Roadmap to HELL - One man caught on a barbed wire fence ....

[AchtungBono]

Here's a "dammed if you do and dammed if you don't" story.

As you know, the temple mount is open to all religions who want to go up and pray. There is only one bridge leading to the temple mount and it is in severe disrepair and in danger of collapse.

Israel wants to tear down the bridge and build a safer one but the Muslims are against it and they say that it is another step in our desire to "destroy the Al-Aksa mosque".

What is wrong with these people? If we don't repair the bridge and it collapses and there are dozens of casualties - then we will be condemmed for neglecting the access to the holy places. If we try to repair it then we'll be condemmed for violating the status quo and accused of trying to capture the Mosque.

As of now, the bridge is closed and, as expected, there is widespread condemnation across the Arab world.

What can we do?


Jerusalem closes Mughrabi Bridge leading to Temple Mount - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News

[deep]

Originally Posted by AchtungBono

What can we do?


Jerusalem closes Mughrabi Bridge leading to Temple Mount - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News

turn the care, maintenance and responsibility over the Muslims, that way if anything goes wrong, collapse, etc the blame will be on them.

[yolland]

Washington Post, Dec. 15

Defying a crackdown on Jewish extremists ordered by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, vandals set fire to a mosque in the West Bank on Thursday and defaced it with Hebrew graffiti after Israeli forces tore down structures in an unauthorized settlement outpost.

The arson attack in the Palestinian village of Burqa, near Ramallah, was the latest in a string of similar attacks on mosques in the West Bank. It came a day after an unused mosque was vandalized in a Jewish neighborhood of Jerusalem. The wave of extremist violence, which included a rampage by militant settlers at a West Bank army base on Tuesday, has brought expressions of alarm from across the Israeli political spectrum and prompted a government announcement Wednesday of a series of measures to rein in violent Jewish radicals. The steps include detention without trial and prosecution in military courts, measures normally applied to Palestinians in the West Bank but not to Jewish settlers there. Other measures include banning suspected militants from the West Bank and authorizing soldiers in the West Bank to arrest Israelis.

[yolland]

Reuters, Feb. 2

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta believes there is a growing possibility Israel will attack Iran as early as April to stop Tehran from building a nuclear bomb, US media reported on Thursday. The Washington Post first reported that Panetta was concerned about the increased likelihood Israel would launch an attack over the next few months. CNN said it confirmed the report, citing a senior Obama administration official, who declined to be identified. "Panetta believes there is a strong likelihood that Israel will strike Iran in April, May or June--before Iran enters what Israelis described as a 'zone of immunity' to commence building a nuclear bomb," Washington Post columnist David Ignatius wrote. "Very soon, the Israelis fear, the Iranians will have stored enough enriched uranium in deep underground facilities to make a weapon--and only the United States could then stop them militarily"...Ignatius did not cite a source. He was writing from Brussels where Panetta was attending a NATO defense ministers' meeting.

Panetta and the Pentagon both declined comment on the Post report.

...Israel's military intelligence chief said on Thursday he estimated that Iran could make four atomic bombs by further enriching uranium it had already stockpiled, and could produce its first bomb within a year of deciding to build one. But in his rare public remarks, Major-General Aviv Kochavi held out the possibility that stronger international sanctions might dissuade Tehran from pursuing a policy he had no doubt was aimed at developing nuclear weapons. Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said separately that "if sanctions don't achieve the desired goal of stopping (Iran's) military nuclear program, there will be a need to consider taking action."

The article linked in that last paragraph does go on to say that...

Administration officials have hinted that the United States might not intervene militarily in a hostile exchange between Israel and Iran unless the conflict began to threaten US forces or Israeli population centers. In an interview last month on CBS’s “60 Minutes,” Panetta said that in the event of an Israeli strike, US military officials’ primary concern would be “to protect our forces.”

...which I guess could be considered somewhat reassuring, particularly since any mutual "hostile exchanges" would be unlikely to take the form of open war--as it is, over the last two years Iran's tolerated a string of assassinations and explosions (mostly targeting nuclear-program-linked people and facilities) which it attributes to Mossad/CIA, without retaliations occurring.

I don't know what Romney's response to all this would be.

[anitram]

Originally Posted by yolland

I don't know what Romney's response to to all this would be.

Money to be made in war - response obvious.

[Earnie Shavers]

Originally Posted by yolland

I don't know what Romney's response to all this would be.

Pre election? Red meat. Remember how the founding fathers were super clear about defending Israeli 'freedom'/regional nuclear monopoly?

Post election?... ???

[INDY500]

Would any of you that insisted that the meaning of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's 2005 statement that Israel must be "wiped off the map" was somehow lost in translation, care to explain away this one?

"From now on, in any place, if any nation or any group confronts the Zionist regime, we will endorse and we will help. We have no fear expressing this," adding that Israel is a "cancerous tumor that should be cut and will be cut."
-- Islamic Republic's Supreme Leader Ayatollah
2/3/2012

[Moonlit_Angel]

I'll certainly never be running to defend Ahmadinejad. He's a moron.

Anywho...ugh, look, another potential war! We haven't had nearly enough of those in recent years !

[coolian2]

after gaddafi, kim jong-il and bin laden in the past 12 months, i wouldn't be shocked if the ayatollah is looking over his shoulder.

largely iran going into any war would be tragic. practically only the madmen leaders in the country would be interested in any kind of war, and no doubt a lot of civillians would have a pretty terrible time of it, to put it lightly.

[Earnie Shavers]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Would any of you that insisted that the meaning of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's 2005 statement that Israel must be "wiped off the map" was somehow lost in translation, care to explain away this one?

Nothing worth paying attention to. You actually believe Iran would ever attack Israel? Can you think of *any* reason why they would?

[Earnie Shavers]

Originally Posted by coolian2

largely iran going into any war would be tragic. practically only the madmen leaders in the country would be interested in any kind of war, and no doubt a lot of civillians would have a pretty terrible time of it, to put it lightly.

It would be hugely tragic. But if it's defensive, in response to an attack, the leadership would be very well supported. If its offensive, well, wouldn't/couldn't happen, in large part because 'the people' wouldn't support it.

[Caleb8844]

You'll never hear about Iran using a nuclear weapon on anyone. You WILL, however, hear about a terrorist detonating a nuclear bomb that he/she somehow got her hands on inside of some western/western friendly nation's borders..

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by Earnie Shavers

Nothing worth paying attention to. You actually believe Iran would ever attack Israel? Can you think of *any* reason why they would?

Under the current regime, martyrdom

[yolland]

They'd hardly need a nuclear weapon for that. Already have thousands of conventional ballistic missiles available for inducing "martyrdom." Is that also what you'd call it if they chose to retaliate against an Israeli airstrike?

"The president of Iran should remember that Iran can also be wiped off the map." --Israeli Vice Premier Shimon Peres, May 8 2006

The only way to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons would be to invade, overthrow, and occupy longterm. By Israel's own admission, all an airstrike could achieve would be a few years' delay.

[yolland]

Foreign Policy, Feb. 3

Israel isn't having much luck with commercials these days. First there was the government-sponsored ad campaign late last year to persuade Israelis living in the United States to return home, which was yanked when it caused an uproar in the American Jewish community. Now, Iranian lawmaker Arsalan Fat'hipour is telling Iran's PressTV that the country may impose a ban on products from South Korean electronics manufacturer Samsung over a commercial depicting Israelis accidentally destroying an Iranian nuclear facility.

The ad couldn't come at a tenser time. Iranian leaders are accusing the Israeli spy agency Mossad of killing an Iranian nuclear scientist in January, and using increasingly heated rhetoric (just today, Iranian leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei called Israel a "cancerous tumor" that must be "cut"). Meanwhile, the media is abuzz with reports that an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities could be imminent.

In the commercial for the Israeli cable company HOT, four characters from the HOT television series Asfur, all (poorly) disguised as Iranian women, meet a Mossad agent in Iran who's watching the show on his Samsung tablet. In checking out the device's features, one of the characters accidentally presses a button that blows up a nearby nuclear plant.

Here's the commercial:

PressTV has expressed outrage not only with the ad but also with its underlying assumptions--that Iran is a "primitive society" and that "Israel is powerful enough to easily destroy Iran's nuclear facilities or assassinate the country's nuclear scientists." Fat'hipour, the Iranian lawmaker, argues that Samsung produced the commercial to cozy up with Israel. But a Samsung spokesperson in Iran tells PressTV that HOT--not Samsung--produced the ad, which promotes a cable deal offering subscribers free Samsung tablets. HOT has informed CNN that it has no comment on the controversy.

Iran's tough words for Samsung, however, may be about more than just HOT's incendiary ad. Last month, the Korea Herald reported that the Iranian government had retaliated against South Korea's support for Western sanctions of Iranian oil imports by demanding that Korean companies remove their billboards in the capital.

[AchtungBono]

^....LMFAO!

"Asfur" is one of the most succesful Israeli TV shows ever and its characters have added new slang to the language.

The reason they used this particular storyline for the commercial (which isn't for Samsung by the way) is because in the series these characters get caught up in a botched Mossad operation that they were witness to.

This commercial is absolutely BRILLIANT and very funny - and it's one of my favorites.

btw - "Asfur" has been bought for development as a series in the U.S - much like "Chatufim" was turned into "Homeland". You'll LOVE it!

Here is the intro to the second season:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJvA6nmFGyU&feature=fvst

Have a nice day.

[yolland]

^ Speaking of slang, what do תיסלם and מסטבלט mean? (in the ad, when they're discussing the tablet)

I get why the dialogue and the characters are funny, though I'd have to say I struggle a bit squaring that with the not-at-all-funny recent events serving as a backdrop...

[AchtungBono]

Originally Posted by yolland

^ Speaking of slang, what do תיסלם and מסטבלט mean? (in the ad, when they're discussing the tablet)

I get why the dialogue and the characters are funny, though I'd have to say I struggle a bit squaring that with the not-at-all-funny recent events serving as a backdrop...

תיסלם - is slang for "way to go"....or another word for "cool"

סטלבט - means to lounge around and be "laid back"

As for the whole concept, Ahmadinejad is a big joke in Israel (even though we take his threats quite seriously) and we take any opportunity to poke fun at him. Also, there is so much speculation about whether or not Israel will attack Iran, it was inevitable that we'd joke about it - the same way we made fun of Saddam Hussein during the '91 gulf war.

[yolland]

Originally Posted by AchtungBono

סטלבט - means to lounge around and be "laid back"

Thanks! So this is what the short guy says, then? At 00:50? I couldn't figure out that part, because to me it sounded like ma ata mistablet, then they all look at him like he's said something totally stupid. So my thought was, maybe this is some kind of pun on "tablet"?--but I couldn't figure out what the pun is.

I do remember, from my own childhood, that there were commercials, cartoons and so on humorously referencing the (ongoing) Cold War, often with a CIA-vs.-KGB theme. So I wasn't surprised by that aspect of it. It's the seemingly flip attitude towards the recent string of "mysterious explosions in Iran" (as the short guy alludes to, after accidentally causing one) that startled me. The Iranian government's response to the ad was, of course, ridiculous regardless.

It's hardly a major story at the end of the day, I know, just marketers trying to be "edgy," but I often find these micro-level, popular culture expressions of broader conflicts worth examining.

[INDY500]

Wake up America: Transcript And Video- PM Netanyahu's Speech at AIPAC Policy Conference 2012

From Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to AIPAC

"Israel's fate is to continue to be the forward position of freedom in the Middle East.

The only place in the Middle East where minorities enjoy full civil rights;

the only place in the Middle East where Arabs enjoy full civil rights;

the only place in the Middle East where Christians are free to practice their faith;

the only place in the Middle East where real judges protect the rule of law."

The whole speech is worth watching but here, for those of you that wonder, are the reasons non-Jewish conservatives such as myself are such fervent supporters of Israel.

as for Iran's nuclear program:

"Of course, the best outcome would be if Iran decided to abandon its nuclear weapons program peacefully. No one would be happier than me and the people of Israel if Iran dismantled its program.

But so far, that hasn't happened. For fifteen years, I've been warning that a nuclear-armed Iran is a grave danger to my country and to the peace and security of the entire world.

For the last decade, the international community has tried diplomacy. It hasn't worked.

For six years, the international community has applied sanctions. That hasn't worked either.

I appreciate President Obama's recent efforts to impose even tougher sanctions against Iran. These sanctions are hurting Iran's economy, but unfortunately, Iran's nuclear program continues to march forward.

Israel has waited patiently for the international community to resolve this issue. We've waited for diplomacy to work. We've waited for sanctions to work. None of us can afford to wait much longer.

As Prime Minister of Israel, I will never let my people live in the shadow of annihilation."

The president's speech at AIPAC was quite good as well but the way he ended his speech really caught my ear:

There is no shortage of speeches on the friendship between the United States and Israel. But I’m also mindful of the proverb, “A man is judged by his deeds, not his words.” So if you want to know where my heart lies, look no further than what I have done - to stand up for Israel; to secure both of our countries and to see that the rough waters of our time lead to a peaceful and prosperous shore.