednesday, PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas stated openly that he seeks to reconcile with Hamas. In his joint press briefing with Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Aso, Abbas called for a “return to national unity.” He said, “The split [between Judea and Samaria and Gaza which happened] as a result of Hamas’s coup is temporary and will be removed.” — Caroline Glick

Since the Palestinians have no economy and no resources, this payment came from money transferred to the PA by the US or European Union. Our good, Western, anti-terrorist dollars and Euros.

It seems as though the US and the Olmert government are rushing headlong toward the creation of some kind, any kind, of a Palestinian state under Abbas (anything is acceptable, just as long as it’s not Hamas). On the Israeli side, I don’t know how much of the support for this is genuine or is a result of pressure from the US. US policy is apparently being dictated by the so-called ‘realists’ connected to the Bush Administration, such as James Baker, and the US State Department.

I’m going to make a prediction that this will not come to fruition. I wish that the reason were that Israel and the US would decide that making deals with Fatah is unproductive and dangerous, but unfortunately that will not happen. The change in policy will be the result of something much worse.

I think it’s likely that war will break out between Israel and Iranian proxies (Hezbollah, Hamas, and possibly Syria) within the next year. This will be accompanied by renewed terrorism from the West Bank, and it will become clear to everyone that Israel’s security requires a military presence there.

If peace is the goal, then I recommend that Israel stop pretending that enemies can be friends but rather build up a strong deterrent capability to keep them at bay.

Technorati Tags: Israel, Fatah, Hamas, Fayad

I am embarrassed by the way the ADL continues to dig itself deeper into a moral morass by opposing legislation recognizing the Armenian Genocide.

Here is part of a letter by Andrew H. Tarsy, New England regional director of the ADL, reponding to a critical article in the Jewish Advocate:

We don’t understand why you are singling us out. ADL’s position on this issue is in line with that of a number of other major American Jewish organizations, who believe, like us, that efforts in Washington to enact legislation on the Turkey-Armenian question are counterproductive to the goal of having Turkey itself come to grips with its past. That is why we have taken no position on what action Congress should take on the measure.

We continue to believe this is the best way to proceed, particularly because Turkish Jews have expressed concerns about the impact on them of a U.S. Congressional resolution, because Turkey is a key strategic ally and friend of the United States, because Turkey is a critical friend of Israel and because Turkey is the most critical country in the world in the life and death struggle between Islamic extremists and moderate Islam. We also believe that legislative efforts outside of Turkey will continue to be counterproductive.

A few points:

First, any implication that this view is shared by a majority of Jews in the US is false. Yes, the ADL and a few other organizations took this position, but others did not, including some of the largest. The ’singling out’ is because they are in the minority, not the majority.

Second, the only mitigating circumstance is the question of the Turkish Jews. The ADL and others took their position after meeting with a delegation from the Turkish Jewish community, who expressed anxiety about possible reprisals if they didn’t succeed in getting support for the Turkish government’s stance against the resolution. This sort of issue has tormented Jewish leaders for 2000 years. Most of the time, appeasement of tyrants has been a poor strategy, and doesn’t result in better treatment for a Jewish minority in the long run. This is one of the reasons for the existence of the State of Israel.

Third, the argument that efforts to force the Turks to accept the truth will be ‘counterproductive’, that one is somehow preventing them from “coming to grips with their past” by supporting such resolutions — please. This argument is disingenuous, and is enough to make me blush on behalf of Tarsy and the ADL.

But having said that, I am horrified by the venom being poured on the ADL by leftwing critics, who are using this as a club to beat the steadfastly pro-Israel ADL.

The ADL is a unique organization whose lack would be sorely felt. But it can only be effective from the moral high ground. If it are to keep from being regarded as just another pressure group, it must firmly renounce its  indefensible position on this issue.

Technorati Tags: ADL, Armenian Genocide

Israel and the US are making a big mistake by placing trust in Mahmoud Abbas.

Speaking to reporters after a meeting in Ramallah with Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Aso, Abbas - for the first time since Hamas’s takeover of Gaza in June - seemed to soften his stance toward the Islamist movement, calling on it to “return to national unity.” Abbas’s remarks were interpreted by Palestinians as an appeal to Hamas to resume talks with his Fatah faction.

Hamas immediately welcomed Abbas’s statements and invited him to talk to the movement’s leaders in the Gaza Strip.

“The split that happened [between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip] as a result of Hamas’s coup is temporary and will be removed,” Abbas said. “The Palestinian people are opposed to this separation because we want a united and independent Palestinian state.”

As I’ve written almost ad nauseum, if Hamas and Fatah join in a unity government, then all of the resources — money, arms, and legitimacy — that the West has showered on Abbas fall into the hands of the rejectionist, terrorist Hamas.

This despite the fact that the “renewed peace process” with Fatah has absolutely zero chance of success.

There are supposed to be political benefits to Israel simply from being in such a process. It’s generally believed that it wouldn’t do for Israel to appear to reject any opportunity for a peace agreement, no matter how far-fetched. However, the concrete practical consequences of this present process, which involves military aid to the Palestinians, are dangerous for Israel’s security.

I would argue that the supposed advantages from the negotiations are far overblown. There is supposed to be a propaganda point made — that Israel is always seeking peace. But by entering into a process which can only result in unacceptable demands being made on Israel, such as negotiations based on the Arab League Initiative, Israel leaves herself open to charges of intransigence and bad faith when she rejects these demands as she must.

Another problem is that Israel’s enemies continue to understand any willingness to compromise or make concessions as either a show of weakness or a diabolical trick.

My suggestion is that Israel should make a bottom-line statement something like this: we are willing to negotiate with anyone who will begin by agreeing that Israel is a legitimate state with a right to exist, and who will abjure terrorism or war against Israel.

This may seem like not such a big deal to the average westerner, but most Palestinians and Arabs believe that Israel is not legitimate, that its right to exist is entirely contingent on the decision of the true ‘owners’ of the land, and that therefore they have a right to ‘resistance’.

But a ‘peace process’ based on less than this must in the end be detrimental to the cause of peace.

Technorati Tags: Israel, Palestinians, Hamas, Fatah

Hamas continues ‘military’ operations against Israel:

An underground tunnel stretching towards Israel from the northern Gaza Strip and hidden by a Palestinian greenhouse was discovered by the IDF on Tuesday, security forces reported on Wednesday.

According to the report, Palestinian terror organizations hoped to fill the tunnel with bombs, which would then be detonated under an unspecified Israeli civilian or military target. The army is also checking into the possibility that gunmen intended to use the tunnel to infiltrate into Israel. — Jerusalem Post

This is, of course, the tunnel that they found. One doesn’t know how many others there are in various states of progress that have not yet been found.

Only one Qassam rocket hit Israel today, it fell in an open area and no one was hurt. These are more common than rain showers (much more, this time of year) and are not even reported in the international media unless an ‘interesting’ target such as a school is hit.

Israel considers to supply water and electricity to Gaza while its Hamas government wages war against Israel. Where else in the world could this happen?

Technorati Tags: Israel, Gaza, Hamas