Dear Family & Friends,

Traveling is not necessarily conducive to smooth GW Diary ‘sends’. But, I’ll do it anyway because life goes on. I’m working on a old, balky netbook but, it’s not so bad.

Note #1: Israel’s Report on the Gaza War & #2: Hamas War Crimes ….these are only small examples why I’m still sending it out under that title. #3 Michael Oren really skewers Potus. #s 4&5 bring warm feelings of Jewish & Israeli pride from the Kirk/Michael & Dylan Douglas family. Now you have to read the rest – it is all interesting. Trust me on this.

Have a peaceful night, a sweet day & a great tomorrow. All the very best,

Gail/Geula/Savta/Savta Raba x 2/Mom

1.Key findings from Israel’s report on the 2014 Gaza conflict By Herb Keinon

2.Hamas War Crimes Revealed in New Report

9. Reports of discrimination against Israeli students at the Louvre Museum in Paris

10. ISIS Tweets Home Address of Pamela Geller

11.Cloak of Misinformation & Lies? By: Yehudit Tayar

1.Key findings from Israel’s report on the 2014 Gaza conflict By HERB KEINON Jpost.com Sun, 14 Jun 2015, 08:02 PM

The following are some key findings from Israel’s report on Operation Protective Edge, entitled “The 2014 Gaza Conflict: Factual and Legal Aspects.”

Photo by: REUTERS

2.Hamas War Crimes Revealed in New Report By Mayans Miskin JewishPress.com 6/14/15 Celebrating victory in Shijaiyah… or else. Photo Credit: Abed Rahim Khatib/Flash90

Hamas War Crimes Revealed in New Report

3.Ex-Envoy Reveals How Obama Betrayed Israel Alliance

Former ambassador Michael Oren details how Obama abandoned ‘no daylight’ and ‘no surprises,’ and single-handedly brought relations to a nadir. By Ari Yashar Arutz Sheva IsraelNationalNews.com 6/16/15 3:48p

Former Israeli ambassador to the US Michael Oren revealed the depths of US President Barack Obama’s antagonism to Israel and abandonment of the policies underlying the alliance between the two countries in an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal on Monday.

Israel may have made “mistakes” according to Oren with questionably timed building

announcements for Jewish housing in eastern Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, but Obama made mistakes against Israel “deliberately.”

“From the moment he entered office, Mr. Obama promoted an agenda of championing the Palestinian cause and achieving a nuclear accord with Iran,” wrote Oren. “Mr. Obama posed an even more fundamental challenge by abandoning the two core principles of Israel’s alliance with America.”

Outlining these two principles, he noted the first was the concept of “no daylight,” by which the US and Israel avoided public disagreements so as not to encourage their common enemies to exploit the disharmony.

Back in 2009, Oren recalls how Obama told American Jewish leaders, “when there is no daylight Israel just sits on the sidelines and that erodes our credibility with the Arabs,” a comment that ignored the 2005 Disengagement plan from Gaza and Israel’s previous two offers to the Palestinian Authority (PA) to grant them a state.

Obama also nixed former President George W. Bush’s promise to include major “settlement blocs” in Judea and Samaria within Israel’s borders according to any peace agreement, instead forcing Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to impose total building freezes in those areas.

Oren noted that as a result, PA chairman Mahmoud Abbas torpedoed the peace talks by sealing a unity deal with Hamas, “but he never paid a price. By contrast, the White House routinely condemned Mr. Netanyahu for building in areas that even Palestinian negotiators had agreed would remain part of Israel.”

Surprises galore

“The other core principle was ‘no surprises,'” details Oren. “President Obama discarded it in his first meeting with Mr. Netanyahu, in May 2009, by abruptly demanding a settlement freeze and Israeli acceptance of the two-state solution. The following month the president traveled to the Middle East, pointedly skipping Israel and addressing the Muslim world from Cairo.”

The former ambassador noted that Israeli leaders in the past were given forewarning about major US policy statements regarding the Middle East, and were able to give their opinions on them.

“But Mr. Obama delivered his Cairo speech, with its unprecedented support for the Palestinians and its recognition of Iran’s right to nuclear power, without consulting Israel.”

“Similarly, in May 2011, the president altered 40 years of U.S. policy by endorsing the 1967 lines with land swaps – formerly the Palestinian position – as the basis for peace-making,” continued Oren. “If Mr. Netanyahu appeared to lecture the president the following day, it was because he had been assured by the White House, through me, that no such change would happen.”

Yet another “surprise” was when Obama offered to back a UN Security Council investigation of Israel’s communities in Judea and Samaria, and likewise offered “to back Egyptian and Turkish efforts to force Israel to reveal its alleged nuclear capabilities.”

“The abandonment of the ‘no daylight’ and ‘no surprises’ principles climaxed over the Iranian nuclear program,” wrote Oren. “In 2014, Israel discovered that its primary ally had for months been secretly negotiating with its deadliest enemy.”

“The past six years have seen successive crises in U.S.-Israeli relations, and there is a need to set the record straight. But the greater need is to ensure a future of minimal mistakes and prevent further erosion of our vital alliance,” he concluded.

Ex-Envoy Reveals How Obama Betrayed Israel Alliance

MainOp-EdsWe Hear You, Michael Douglas

4.We Hear You, Michael Douglas by Jack Engelhard

We need voices like Michael Douglas to speak up, to denounce anti-Semitism and to be out there for Israel. Arutz Sheva IsraelNationalNews.com June 16, 2015 7:45 PM

Jack Engelhard

Michael & Kirk Douglas – Son & Father Zionists!

Michael Douglas, in Israel to receive the Genesis Prize, needs no introduction. He is big enough and famous enough to take care of himself.

But something happened. Not to him, but to his son, Dylan, and that’s when it really hurts.

Somewhere in Europe, as Douglas described it for the LA Times, 14-year-old Dylan came crying to his father about a verbal attack that took place at a swimming pool. A man took note of Dylan’s Star of David and proceeded to launch an anti-Semitic tirade.

Imagine the pain. This happened last summer and still today, Douglas is worked up with indignation.

He says something must be done about anti-Semitism. Agreed. He says this can only happen in Europe. Here I totally disagree.
First of all, there is plenty of that going around within the United States, if we dare come to terms with what’s really happening along our campuses.

Second, we need voices exactly like that, like those of the Hollywood rich and famous, people like Michael Douglas, to speak up, yes, to denounce anti-Semitism – but it is not enough to be against something. That gets you nowhere. More important is to be FOR something, and to be for Israel would be a good place to start.

Immediately another Douglas comes to mind – Kirk Douglas, Michael’s dad. If any Hollywood actor needs no introduction, this is the man, and what a man. Thank goodness we still have him with us at 98 years old. He is the final link to Hollywood’s Golden Age – and he is a Zionist.

He was a Zionist when everybody was a Zionist – and damn how times have changed!

Back in 1960, Otto Preminger gave us “Exodus” starring Paul Newman and Eva Marie Saint. Let’s not quibble about the details. This was a Zionist film. Hollywood was not afraid to make it and there were no boycotts against the film, or against Israel. Did I already say times have changed?

Try making “Exodus” today. Let me know how it goes. Good luck.

The mood was so different back then because Israel was presented as a romance, a love story between a Land and its people.

That’s the theme of every Hollywood movie…boy gets girls, boy loses girl, boy wins girl back. The Jewish people get Israel (Biblically), lose Israel, win her back.

What a story, and back in the 1950s and 1960s it was a story that could be told, and nobody told it better, in 1966, than Kirk Douglas in “Cast A Giant Shadow.” This film gave it all, the pioneering spirit of the early founders, told with facts and emotion.

Who else was in that terrific movie? Frank Sinatra. Only Herzl himself was more of a Zionist than the Italian Kid from Hoboken. Sinatra’s profound dedication to Israel was at a time when Israel was popular — and why was it popular?

Because we had people like Sinatra and Kirk Douglas and Marlon Brando and John Wayne…and so many others who stood tall for Israel.

To stand for Israel is different from standing against anti-Semitism. People – especially the young – need a cause.

Against something is not a cause. For something is a cause.

At some point, from the 1960s forward, the mood changed. It’s for another time to discuss what happened and how it happened and why it happened – though for me, it started right after the 1973 War when Israel woke up late and a perceived weakness gave the anti-Semites an opening.

But that’s too simplistic. Radical Liberalism was on the move and it’s still moving and as we have learned to our dismay, Radical Liberalism and anti-Semitism – this is a marriage made in hell. In short, we lost the voices, the big voices, the glamour voices that speak for Israel.

Jon Voigt, bless him, yes, and who else?

That something like 80 percent of the Jewish vote went for Obama – twice – that tells you something.

That Barbra Streisand and her Hollywood clique keep funding-raising for Obama, that tells us something maybe even bigger.

In America, pop culture IS culture, and when Israel can find only one or two friends within the Hollywood elite, somebody else must step up.

Let it be Michael Douglas.

Or let it be David Mamet. This Pulitzer Prize winner is our foremost playwright and a top-notch screenwriter. One day he decided that enough was enough. He quit toying with the façade of being “a brain-dead Liberal” and announced himself squarely as a Conservative and staunchly on the side of Israel.

He lost friends. You should have heard the geshrei in The New York Times.

Nobody said it would be easy. These are tough days and tough times to be Jewish, and it’s even tougher to be pro-Israel.

We can’t wait for an end to anti-Semitism. This will always be with us. But for a start to reinvigorate Jewish pride, Jewish muscle, there is only this…

Love of Zion.

Let’s hear it expressed resolutely from voices that count – while we still have a voice. Yes, before it’s too late.

Novelist Jack Engelhard wrote the international bestseller “Indecent Proposal” that was translated into more than 22 languages and turned into a Paramount motion picture starring Robert Redford and Demi Moore. His latest work is “The Bathsheba Deadline.”

Website: www.jackengelhard.comThis article first appeared in the monthly magazine “The Jewish Word”, an RZA-Arutz Sheva publication in the US.

5.Jewish/Israeli Pride–Michael, Dylan & Kirk Douglas By: Batya Medad JewishPress.com Published: June 17th, 2015

Douglas Family Bar Mitzvah Photo

MORE ABOUT JEWISH PRIDE…

In an interesting twist, two generations after Issur Danielovitch aka Kirk Douglas married the non-Jewish Diana, his grandson Dylan, son of Michael and the non-Jew Catherine Zeta Jones, is strongly identifying as a Jew. At his request he even had a Bar Mitzvah of sorts.
A few decades ago, it would be unheard of for a family with Jewish roots, but non-Jewish according to Jewish Law, to come out so publicly and proudly as Jewish. “I have no formal religious background,” he said. “So this came as a surprise to some degree.”
His son, intrigued by his many Jewish friends who were going through the process of studying for their bar mitzva, spent many Saturdays observing what they learned in Hebrew school. After several months, “he came to me and his mom and said, ‘Mom, dad, I want to have a bar mitzva.’”
“’When I go to their houses on Friday night, we light the candles, I feel something. When I go there and listen to them talk, my soul feels something,’” Dylan told his father.
“I said, ‘That’s fantastic,’” Douglas recalled, the pride for his son clearly evident in his voice. (Jerusalem Post) I certainly can’t predict of this strong Jewish identity will last in young Dylan, if it will fade away or he’ll get more involved or even convert. At the same time, I wonder about the non-Jews in my extended family. Will any of them try to return to their Jewish roots?
At the book launch for Rabbi Shlomo Riskin’s latest book, he and Caroline Glick discussed the situation of families like that of the Douglases. Chazal gives a different status to non-Jews of paternal Jewish roots versus non-Jews without any genealogical Jewish history. According to Riskin, potential converts of paternal Jewish lines, zera yisrael, Jewish Seed, are supposed to be welcomed to conversion proceedings (education) and not given the usual series of refusals.

May Israel’s leaders lead with strong confident Jewish Values, fearing only G-d Almighty, and may all Jews and also those of Jewish roots return to Our Jewish People and Jewish Land, Torah and Mitzvot.

About the Author: Batya Medad blogs at Shiloh Musings.

& ORANGE  BY BATYA MEDAD

For the longest time, I’ve begged (on my blogs) the Israeli Government, official and media to act outrageously insulted and demand suitable compensation or else against those who treat Israel badly. That includes offenses like Turkey’s sending the flotilla of weapons to support Gazan Arab terrorists against us, or the countries led by the USA that refuse to recognize Jerusalem as our Capital City and everything in between. So I was completely overjoyed when the new Netanyahu, Likud Government actually exhibited outrage at the anti-Israel comments of the head of Orange recently. And just like I’ve always said, “if you act strong people will respect you,” the Orange company head is in Israel to apologize and smoothe things over. Orange chief executive Stephane Richard, whose remarks about ending a licensing deal have caused anger in Israel, will meet Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Friday during a visit to the country, a company spokeswoman said.
“Richard declared that he is happy to have a chance to clarify Orange Group commitment to Israel,” spokeswoman Nilly Richman said in a statement, adding that the CEO also planned to meet Israel’s former head of state Shimon Peres.
After arriving in Israel on Thursday, he visited Tel Aviv-based Orange Fab, an accelerator program for Israeli high-tech start-ups that was purchased by Orange.
Israel protested to France after Richard said last week that he would terminate a licensing arrangement with Israel’s Partner Communications “tomorrow morning” if the contracts allowed. Orange is 25 percent owned by the French government. (Reuters) We’re always getting bullied, because we kowtow in response instead of hitting back. Today there is a lot of emphasis in child-raising in how to teach your children not to be a victim. International Relations and diplomacy work the same way. Israel’s being “nice” about being insulted and trying to placate the bullies only increases the diplomatic offensive against Israel.

6.White House Confirms Death of Yemeni Qaeda Leader

White House confirms death of Nasser al-Wuhayshi in airstrike, says it was a “major blow” to the organization By Ben Ariel Arutz Sheva IsraelNationalNews.com First Publish: 6/17/2015, 4:16 AM

Nasir al-Wuhayshi, 2nd right Reuters

The White House on Tuesday confirmed that the leader of Al-Qaeda’s Yemen branch, Nasser al-Wuhayshi, has been killed in an airstrike, Reuters reported, calling the death a “major blow” to the organization.

Al-Wuhayshi was the head of the Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) terrorist group. Two Yemeni officials had said on Monday that he was killed in a suspected American drone strike in Yemen’s Hadramout region.

“The president has been clear that terrorists who threaten the United States will not find safe haven in any corner of the globe,” the White House said in a statement referring to al-Wuhayshi’s death.

“While AQAP (Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula), Al-Qaeda, and their affiliates will remain persistent in their efforts to threaten the United States, our partners, and our interests, (his) death removes from the battlefield an experienced terrorist leader and brings us closer to degrading and ultimately defeating these groups,” added the statement, quoted by Reuters.

In a video that surfaced in April last year, al-Wuhayshi made clear that he’s going after the United States, saying, “We must eliminate the cross. … The bearer of the cross is America!”

The video showed what looked like the largest and most dangerous gathering of Al-Qaeda in years.

Originally from Yemen, al-Wuhayshi assumed command of AQAP in 2009. He had escaped a Yemeni prison in 2006, and had previously worked as a personal secretary for Osama bin Laden.

In January, AQAP called for “lone wolf attacks” against the United States and the West. That call came days after the group claimed responsibility for the Charlie Hebdo massacre in Paris,.

White House Confirms Death of Yemeni Qaeda Leader

7.Nuclear War and Nuclear Peace: Israel’s strategic options by Prof. Louis René Beres Failed diplomatic negotiations between Iran and the so-called P5-plus-1 countries will allow Iran to become a nuclear weapons state. Israel will have to reassess its immediate and long-term survival options. Arutz Sheva IsraelNationalNews.com June 16, 2015 8:49 AM

Prof. Louis René Beres, (Ph.D, Princeton, 1971) is emeritus professor of Political Science at Purdue U.

Now, facing an effectively unobstructed nuclear threat from Iran, Israel will need to choose prudently from among available strategic options. The most starkly polar of these choices would be (1) a “last minute” preemption using only conventional forces, or (2) a protracted and presumptively stable posture of nuclear deterrence. Should it opt for the former, a legally defensive first-strike known in more formal jurisprudence as “anticipatory self-defense,” Jerusalem could possibly hold back any further Iranian nuclearization, but only at more-or-less substantial cumulative costs.

There is more. Such extraordinary costs might need to be borne by Israel on several different fronts. Most likely, these would include not only the plausible prospect of variably destructive Iranian reprisals (even though, at this stage, using “only” conventional ordnance), but also an ominous assortment of surrogate terrorist attacks by Hezbollah. Already, some of these corollary attacks could involve chemical, biological, or even nuclear “dirty bomb” components. Naturally, following an Israeli preemption, however indispensable such defensive action would be to its physical survival, Jerusalem could expect a veritable whirlwind of coordinated international condemnations & related sanctions. [1]

Should Israel’s leaders decline any eleventh-hour preemption option, and select instead a plan for deterring a now-impending Islamist nuclear adversary, a number of corresponding decisions would be required. These decisions would concern, inter alia, an expanding role for ballistic missile defenses, and also continuance or discontinuance of the beleaguered country’s historic policy of deliberate nuclear ambiguity. These ambiguity-related issues are more generally referred to as the “bomb in the basement.”

For Israel, confronting a nearly-nuclear Iran, the question of keeping the bomb in the basement could rapidly assume a primary urgency. At that point, it will have become essential for Jerusalem to communicate unambiguously to Tehran that Israel’s nuclear forces are sufficiently secure from enemy first-strikes, and sufficiently capable of penetrating enemy active defenses. [2]

It would also become necessary to assure Iran that Israel’s own nuclear weapons were plainly

usable, that is, not of such an injuriously high yield as to be unrealistic implements of deterrence. This is because the deterrent efficacy of any single state’s nuclear forces could sometime vary inversely with perceived destructiveness. In other words, seemingly small nuclear forces could actually offer more credible threats of unacceptable retaliation, than would be expressed by large nuclear forces.

Israel, oddly perhaps, should be attentive to some ongoing transformations of nuclear strategy in Islamic Pakistan. Here, observable in its own adversarial and already-nuclear dyad vis-à-vis India, Islamabad is openly tilting toward far smaller or “tactical” nuclear weapons (TNW). Since Pakistan first announced a test of its 60-kilometer Nasr ballistic missile back in 2011, the country’s “advertised” emphasis upon TNW seems to have been designed to more effectively deter a conventional war. Evidently, by threatening to use relatively low-yield or “battlefield” nuclear weapons for retaliation, Pakistan hopes, among other things, to appear meaningfully less provocative to Delhi.

With such a stance, Islamabad likely calculates, the unraveling country is less apt to elicit any nuclear reprisals.

To be sure, on conceptual levels, Israel vs. Iran is not analogous to India vs. Pakistan. For Israel, any nuclear retaliatory threats, whether still “ambiguous,” or newly “disclosed,” would need, above all, to deter an Iranian nuclear attack. Still, just as Pakistan has apparently calculated the benefits of issuing theatre nuclear deterrence retaliatory threats (to curb unwanted escalations from conventional to nuclear conflict), so too might Israel reason that it could better prevent the onset of conventional war with Iran by employing threats of TNW.

In the formal language of military professionals, such graduated strategic threats are prominently linked to “escalation dominance.”

Sometimes, in rendering complex strategic judgments, meaning can be counter-intuitive. Regarding necessary Israeli preparations for enhanced security from a nuclear Iran, there is an obvious but still-overlooked irony. In certain predictable circumstances, that is, the credibility of Israeli deterrent threats could be undermined by perceptions of too-great destructiveness. This means that one especially compelling reason for moving away from deliberate ambiguity, and toward certain limited forms of nuclear disclosure, would be to communicate that Israel’s retaliatory nuclear weapons were not too large.

Concerning the country’s nuclear forces and doctrine, Israel’s decision-makers will need to proceed more self-consciously and explicitly with another basic choice. This decision would concern making a basic distinction between “assured destruction strategies,” and “nuclear war fighting strategies.” In narrowly military parlance, assured destruction strategies are sometimes called “counter-value,” or “Mutual Assured Destruction” (MAD) strategies.

These are essentially alternate theories of deterrence, postures in which a state primarily targets its strategic weapons on a presumed enemy’s civilian populations, and/or on its supporting civilian infrastructures. Although seemingly in violation of humanitarian international law, or the law of armed conflict (because it would seem to disregard the unwavering obligation to protect noncombatants), it is reasonable to argue that such targeting doctrines could reduce the probability of any actual nuclear war or nuclear exchange.

Nuclear war-fighting strategies are sometimes called “counterforce” strategies. In these more aggressive orientations to deterrence, a state primarily targets its strategic weapons on a presumed enemy’s major weapon systems, and also on some of its supporting military infrastructures. For nuclear weapon states in general, and for Israel in particular, there are very serious survival implications for choosing either one core strategy, or the other.

It is also possible that a country could consciously opt for some sort of “mixed” (counter-value/counterforce) nuclear targeting doctrine. In any event, whichever deterrence strategy Israel might choose, all that really matters is what the pertinent enemy state (in this case, Iran) would perceive as real.

War is microcosm. In strategic matters, as in life generally, the most deeply meaningful reality is perceived reality.

In choosing between two basic strategic alternatives, Israel could opt for nuclear deterrence based upon assured destruction. Here, Israel would assume an enlarged risk of “losing” any nuclear war that might still arise. Counter-value-targeted nuclear weapons, by definition, would not destroy military targets.

If, on the other hand, Israel were to opt for nuclear deterrence based upon counterforce capabilities, its Iranian enemy could then feel especially threatened, an unstable condition that could ultimately heighten the prospect of an actual nuclear exchange.

Going forward, Israel’s decision on counter-value versus counterforce doctrines should be based, in part, on its prior investigations of: (1) enemy state inclinations to strike first; and (2) enemy state inclinations to strike all-at-once, or in stages. Should Israeli strategic planners assume that a nuclear Iran is apt to strike first, and to strike in an unlimited fashion (that is, to fire all of its nuclear weapons right away), Israeli counterforce-targeted warheads – used in retaliation – would likely hit only empty launchers. In such circumstances, therefore, Israel’s only rational application of counterforce doctrine could be to strike first itself.

If, for whatever reason, Israel were to reject all still-available preemption options, there would be no reason to opt for a counterforce strategy. Rather, from the standpoint of persuasive intra-war deterrence, a counter-value strategy could then prove much more appropriate.

Should Israeli planners assume that a nuclear Iran is apt to strike first, and to strike in a limited fashion, holding some significant measure of nuclear firepower in reserve for follow-on strikes, Israeli counterforce-targeted warheads could still display certain damage-limiting benefits. Here, counterforce operations could serve both an Israeli preemption, or, should Israel decide not to preempt, an Israeli retaliatory strike.

Further, should any Israeli first-strike be intentionally limited, perhaps because it would then be coupled with assurances of no further destruction in exchange for a prompt end to hostilities, these operations could productively serve an Israeli counter-retaliatory strike. Conceivably, Israel’s attempt at intra-war deterrence could fail, occasioning the need for follow-on strikes, in order to produce badly needed damage-limitation.

Israeli preparations for nuclear war-fighting should not be understood as a distinct alternative to preparations for nuclear deterrence. Instead, such preparations should become essential and integral components of Israeli nuclear deterrence. After all, a vital connection may emerge between likely prowess/success in war, and the quality of pre-war nuclear deterrence.

In his illuminating 1982 book, The Bar Kokhba Syndrome, Yehoshafat Harkabi, a former Chief of Military Intelligence in Israel, examined a calamitous Jewish-historical event in the second century (132-135 AD/C.E.). Harkabi had sought to understand how an ill-fated ancient uprising could have pushed the Jewish People to the outer margins of history, and, more importantly, what specific strategic lessons might now be learned from “Bar Kokhba.” He concluded that (a) “In policy-making, to take a risk and to make sacrifices occasionally is necessary, but there is a limit to the dangers worthy of risk, for national existence is never to be jeopardized;” and (b) “…in (specifically) nuclear circumstances, refrain from a provocation for which the adversary may have only one response, nuclear war.”

Understood in terms of Israel’s present and most pressing security concerns, Harkabi would have favored virtually any promising Israeli measures intended to prevent Iran from ever becoming nuclear. Failing that option, he would likely have urged implementation of maximally stable nuclear deterrence between the two adversary states. Expressing the smallest expected probabilities of any catastrophic failure, this optimal system of deterrence would have been designed to convince Tehran that any use of its nuclear weapons, even in retaliation, would be irrational.

Such well-reasoned Israeli emphases on rationality could still fall on deaf ears, especially if the decision-makers in Tehran become more deeply concerned with fulfilling presumed “end times” expectations of Shiite religious doctrine. Nonetheless, short of viewing a prompt and residual preemptive attack on Iran as its only appropriate remedy, Jerusalem has no remaining choice but to proceed according to standard military planning assumptions of enemy rationality.

—————

Louis René Beres was educated at Princeton (Ph.D., 1971), and is the author of many books and articles dealing with Israeli nuclear strategy. His most recent articles have been published in the Harvard National Security Journal (Harvard Law School); The International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence; Parameters: Journal of the US Army War College; Israel Journal of Foreign Affairs; Herzliya Conference Working Papers (Israel); The Jerusalem Post; US News & World Report; and The Atlantic. Emeritus Professor of International Law at Purdue, Dr. Beres’ tenth book, “Israel’s Nuclear Strategy: Surviving amid Chaos”, will be published later this year (Rowman and Littlefield). He was born in Zürich, Switzerland, at the end of World War II.

[1] The combination of Israel’s costs could actually exceed their “mere” additive sum. This is because of the prospectively synergistic nature of any such combination. See, for example, Louis René Beres, “Core Synergies in Israel’s Strategic Planning: When the Adversarial Whole is Greater than the Sum of its Parts,” Harvard National Security Journal, Harvard Law School, June 2, 2015.

[2] Meeting these requirements brings up the issue of Israeli sea-basing (submarines). See, for example: Louis René Beres and (Admiral/USN/ret.) Leon “Bud” Edney, “Israel’s Nuclear Strategy: A Larger Role for Submarine Basing,” The Jerusalem Post, August 17, 2014; and Professor Beres and Admiral Edney, “A Sea-Based Nuclear Deterrent for Israel,” Washington Times, September 5, 2014. Admiral Edney was NATO Supreme Allied Commander, Atlantic.

10. ISIS Tweets Home Address of Pamela Geller The tweet was posted two days after a new Mohammed drawing contest was announced in New Hampshire. By: Tzvi Ben-Gedalyahu JewishPress.com Published: June 14th, 2015

“Drudge Report” headline last May on ISIS threat to kill Geller.

A tweet from a man in Britain believed to be a senior member of the Islamic State (ISIS) posted the home address of anti-radical Islam activist Pamela Geller, who is Jewish. The Jewish Press.com is not re-posting the information even though we have no ISIS readers, as far as we know.

She was targeted for beheading in a plot that was smashed two weeks ago when Boston policemen arrested two men who had planned to decapitate her but then decided to make policemen their first victims because they were “easier targets.”

The Twitter account “#GoForth,” from which the tweet was sent and which now has been suspended revealed Geller’s address and apartment number in New York City.

Geller rose to be U.S. Public Enemy No. 1 for the ISIS after she staged a contest in Texas in May for drawings of the Prophet Mohammed.

She may soon have company in the form of New Hampshire resident and ex-marine Jerry DeLemus, who plans another “draw Mohammed” event in August.

He said last week: “I’m not worried about taking a risk. It’s more important to defend our way of life in this country, our constitutional rights, for everybody.”

DeLemus told Maine’s WMTW: “I guarantee if there weren’t Muslims actually in this country actively trying to kill people for drawing pictures of Mohammad, I’d never have an art contest to draw Muhammad.”

“I’m not forcing anyone to come. That’s Sharia law. I’m sure they’ll know with the news media coverage there’s a risk involved.”

He declared that he won’t allow offensive drawing and added: “It’s a political statement that we’re America, we’re free. And we can do things that offend one another.

As a Christian, they do all kinds of ugly things about my faith. But I’ve never wanted to kill someone about it. So I’m hoping it comes out peaceful. But I just want the dialog to be had.”

Plenty of security will be on hand, and Geller now walks around with personal bodyguards because of death threats.

One of the suspects in the plot to behead Geller was killed when he pulled out an 8-inch military knife as he approached policemen who were preparing to arrest him for questioning.

Two others were charged on Friday for the plot. David Wright was arrested shortly after his co-conspirator Usaamah Rahim was killed, and the third suspect is Nicholas Rovinski, who was arrested on Thursday. He also goes under the name Amriki aka Nuh al Andalusi.

“Beginning at a date unknown but no later than May 2015, Wright, Rovinski and Rahim conspired to commit attacks and kill persons inside the United States, which they believed would support ISIL’s objectives,” according to a Dept. of Justice statement.

Rovinski and Wright face a maximum prison sentence of 15 years for conspiring to support the Islamic State.

About the Author: Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu is a graduate in journalism and economics from The George Washington University.

11.Cloak of Misinformation & Lies? By: Yehudit Tayar JewishPress.com Published: June 14th, 2015

Tomb of the Patriarchs, Hevron Photo Credit: Flash 90

[This article was written by the author in 2006 and perhaps is more relevant now than in the past)

I have had the dubious opportunity of meeting with many varied representatives of foreign countries during the last thirty or so years, since I have served as one of the spokespeople of the Settlement Movement, and of Israel in general.

There have been many occasions when I was doubtful if I should actually meet with people who are, for the most part, locked into their own agenda and ignorant of the history of my people and land. “Why knock my head against the wall?” I wonder each time. And then, feeling that since we Jews have little or no platform to air our case, I usually give in and meet with these “all-knowing, superior-feeling, human-rights people.”

Last week, against my better judgment, I again agreed not only to meet with three such people, but I agreed to take them around in Hevron and Samaria.

During the trip that was coordinated by Gro Wenske – perhaps one of the truest and most loyal friends of the Jewish people and Israel – I took the time and care to present our guests with the history of the areas wherein we traveled, giving both Biblical and modern history.

In Hevron, we met with my friend and our spokesman for Hevron, David Wilder, who took the time and effort to meet us and take us through the museum in Beit Hadassah, which today serves as the memorial museum for the Jewish community in Hevron destroyed by the pogroms carried out by the Muslims in 1929.

The three young people on the tour, two men and a woman, are here from Norway and live amongst the Muslims in Bethlehem, Hevron and the Old City of Jerusalem. They belong to a so-called international human rights organization. This was basically the first opportunity they had to be exposed to “our side” of the situation.

I understand the well-meaning people who travel thousands of miles in order to try and alleviate some of the suffering of other people living in very difficult circumstances. I understand the frustration felt by these “naive” foreigners when shown how the Muslim Arabs are living in the areas under the Palestinian Authority (i.e., Hamas).

I do not understand at all how they accept the fact that terrorist organizations like the Fatah and Hamas use civilians as human shields and specifically hide themselves, their terror cells and weaponry in these civilian populations. I do not accept the accusation that we Israelis, we Jews, are culpable for the terrorism. I do not accept the blame for the suffering of the Muslims who are used as pawns by those who, instead of protecting their rights and trying to achieve peaceful coexistence, have been intentionally preventing the situation from improving, and educating towards continuous violence against the Jews and their state.

I was appalled to hear one of these visitors ask me if I did not think that it was a lot of nerve that the Bible, Israel and the United States opposed the world on the issue of Jerusalem and other “conquered” lands. This, from one who maintains that he is a member of the clergy.

Touring around, and recounting our personal and national experiences of loss, and showing the grim proof of the terror attacks directed against us, meant nothing to these human rights activists. They continued to see and hear only what they are programmed to see and hear. They continue to view the barricades, roadblocks, barbed wire and enormous fences put up by Israel – in a useless, failing attempt to prevent the loss of precious innocent lives – as something that the Jews want. They construe it as Israel putting all of these measures in place in order to make the lives of the Muslims miserable and difficult.

About the Author: Yehudit Tayar was born in Chicago Illinois and served as a councilor in Bnei Akiva Youth Organization. She has lived with her family in Bet Horon in the Benjamin Region for over 30 years, serves as an emergency first response medic, on the Board of Directors of Hatzalah Yehudah and Shomron, and is a spokesperson for the Jewish pioneers in Yesha. Married to Ami, mother of four children, and grandmother.

12.MKs Left and Right Blast Kotler Over Criticism of Regev

MKs from right and left criticize actor Oded Kotler, who compared Likud voters to “straw-chewing beasts”. By Hezki Ezra Arutz Sheva IsraelNationalNews.com First Publish: 6/15/2015, 6:16 AM

Oded Kotler Oren Nachshon, Flash 90

MKs from right and left on Sunday evening sharply criticized remarks made by actor Oded Kotler against the right and particularly against Culture Minister Miri Regev.

Kotler, one of Israel’s best known actors, mocked Regev at an artists’ rally that was held to protest the new government’s policy that no funding would go to artists who boycott the state.

“Imagine your world, Mrs. Regev,” he said, “as a quiet world, with no book, no music, no poem, a world with no one to disturb… no one to disturb the nation, in its celebration of 30 mandates, followed by a marching herd of beasts chewing straw and stubble.”

Opposition chairman MK Yitzhak Herzog condemned the comments and said, “Kotler’s words, the words that came out of [Yair] Garbuz’s mouth and the applause that followed from the audience, there is nothing between these behaviors and culture and human love or pluralism.”

“Even artists and intellectuals need to know that during a difficult and justified debate, one should choose to treat people who think differently with dignity. Even when their opinion drives one crazy,” continued Herzog.

Yesh Atid chairman MK Yair Lapid denounced Kotler’s remarks as well, saying, “Israeli society is allowed to define what is allowed and what is not. We must not fund a play about the life of a terrorist who kidnapped and murdered an IDF soldier. We must not finance a film about the life of Yigal Amir, the murderer of the prime minister. We must not call those who think differently from us a beast.”

“We must not turn this ugly, violent discourse into what defines us. I call on everyone: Stop, calm down, do not let violence run our lives,” he continued.

MK Mickey Levy (Yesh Atid) referred to Kotler’s remarks on his Facebookpage as “condescending, detached from reality, anti-democratic. So much lack of culture in one statement. Shame.”

MK Yoav Kish (Likud) said that he does not intend to ignore Kotler’s serious remarks and said, “There is a debate whether the government has the right not to fund a play that harms IDF soldiers, about ‘art’ which aims to delegitimize the State of Israel. Regardless of the debate, Kotler’s remarks are not legitimate.”

“A million people are not beasts,” he stressed. “They are the sane majority who love this country. Freedom of expression exists for those provocative plays. I join the opinion of Minister Regev and strengthen her position that funding this ‘culture’, which is fighting the state’s legitimacy, is absolute nonsense.”

Turning directly to Kotler, Kish said, “All that remains is that you take back what you said as soon as possible. Unfortunately, you’re the one who chose to use freedom of expression in an inappropriate manner.”

13.Arlene Kushner “Sharing” June 11, 2015

We mourn the passing of David (Dudu) Rotem, who suffered a fatal heart attack on Monday.

Rotem – a lawyer – had served as a Member of the Knesset for Yisrael Beitenu from 2007 until the most recent elections. The Legal Grounds Campaign found him to be solidly committed to issues of Israel’s rights in the land.

May his memory be for a blessing.

Credit: Miriam Alster/Flash90

I have long felt that Brig. Gen.(res.) Yossi Kuperwasser was one of the good guys. Now retired from his position as Director General of the Ministry of Strategic Affairs, he gave a candid interview to Arutz Sheva on the sidelines of the Herzliya Conference on Monday. One point he made – which is rarely if ever mentioned – seems to me particularly important:

Those utilizing BDS against Israel have two goals, he said. One is to delegitimize Israel. This we hear all of the time. But the other is to engender guilt feelings in Israelis. Bingo!

Our first task then, is to rid ourselves of those pangs of guilt. We cannot fight delegitimization until we thoroughly believe in the rightness of our position.

You can see a brief video of his interview here, with mention of guilt at about 1.5 minutes.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/196443#.VXlqSZuJjIV

Geoffrey Clarfield (an anthropologist from Canada) and Salim Mansur (Indian born, today an associate professor of political science in Canada) recently wrote a piece entitled, “There can be no peace in Jordan until the world appreciates the country’s true ethnography” for the (Canadian) National Post.

Quite a mouthful for a title, but it’s quite an article, sent to me by a number of my readers, all of whom I thank. All emphasis has been added:

“Arab nationalism is dead. It lasted for 100 years and it has suddenly disappeared. In the former states of now war-torn Libya, Syria and Iraq, speaking Arabic now means nothing. However, being a member of a family, lineage or clan of either the Shia, Sunnis, Christians, Druze, Yazidi, Tuareg or Bedouin means everything. The “Arab League” is now totally dysfunctional.

“From Morocco to Malaysia, Islamic jihadis go from one place to another in support of recently created political entities like the Taliban, al-Qaida, or ISIL. Nations and their borders now count for nothing. Yet the new Pope has just recognized yet another Arab state, ‘Palestine.’ Perhaps this is because he has critically misread how Arab entities really rise and fall.”

The authors then track the modern history of the region: the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the subsequent establishment of Arab nationalism in the Middle East, which mirrored the nationalism of Europe.

“In this new ideology, an ‘Arab’ was someone who spoke Arabic. The largely Christian Arab proponents of this ideology hoped that as citizens of newly created secular states, they would finally be given the legal and political equality denied to them for centuries under Islamic law and Muslim rulers. And so, after the First World War, a number of ‘Arab’ states were created by the League of Nations, such as Lebanon, Syria and Iraq…

“Among these newly created states, there arose the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, which became formally independent in 1946. Until then, it was legally part of the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, implemented on trust from the League of Nations by the British government…

“The people who reside in Jordan live on the east side of the Jordan River…

“Three thousand years ago, what is now northern Jordan was the territory of the Israelites: specifically the tribes of Dan, Manasseh, Gad and Reuben. Later, the area became part of the second Jewish Commonwealth under the Maccabees, before the Romans conquered the whole area…

“Who are the Jordanians? Until the second decade of the 20th century there had never been a Jordanian people, ethnic group or tribe by that name, or a group of diasporic exiles who thought of themselves as ‘Jordanian.’ Jordan is a 20th-century British invention, dreamed up in the 1920s, for the peoples living in what Britain illegally hived off from the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine in 1923. Until 1946 its British administrators called it just that — Eastern Palestine.

“No one reads the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine document anymore. But according to international law, it is still valid. It is the legal basis for the creation of the Jewish state of Israel. Its provisions still stand…

“In 1923 the British arbitrarily violated the Mandate, morally and legally, by creating the ‘Emirate of Jordan’ in Eastern Palestine…

“The Hashemis rule Jordan today…with the connivance of the British, who unilaterally lopped off 70 per cent of mandated Palestine, and gave it to them as their compensation for their tribal revolt against the Turks during the First World War…

“…the Hashemis were and continue to be a usurping Bedouin tribal elite in Eastern Palestine…

“Clearly, the Bedouin tribes that were there before the Hashemis invaded had a hard time understanding why they should give up their independence and be ruled by these British imports. The Hashemis put down [their] ‘rebellions’ with the active aid and military support of thinly disguised British mercenaries, in an army that was ironically named The Arab Legion, trained and led by British officers…

“Today the majority of the country’s inhabitants are largely Muslim Arabs who now think of themselves as Palestinians. Before the Mandate, they had no national identity and like that of Jordan, there is no record of a self-defined, self-declared Palestinian national identity in any historical document before the early to mid-20th century.

“Palestinian Arab identity seems to have developed quite recently, as a contrary movement and mirror image to that of the Jews, who were returning to their ancient homeland by right, and whose physical, religious and cultural connection to the land had never been severed, or questioned, and which was formally recognized by the League of Nations after the First World War. This is the essence of that strange and paradoxical ethnogenesis of what is now called the Palestinian nation.

Once the British established the Mandate, and Jewish immigration began to create a mini-industrial revolution, both Western and Eastern Palestine attracted waves of Muslim Arab immigrants from Egypt and Syria. These new immigrants found it convenient to make common cause with the non-Bedouin residents of Jordan and much later, specifically after 1967, called themselves and their children Palestinians…

“The great historical irony of this period is that all of the ancestors of today’s Muslim Arab Palestinians, now living in Mandated Eastern Palestine [Jordan], all of a sudden stopped being thought of as Arabs of Palestine by the British, and then by the members of the United Nations after 1948, and even more so since the Oslo process began in 1992. This has been and remains one of the great disappearing acts of modern history, for Jordan is clearly a Palestinian Arab State.

“The political and ethnographic disappearance of the Palestinian nature of the Arabs of Eastern Palestine (Jordan), has largely been a tactic used by the Arab League, and its allies on the left, to put Israel and its supporters on the defensive…

“…in 1977, speaking to a Dutch newspaper, PLO representative Zouhair Muhsen said, ‘For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan.’

“Perhaps the most revealing public quote by Muhsen was when he bluntly stated that ‘There are no differences between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. We are all part of one nation. It is only for political reasons that we carefully underline our Palestinian identity. … The existence of a separate Palestinian identity serves only tactical purposes. The founding of a Palestinian state is a new tool in the continuing battle against Israel’…

“The world has been living with a two-state solution for decades. No matter what the faux King of Jordan may say or do, his country and his people are not Jordanian. Jordan is what anthropologists call an ‘ethnographic fiction.’ The majority of Jordanians are Palestinians living in Mandated Palestine. There can be no peace without the recognition of this simple ethnographic truth…”

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/clarfield-mansur-there-can-be-no-peace-in-jordan-until-the-world-appreciates-the-countrys-true-ethnography

I chose to feature this article today, because of the wealth of historical, ethnographic and political information it provides. Please, read it in its entirety, bookmark it, and share it broadly.

In my next posting I will turn back to one or more of the current crises that we are confronting.

© Arlene Kushner. This material is produced by Arlene Kushner, functioning as an independent journalist. Permission is granted for it to be reproduced only with proper attribution. If it is reproduced and emphasis is added, the fact that it has been added must be noted. See my website at www.arlenefromisrael.info

14.Regavim Report Show Clear Anti-Settler Discrimination in Israeli Supreme Court By: Jewish Press News Briefs Published: June 14th, 2015

Israel’s Supreme Court at Night
Photo Credit: Flash90

A study initiated by the NGO Regavim shows clear bias in the Israeli Supreme Court against Jews in Judea and Samaria.

The report was a follow-up of a 2010 report that showed similar discrimination by the Supreme Court against petitions emerging from the Right. The 2014 report showed some improvement, but nothing significant.

The study reviewed case files from 2005 to 2013 that were submitted by both sides of the political debate regarding illegal construction in Judea and Samaria- from the Left (Peace Now, Yesh Din, B’Tzelem, Arabs), against illegal Jewish constuction, and from the Right (Regavim), against illegal Arab construction.

The study examined 54 cases. 29 cases were filed by Leftwing and Arab groups, and 25 cases were filed by Rightwing groups.

The study specifically examined how the court dealt with each case, in terms of procedure and time.

The study compared the amount of time the court took to respond, how long the court left the case open, how many injunctions were issued, and how many times the Chief Justice decided to preside over the case from each side.

The official overview can be found here.

The full report (in Hebrew) can be found here.

The study unfortunately uncovered clear and undeniable political discrimination by the Israeli Supreme Court, indicating the court is unquestionably political inclined to favor Leftwing petitions, giving them preferential treatment.

Regavim called on the court to do “Cheshbon Nefesh” (soul searching), regarding their exposed bias.

But will soul searching be enough?

15.U.S. Supreme Court Ruling on Jerusalem ‘Very, Very Wrong’ Pro-Israel lawmakers are calling on US Pres. Obama to use his powers to reverse a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on Jerusalem. By: Hana Levi Julian JewishPress.com June 14th, 2015

President Barack Obama Photo Credit: The White House

Lawmakers are calling last week’s ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court nixing the right to name Jerusalem, Israel as the birthplace of Americans born in the city, “very, very wrong.”

The chairperson and members of the Congressional Israel Allies Caucus are also calling on U.S. President Barack Obama to use his executive powers to officially recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

In an interview with NPR as well, Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY), a co-chairman of the CIAC and co-sponsor of the Jerusalem passport law, called the Supreme Court ruling, simply, “very, very wrong.”

The outcry comes in the wake of last week’s decision by the Supreme Court blocking American citizens born in the holy city from stating their birthplace as “Jerusalem, Israel” on U.S. passports.

The Court struck down as unconstitutional a law written by the Congress that previously had allowed the Jewish State to be claimed as the birthplace of those born in Jerusalem.

It is unlikely that Obama will respond to the call of the Caucus, given that it was his administration who opposed the Zivotovsky family in Zivotovsky v. Kerry in the case last week.

Obama officials sided with the Supreme Court in maintaining that the Congressional law intruded on the president’s privilege to set foreign policy.

This battle has been ongoing between the two branches of government since Obama took office and is unlikely to end until he leaves, lawmakers have noted.

About the Author: Hana Levi Julian is a Middle East news analyst with a degree in Mass Communication and Journalism from Southern Connecticut State University. A past columnist with The Jewish Press and senior editor at Arutz 7, Ms. Julian has written for Babble.com, Chabad.org and other media outlets, in addition to her years working in broadcast journalism.

16.IDF Vehicle Overturns and Kills Palestinian Authority Firebomb Terrorist One soldier was slightly injured in the accident. By: Tzvi Ben-Gedalyahu JewishPress.com 6/14/15

Overturned IDF vehicle killed Arab firebomber Sunday morning. Photo Credit: Gal Berger-Reshet Bet on Twitter

An IDF vehicle overturned and killed a Palestinian Authority terrorist who was hurling firebombs at soldiers during a riot near Ramallah Sunday morning.

One of the soldiers in the vehicle reportedly was lightly injured. The military is investigating.

The terrorist was identified as Abdullah Iyyad Ghane, from a village near Ramallah. He apparently was a member of Hamas, which immediately issued a statement of mourning.

Another riot near Ramallah on Friday was filmed by Arab media that showed soldier beating an Arab while he was pinned to the ground. Soldiers said that the man had tried to grab a rifle of one of the soldiers and attempted to assault him.

The Kfir Brigade soldiers involved in the incident face questioning and possible disciplinary action by the IDF today.

Last week, a Palestinian Authority rioter was killed after he stabbed a solider during a riot.

Expect the U.S. State Dept. this week to issue a statement calling for “both sides to exercise restraint” and for a “proportionate” response by soldiers under a hail of rocks and firebombs.

About the Author: Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu is a graduate in journalism & economics from George Washington University. Tzvi wrote for Arutz Sheva for several years before joining the Jewish Press.