UNHRC Interviews Zoabi

So Zoabi tells AP the commandoes, armed with paintball guns and small pistols, came to kill.

"It was evident from the beginning that the commandoes viewed all of us activists as terrorists," Zoabi told The Associated Press after her testimony before a three-member U.N. team headed by Karl Hudson-Phillips, former judge of the International Criminal Court in The Hague.

"Israel's use of large numbers of elite troops with sophisticated weaponry showed it intended to kill the passengers," added the lawmaker, who was aboard the Turkish-flagged Mavi Marmara, where the killing took place. "We were very peaceful activists, but the commandoes came to kill," she said.

Keep in mind that this is the same Zoabi who didn't want the wounded to be taken to the hospital(about 1:22 in), and, of course, knew about the activities of her fellow passengers. Well, as mentioned before, lying seems to be the Arabs' of Israel rhetoric, it is definitely a Muslim one.

Arab Terror Attack Kills a Pregnant Mother and Her Husband Along With Two Others and The General Media is Mostly Silent

An Arab terror attack kills a pregnant mother and her husband, parents of six children, along with two others, and the general media is practically silent? Where is the outrage? You know, the same outrage that came when it was announced that Rabbi Ovadia Yosef said that god should smite Israel's enemies, and named Abbas specifically?
Only two papers mentioned it on YahooNews, whereas around five talked about the "fiery rabbi and his speech." Well, at least it was covered. Here is an excerpt from AP, a watered down version of the virulently antiSemitic AFP:

Assailants firing from a passing car riddled the vehicle with bullets as it traveled near Hebron — a volatile city that has been a flash point of violence in the past. Some 500 ultranationalist Jewish settlers live in heavily fortified enclaves in the city amid more than 100,000 Palestinians.

One of the victims was pregnant, said police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld. Israel's national rescue service said the victims were two men and two women, and Israeli media said everyone in the car was killed.

Video broadcast live on Israel TV late Tuesday showed a white Subaru station wagon standing at an angle at the side of a road, its windows shot out and its doors dotted with bullet holes. The car was flanked by army and police vehicles and dozens of soldiers.

The attackers fled and Israeli forces set up roadblocks and carried out searches to try to catch them.

About 3,000 people joined a rally in Gaza to celebrate the attack. Hamas military wing spokesman Abu Obeida was among them and told The Associated Press: "The Qassam Brigades announces its full responsibility for the heroic operation in Hebron."

Yet the paper suddenly twisted to talk about the talks:

A previous U.S. launching of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks was also accompanied by deadly violence. Palestinian gunmen shot and killed an Israeli in the West Bank before then-President George W. Bush convened Israeli and Palestinian leaders for a summit in Annapolis, Maryland, in November 2007. The gunmen said the attack was "an act of protest against the Annapolis conference."

Talking to reporters on his plane heading for Washington, Abbas called for decisive American involvement in the talks.

He said that if the two sides reach a deadlock, the Obama administration should "present bridging proposals to bridge the gap between the two positions."

In one major challenge to the first direct talks between the sides in two years, Abbas warned it would be difficult to continue negotiating if Israel fails to extend a 10-month curb on West Bank settlement constructionthat ends in late September. Netanyahu has not made a final decision.

 So, the main point is what this will do to the Peace Talks? Not the loss of human life by terrorists? Where is the media outcry?The silence is deafening and speaks volumes.

Update:Elder of Ziyon, one of my favorite news blogs, recommended looking at Backspin on the "disgraceful way AP illustrated the attack."
Also see Sultan Knish a blog by Daniel Greenfield, who does a better job of elaborating on this subject than I do

The Arab governments of Gaza and the WB undermine one another

Arabs Silence One Another - Defense/Middle East - Israel News - Israel National News

An AP report suggested that the rivalry between the governments could prevent the formation of a Palestinian state, even if direct peace talks with Israel scheduled to begin this Thursday succeed.

According to rights groups quoted in the report, both governments carry out arbitrary arrests, ban rivals from travel, exclude them from civil service jobs and suppress opposition media, the rights groups say. Governments in both Judea and Samaria and in Gaza use torture against opponents, which includes beatings and tying up detainees in painful positions.

The article speaks for itself.

Arutzsheva reports that an agressive Left wing campaign aims to show Arabs want peace

I can't say it better than the article.

The aggressive initiative includes quotes from leading PA spokesmen, billboards, and widespread media coverage. The objective is to imbue the Israeli public with the sense that the ball is in its court, and that the PA leadership is truly ready to make peace...

This, despite the PA’s refusal in recent years to accept generous proposals proffered by ex-Prime Ministers Barak and Olmert that included some 98% of Judea and Samaria.

The campaign also does not mention what some have called the “Palestinian Culture of Hate,” which includes the naming of educational camps, sports tournaments, streets and more in memory of terrorists who have murdered dozens of Israelis.

Furthermore, a survey carried out by a PA organization this month finds that the Arab public is, in fact, not quite ready for peace. 86.3% of those polled - 3,001 Arab residents in the Palestinian Authority - see violence for the purpose of achieving a Palestinian state as anywhere between “essential” and “tolerable.”

Specifically, over 55% view violence as either essential or desirable, nearly 31% see it as either acceptable or tolerable, and only 13.7% say it is unacceptable.

In addition, 75% of those polled say the demilitarization of a future PA state is “unacceptable,” and over 84% say it is “essential” that all of Jerusalem, including the areas that have been Israel’s capital since 1948, must be part of a future PA state.

The survey was conducted this month by “Arab World for Research & Development,” based in Ramallah and Gaza...

Yet another phenomenon that the new initiative will have to overcome if it wants to persuade Israelis that the PA wants peace is the duplicity of the PA leaders. Commentator Daniel Pipes writes that Salam Fayyad, known as the PA’s prime minister, announced in English in Aspen, Colorado last year that Jews are welcome to live in a future state of Palestine where they “will enjoy [full] rights and certainly [not less] than Israeli Arabs enjoy now in the State of Israel.”

However, a few days earlier, chief PA negotiator Saeb Erekat said just the opposite in Arabic: “Nobody should agree to Israeli settlers remaining in the Palestinian [state]... Some say that we will [be willing to] grant the settlers citizenship. We reject [this idea] out of hand.”

 And of course you have the protest that was squelched by the PA leader.
Why aren't these people in a sanitarium so they don't hurt themselves and, more importantly, others?

Mike Whitney writes on why Iran's Jews are better off than Gaza's Palestinians. (Ha ha)

Arrgh! For every one good article there are 25 bad ones. Welcome to...

Mike Whitney: Why Iran's Jews are Better Off Than Gaza's Palestinians

In this miserable excuse for an article, Mike Whitney writes:

25,000 Jews live in Iran. It's the largest Jewish population in the Middle East outside of Israel. Iranian Jews are not persecuted or abused by the state, in fact, they are protected under Iran's constitution. They are free to practice their religion and to vote in elections.

Did you ever hear about the ten Jews accused of spying against Iran?

Well, this is a snippet from Arutzsheva.

In 2000, 10 Iranian Jews were convicted of espionage on behalf of Israel and were sentenced to lengthy prison terms. International pressure eventually brought about their release. Twelve other Jews have not been heard from since their arrests in the 1990s.

The idea that they were spying is idiotic. I actually heard one of those "spies" speak, after his release. They were arrested for practicing Judaism, nothing more.

Religious freedom for Jews in Iran? Not at all. There is actually an organization that does its best to bring Iranian Jews to America so they can practice Judaism, and learn about Judaism, without fear. Jews in Iran do not like living there and, given the opportunity, would quickly leave.

Continuing in the article we see this bit:

They are not stopped and searched at checkpoints, they are not brutalized by an occupying army, and they are not herded into a densely-populated penal colony (Gaza) where they are deprived of the basic means of survival.

Wow! Look at that! The Jews in Iran are not stopped by checkpoints. I wonder why? Maybe because they do not commit mass murder and suicide bombings that kill civilians!

As far as the brutal conditions the Gazans live in? It has been proven to be a myth. They have a surplus of goods, a mall, an Olympic sized swimming pool, and even a water park, all of which you can see pictures of here. Terrible!

Even the major Lefitst media, which have long been spouting the lies of the "Gaza crises" have given in to the truth. The Times published a news article with this as the main theme:

Gaza's residents will concede that there is no hunger crisis in the Strip. Residents do love the beach, and the store shelves are stocked. But if you're focused on starvation, they say, you're probably missing the point.

(Read it all here if you wish. The article screams "I want to criticize Israel but I can't; So I have to resort to this.")

Mike Witless continues:

But if those claims are true, then why did the majority of Iran's Jews vote for Ahmadinejad in recent presidential elections? Could it be that most of what we know about Ahmadinejad is just baseless rumor and propaganda?

Unfortunately, the author fails to back up his claim. But let us imagine that he had taken a poll from the Jews; Can you honestly imagine that they would say they voted against the dictatorial regime?

Then, we have this:

This excerpt appeared in an article by the BBC:

"(Ahmadinejad's) office recently donated money for Tehran's Jewish hospital. It is one of only four Jewish charity hospitals worldwide and is funded with money from the Jewish diaspora - something remarkable in Iran where even local aid organizations have difficulty receiving funds from abroad for fear of being accused of being foreign agents."

When did Hitler ever donate money to Jewish hospitals? The Hitler analogy is a desperate attempt to brainwash Americans. It tells us nothing about what Ahmadinejad is really like.

First of all, how many Jewish hospitals are there in Iran? One. and it is funded mostly by diaspora Jews. Maybe the reason it exists at all, is because Iranians may not give treatment to them. But I am just speculating here. I honestly know nothing of the subject and I am willing to admit it.

Then we have a conspiracy theory followed by a "foot in mouth" type comment.

The lies about Ahmadinejad are no different than the lies about Saddam Hussein or Hugo Chavez. The US and Israel are trying to create the justification for another war. That's why the media credits Ahmadinejad with saying things that he never really said. 

Ahmadinejad poses no threat to Israel or the United States... Like everyone else in the Middle East, he just wants a breather from US and Israeli aggression.

So the US wants another war, cause the war with Iraq did wonders for the economy and American outlook, so they misconstrued the dictator's comments. Right. 

Oh, and is this a form of Israeli aggression?

Also... 

He [Ahmadinejad] never said that he wanted to "wipe Israel off the map". That's another fiction. Author Jonathan Cook explains what the Iranian president really said:

"This myth has been endlessly recycled since a translating error was made of a speech Ahmadinejad delivered nearly two years ago. Farsi experts have verified that the Iranian president, far from threatening to destroy Israel, was quoting from an earlier speech by the late Ayatollah Khomeini in which he reassured supporters of the Palestinians that "the Zionist regime in Jerusalem" would "vanish from the page of time."

He was not threatening to exterminate Jews or even Israel. He was comparing Israel's occupation of the Palestinians with other illegitimate systems of rule whose time had passed, including the Shahs who once ruled Iran, apartheid South Africa and the Soviet empire. Nonetheless, this erroneous translation has survived and prospered because Israel and its supporters have exploited it for their own crude propaganda purposes." ("Israel's Jewish problem in Tehran", Jonathan Cook, The Electronic Intifada)

This comment was not "we will wipe Israel off the map" but actually "the Zionist regime in Jerusalem" would "vanish from the page of time." I don't know, that sounds a bit like a threat to me anyway. Not to mention the various war games, the death ambassador, and the recent threats made against Israel and the US.

So continue in this comical piece and we get:

This is from Wikipedia:

"The U.S. State Department has made claims of discrimination in Iran against Jews. According to its study, Jews may not occupy senior positions in government and are prevented from serving in the judiciary and security services and from becoming public school heads. The study says that Jewish citizens are permitted to obtain passports and to travel outside the country, but they often are denied the multiple-exit permits normally issued to other citizens. Allegations made by the U.S. State Department have been condemned by Iranian Jews. The Association of Tehrani Jews said in a statement, "We Iranian Jews condemn claims of the US State Department on Iranian religious minorities, announced that we are fully free to perform our religious duties and we feel no restriction on performing our religious rituals."

Who should we believe; the Jews who actually live Iran or the troublemaking US State Department?

The "troublemaking US state department." That was the first line that caught my eye, and it makes me laugh even now. Conspiracy theorists do that to me.

But consider that he questions who we should believe, The Jews of Iran (who he does not quote) or the US state department. Honestly? Freedom of speech, unlike in dictatorships, exists in the US. So, even if I didn't know the situation in Iran from a first-hand account, I would assume that the statement by the (notoriously anti-semitic) state department is the truth.

Then the final statement.

Things aren't perfect for Jews living in Iran, but they're better than they are for Palestinians living in Gaza. Much better.

This practically debunks his entire article, by saying that things aren't perfect for Jews in Iran, as he seemed to be saying before. He doesn't mention why things aren't perfect, either. Could it be that it would show his argument was an even greater falsehood than I have shown it?

Todays must read: Israellycool

Today’s Must Read : Israellycool

An excellent article worth reading. I recommend completely as a MUSTREAD as well. Truth is written in every sentence. Finally, good news with good research done. It is truly a rose among the thorns.

Palestinians riot in east Jerusalem neighborhood - Yahoo! News

Palestinians riot in east Jerusalem neighborhood - Yahoo! News

JERUSALEM – Palestinian residents in east Jerusalem threw rocks at police and settlers and set cars on fire in an ongoing dispute over a contested neighborhood Thursday.

Police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld said the early morning clashes in Silwan neighborhood erupted due to a disagreement over a pathway claimed by both Jewish and Arab families. He said an Israeli court ruled in 2000 that the pathway belongs to a Jewish family.

Come on! We all know the real reason these Arabs are attacking Jews. It's because its the days of Ramadan. Don't you know that all peaceful religions attack other faiths during their high holy days?
But here's the best part:

Palestinian residents, however, say the clash erupted after settlers were seen trying to break into a local mosque.

I highly doubt it. There is nothing of worth within those places for settlers to try and enter them. I'm sure evidence will show that, as usual, the Arabs are lying. Too many cases have come up, showing these people doing such. Namely, here, here, and here.

The Ambassador of Death not such a good ambassador after all

Israel Matzav recently posted that Time magazine says the Iranian bomber drone is, in fact, a fraud. Apparently the drone is

"More like the 'ambassador of minor damage to unintended target,'" says Richard Aboulafia, a veteran analyst with the Teal Group, an aerospace-consulting firm just outside Washington, D.C.

because...

Iran lacks the ability to guide its drone over long distances, nor does it have the sensors — both on the aircraft and at the ground stations controlling it — to make it any kind of a threat 

So the purpose of the announcement...

Iran isn't concerned about reality, just making the right impression, especially among its home audience

 because...

"Iran has no defense against an Israeli or U.S. first strike," John McCreary, a veteran U.S. intelligence analyst, said in his NightWatch blog Tuesday. "The leaders want to camouflage that fact by showing off weapons, without admitting that they have little value in protecting Iranians." Tehran also knows that the idea of an unmanned aircraft packs an insidious kind of punch. With no pilot at risk, the visceral reaction is that they can go anywhere to spy or destroy. But that's due to the success the Pentagon has had in recent years with those Predators and Reapers over Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan. That success is not guaranteed simply because a country possesses drones.

However, Israeli Matzav neglected to mention that the Times article doubts the capabilities of unmanned aircraft as weapons period. It also says in this article

The battlefield history of drones — armed or not — has largely been spent flying over territory that the U.S. or its allies control. Fly them into contested airspace — where foes on the ground or in other aircraft are trying to shoot them down — "and they'll start falling from the sky like rain," says U.S. Air Force Lieut. General Dave Deptula, a longtime airpower advocate who will soon end a 34-year career. The U.S. proved that in February 2009, when it claimed a pair of manned fighters shot down an Iranian drone hanging out over Iraq. The Iranians may have proved it themselves. According to a piece by Michael Ledeen in the Wall Street Journal, the Iranian air force securing the site of the controversial Bushehr nuclear reactor recently shot down what it thought were three enemy drones. The drones had been deployed by another sector of the Iranian military — but no one had bothered to tell the country's air force about the project.

Of course, the article explains why a US or Israeli drone may actually succeed in an attack.

 Hidden are the complicated technologies — ranging from satellite communications and navigation to sophisticated surveillance systems and miniaturized weapons — that get the drone within striking distance of its target, and then guide its warhead home. 

Israel Matzav ends with the statement:

Now, if only the US would undertake that first strike so that Israel won't have to.

 I quite agree. However, I do also feel, that though it may very well be that this drone is worthless, we should fear more about underestimating Iran's weapon than overestimating it. What if the drone does have the capabilities Iran advertises? We need to be prepared for all possible cases.
 You can read the full Times article here.

Note: Israeli Matzav neglected to mention that the Times article doubts the capabilities of unmanned aircraft as weapons period. It says

The battlefield history of drones — armed or not — has largely been spent flying over territory that the U.S. or its allies control. Fly them into contested airspace — where foes on the ground or in other aircraft are trying to shoot them down — "and they'll start falling from the sky like rain," says U.S. Air Force Lieut. General Dave Deptula, a longtime airpower advocate who will soon end a 34-year career

The pro-GZM Liberals have a new ideology

The Left seems to have a new ideology. "The end justifies the means"...to the extreme. Read Atlas Shrugs about the recent framing occuring by the GZM, here and here.

For critics of Islam, 'sharia' a loaded word

For critics of Islam, 'sharia' a loaded word

The Washington Times is at the forefront defending Islam. I think the editors should look at this site to find out why Americans are against Sharia.

The predicted Middle East nuclear arms race is on

As predicted, the nuclear arms race in the middle east has begun. Since Iran's nuclear reactor, and it's apparent malicious intentions, Egypt has announced the site of its first nuclear plant as El Dabaa, and Hizbullah is calling for a Lebanese nuclear reactor. And we all know where these nuclear reactors will lead. Both of these states are not friends of Israel, and thus there is reason to worry.
Yet Reuters, unsurprisingly, is putting the blame on Israel.

By staying outside the NPT, Israel has maintained secrecy over a program widely believed to have yielded the region's only atomic arsenal -- perceived as an irritant and threat among its neighbors.

 Israel's possible nuclear arsenal is perceived as an irritant to the Middle East? This country, which has not announced any ill designs against any of its neighbors, is the irritant that caused the other countries in the Middle East to create their own nuclear programs? On the contrary, Israel possible nuclear capabilities has most likely attributed to the relative calm in that area of the world.
The other countries, regardless of how they feel about the Jewish state, are willing to trust Israel to be the sole nuclear capable country because they know it will not use such weapons unless death of the state and its people is imminent.
Thus we have 2 factors that keep stability in the Middle East by Israel's possible nuclear arsenal.
1) The Arab states do not worry that Israel will use these weapons against them
2) The Arab states are less likely to attack Israel because of the possible threat
And Israel is the irritant.

(Update: point made here at PoliJam Times. Correction: PoliJam traced back to Arutzsheva)

Why isn't the main focus Iran?

Why are all the opinion columns on the Middle East/ Islam? I would think with all the military preparations that Iran is doing, that the fear of their nuclear capabilities should be at the forefront. Instead, we have columns on how Israel can make the doomed Peace Talks work, or we can read on how the West is becoming increasingly anti-Muslim.

 Never mind the enemy at our door, who, at the very least, will be able to create nuclear weapons by the end of this year. Never mind the threats and war drills that the enemy is showing the world publicly, daring us to attack him. No, that's not important. What is important is how the doomed peace talks will fair, or whether Muslims in the US are under attack for fears that they may turn us into another Islamisized Western country. A place where free speech will have no place. Where non-Muslims and women are considered secondary citizens. No, do not fear the Muslim, instead watch the peace talks, it will distract you from the bad thoughts.

This society has a new ideology: the "there is nothing to fear" ideology. If you have a fear, we will do all in our power to silence it through our columns. Iran running war drills won't be mentioned. Neither will it's ability to create a nuclear bomb, that it has threatened  to use. Instead, let's talk about easier things, like the Peace Process or how the West is becoming increasingly anti-Muslim ("so what do you think about the mosque at ground zero?").

We need to make heard the voice, that as Americans, though we have just come out of a very tiring war, and are actually still occupied with another, (both of which I may point out are mainly Muslim) it is time to strike Iran, before it is ready to strike us.


(I must note: right after I wrote this post, I found an article that did bring up Iran and the fact that we should attack it, though it was mostly a side point. The title certainly didn't come close to mentioning it. You can read it here if you wish)

Yuki Amano pressing Israel about it's nuclear policy?

I have seen articles claiming that IAEA commander in chief, Yuki Amano, is pressing Israel on it's supposed nuclear program. Yet, no statements have been made to that effect and the visit is quite low key with Yuki Amano only meeting with Peres; not with any of the higher authorities.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Amano seems to think that only Iran, not Israel, is a country to worry about gaining nuclear capabilities, as reported in the LA Times.

Amano... divides the world into responsible nuclear states and those that refuse to play by the rules, such as Iran and North Korea.

"Regarding this notion — of virtual nuclear weapons states — there isn't such a concept in the IAEA," he said. "There are those countries which apply fully comprehensive safeguards and other obligations. And there are some other countries that do not."

Israel, India and Pakistan, which are not signatories to the international Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, are not subject to the same safeguards as Iran, which is. But there remains a longstanding point of disagreement between the agency and Tehran over those rules, stemming from different interpretations of whether the Islamic Republic is obliged to adhere to a set of additional rules that it signed on to — provisionally, it now says — in 2003.

At the start of last month's meeting of the IAEA Board of Governors, Amano labeled Iran a "special case" because of its refusal to fully implement those additional rules and for defying six United Nations Security Council resolutions calling on it to halt its enrichment of uranium.

"I'm not saying that Iran has a nuclear weapons program," he said. "But there are issues that need clarification. Iran has past activities which were not declared. All of these aspects are specific, special to Iran. We don't find other countries that are in the same situation."

So where has this idea come from?

The Washington Times editorial on current events in Iran

The Washingtin Time printed an editorial today on the current events in the Middle East, more specifically Iran. In this editorial, the paper asks the humorous question: does the word "unacceptable" carry more weight when Israel says it than it does in the US?
The article points out discrepencies between what the Obama administration has said and actual fact.

The cliche of the day from the Obama administration is that "Iran's nuclear clock has slowed," but this would be news to the mullahs. Iran is producing enough weapons-grade material to make a bomb every nine months, and this rate is accelerating. In February, the Islamic republic began enriching uranium to higher and more dangerous levels than it had previously. There is no evidence that Iran's technical capacity to make nuclear weapons has diminished, the strategic logic of nuclear weapons has not changed, and Tehran's desire to pursue regional hegemony is undiminished. Absent solid evidence to the contrary, the notion that Iran is moving less rapidly toward its nuclear goals is simply the O Force's hope masquerading as change.

 The article also points to events that have happened "under the public radar" that may show that Israel's idea of "unacceptable" carries more weight in the world.

Some action seems to be occurring under the public radar screen, suggesting other countries are paying attention. There are unconfirmed reports that Reza Baruni, the mastermind of Iran's drone program, was assassinated earlier this month when his heavily guarded villa in southern Iran was bombed. On the same day, three unarmed drone aircraft reportedly crashed into the containment dome of the Bushehr reactor, causing minor panic among townspeople. Perhaps "unacceptable" means something after all.

An excellent column in the LA times

Read how there is still more anti-Jewish sentiment in America than anti-Muslim here. Of course this goes against the apparent theme of this article by the Washington Post. But whatever.

The PA's funds from the UAE dropped about $400 million dollars

It seems that the Arabs are placing the burden of supporting the PA on the Western countries. Barry Rubin writes in his blog, RubinReports:

 the United Arab Emirates, which gave the PA $174 million last year has offered nothing in 2010 while Saudi aid has allen from $241 million to only $30.6 million. That's a cut of almost $400 million from the PA's main Arab contributors. Others give very little. The PA's economic boom on the West Bank is being funded by Western taxpayers. 

I guess the west is becoming increasingly Muslim. Who'da thunk?

The Israeli Police are Left-wing Apparently

Though this doesn't come as a surprise,(I have long thought that the only security organizations in Israel are the IDF and Mossad), what does come as a surprise is that 2 articles implicating Israeli police as fighting for Leftist ideals showed up on the same day. At first I thought they were the same story, posted twice on Arutzsheva by accident. Then I read the articles. You can read them too, here and here.

Yesh Din May Have Caused the Destruction of 2 Illegal Mosques

I guess this is what they mean by "what goes around comes around!"
As reported by ArutzSheva.

Two mosques in Judea and Samaria may soon be ordered to be torn down by Israel’s High Court. Ironically enough, this decision may actually come about as a result of many appeals by a left-wing organization dedicated to assisting Arabs

Manar News Seems to Think a War with Lebanon is Imminent

Manar News seems to think that a war between Israel and Lebanon is in the near future. The Palestinian newspaper reports that Israel is training in in the forests like the forests of southern Lebanon.
Though I couldn't read the translation clearly, I did get 3 things out of the article.

1) Lebanon is afraid of another war
2)Lebanon is certain that there are talks between the US, Israel, and Arab nations about attacking Lebanon, or more specifically, Hezballoh
3)There is internal strife within Lebanon, especially in the wake of the Hariri investigations

The main point seems to be that Hezbollah is on its toes in trying to keep itself the sole power in Lebanon.

Eli Yishai Defends Himself in Interview With Ynetnews

Yair Lapid of Ynetnews interviews Eli Yishai on his decision to deport 400 illegal immigrant children. Eli does a mighty fine job of defending himself, too! Read it here.

Huffington Post's Keith Thomson Talks about Iran's "Ambassador of Death"

Keith Thomson, in his article titled "How Iran's "Ambassador of Death" Compares to Other Drones" discusses Iran's new weapon: The drone bomber they call, "The Ambassador of Death."

Depending on the mission, according to the Iranian Defense Ministry, the 13-foot-long, remotely-piloted aircraft can deliver either a pair of 250-pound bombs, a single 450-pound laser-guided bomb, or a quartet of cruise missiles. The UAV travels 560 miles per hour with 620-mile range.

But..

It should be noted that past Iranian defense claims have made fish stories seem reliable...

He then continues to compare the Iran bomber drone to the drones of  the US and Israel.

The poster child of UAVs, the 27-foot-long Predator has a cruise speed of 84 mph and a range of 454 miles...

...the 36-foot-long Reaper boasts a cruise speed of around 230 mph, a 3,682-mile range, and a relative arsenal including Hellfires, Sidewinder missiles and 500-pound laser-guided bombs.

...Israel unveiled the Heron UAV, 43 feet long with a wingspan of 85 feet, or about that of a Boeing 737. Its range is 5,000 miles--or deep into Iran and back twice.

...The Heron's weapons payload... can be 4,000 pounds...about eight times that of Iran's new aircraft.

...the Avenger, with a top speed of close to 500 mph and, more importantly, a good deal of infrared and radar-proof stealth design...

And Iran's Bomber?

The Karrar's stated range would leave it nearly 500 miles shy of Israel.

...without stealth, the Ambassador of Death may find itself the jet-powered version of a sitting duck.

 James Jewell, President of UAV MarketSpace and one of America's top unmanned aerial systems experts, speculated that Iran's new offering is "nothing special," adding of today's announcement, "I suspect it has an element of hyperbole since it comes so close to the nuclear reactor fueling announcement."  

But Iran does have one thing going for it, however...

The Ambassador of Death... has the scariest name

AAAND more untrue statements made under the cover of News Coverage

NEWS ANALYSIS

U.S. Weighs Tough Choice Over Aid for Lebanon

I stumbled upon this article written by the New York Times:

WASHINGTON — Earlier this month, Israeli soldiers were pruning a tree on their country’s northern border when a firefight broke out with Lebanese soldiers across the fence, leaving one Israeli and four Lebanese dead. The skirmish seems to have been accidental. But it quickly set off a war of words in Washington and Beirut, with American lawmakers warning ofHezbollah infiltration in the Lebanese Army, and threatening to cut off $100 million in military aid.

 The skirmish seems to have been accidental!! Since when are accidents planned? 


Then we have this tidbit:

The Americans want to help their friends in the Middle East while insisting that they rigorously cut off militant groups like Hezbollah, the Shiite movement that is committed to Israel’s destruction. But the realities on the ground almost always demand difficult compromises that can seem, from Washington, like dangerous concessions to the enemy.

Lebanon, for instance, is an intricate patchwork of sects and political factions where the army plays the precarious role of a middleman. No one can avoid working to some degree with Hezbollah, the most powerful military and political force in the country. The alternative, Lebanon’s pro-Western factions say, is much worse.

“Should we undermine the army and give the whole country to Hezbollah?” said Paul Salem, the director of the Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut. “It’s a classic ‘cut off your nose to spite your face.’ ” 

 So America wants friends in the Middle East, and the best way to help their 'friendship' with Lebanon is to help their 'friends' (who happen to be supporters of their enemies) even while those friends are in cahoots with enemies of democracy and all that makes this state great. (My head is spinning from such logic) What is this ingenious stupidity that the State Department seems to possess? And why is this Author agreeing with them?

(Note: Elder of Ziyon has written an excellent piece on this article as well. I apparently missed it before I wrote this. Read his piece here.)