The bold red line - Maj. Gen. (ret.) Yaakov Amidror

by Maj. Gen. (ret.) Yaakov Amidror

Only a profound misunderstanding of the nature of the Iranian regime could lead anyone to believe any deal will satisfy Tehran's nuclear ambitions • The truth is the U.S. can bring Iran's nuclear program to a halt -- it simply chooses not to do so.

 

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif and EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini in Lausanne | Photo credit: AP

The nuclear framework agreement signed between Iran and world powers, namely the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany, on April 2, was defined by U.S. President Barack Obama as a "historic understanding," while Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu defined the deal as "bad." 

I believe both leaders are right: The deal has radically changed Iran's position in the global theater, in exchange for it temporarily slowing down its pursuit of nuclear weapons, and in this respect it is indeed historic. The agreement affords Iran the status of a regional power and legitimizes it as a nuclear threshold state. However, it is up to Iran to decide when to cross this threshold, and in this respect it is a bad deal.

The U.S. changed its policy mid-negotiations, going from demanding that Iran be stripped of its nuclear weapons production capabilities, to discussing the nature of the limitations and supervision placed on these capabilities. 

The framework deal clearly indicates that the U.S. has come to accept that Iran will one day possess military nuclear capabilities, and that at the end of the supervision period there would be nothing stopping the Islamic republic from realizing this potential.

Obama told the American people as much in a radio interview, before his spokesmen rushed to say he was misunderstood. But even if that was the case, Obama's statements reflected the reality which may arise from any final agreement with Iran. 

This reality entails three scenarios. The first may see the Iranians relinquish their nuclear efforts, willingly or otherwise. Some in the U.S. administration believe this is a viable option, and that bolstering the moderate forces within Iran will eventually effect change. 

The second scenario may see the Iranians diligently follow the agreement, while stabilizing their economy, reinforcing their regional status, strengthening their allies such as Hezbollah, and enhancing their nuclear expertise. Then, once the agreement's sunset clause comes into effect, the Iranians will resume the military aspects of their program with renewed zeal. 

Throughout the negotiations, that U.S. has attempted to prolong the period during which Iran would be unable to pursue nuclear capabilities, saying that if Tehran complies with the agreement, it would buy the West more time, at least a decade. The administration's excuse was that a deferral of the matter was preferable to the alternative, a military operation, which may not buy the West the same amount of time, making the deal a better option.

The third scenario may see the Iranians bide their time and wait for the right moment to violate the deal. This will probably happen only after all the sanctions are lifted, and after enough countries have vested financial interests in Iran, which would deter them from targeting its economy. 

The U.S., for its part, has pledged to put in place rigorous inspection practices, which would guarantee the West at least a year to detect any violation of the agreement. 

A new, violent Middle East

Would such an agreement guarantee, to any extent, a change in Iran's nuclear aspirations? It seems the opposite is true. In the near future, the agreement will only fuel Iran's desire to realize the potential outlined and legitimized by the deal. The hope that the agreement will somehow breed a positive process in Iran has no hold in reality.

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani appears eager for his country to obtain nuclear weapons. In fact, there is no debate within the Iranian leadership on whether or not such capabilities are necessary, only about the best way to go about achieving them. 

Only a profound misunderstanding of the nature of the Iranian regime could lead anyone to believe that any deal will somehow satisfy the ayatollahs' nuclear ambitions, to the point of becoming a game changer.

Is there really no military alternative that could result in a longer setback to Tehran's nuclear program, one that could outweigh the delay outlined in the current deal? 

After all, it was under orders from Obama that the U.S. developed a weapon that could seriously compromise Iran's nuclear facilities. The argument that any military strike would result in only a short-term setback in Iran's nuclear endeavors is wrong, because the seemingly professional American calculation on the matter is purely technical.

This calculation is flawed because it fails to account for the effect a successful strike would have on Tehran's willingness to invest in rehabilitating a program that could be destroyed in a matter of several nights, which is how long the U.S. said it would take to strike all of Iran's nuclear facilities.

I believe that Iran, subject to crippling sanctions, would not rush to resuscitate its nuclear program in the event it was destroyed by the U.S. It also stands to reason that Iran's actual ability to retaliate over such a strike, other than by putting Hezbollah in play, would be limited. 

An American strike could buy the West more than just a few years, but its reluctance to assume the risks involved in a military operation is understandable. In any case, the truth must be told: The U.S. can forcibly bring the Iranian nuclear program to a halt, it simply chooses not to do so. 

The argument that the framework agreement would afford the West sufficient time to detect any violation is also unfounded.

The Iranians are not stupid. They have no intention of blatantly violating major understandings, and their pursuit of a nuclear weapon will simply slow to a somewhat vague crawl. 

Post-deal intelligence on the Iranian program will not be as accurate, as the U.S. stands to impose restrictions on intelligence gathering across the Islamic republic, which will no longer be an enemy state, but rather a nation with which Washington seeks to improve relations.

When ambiguous intelligence eventually does surface, no one will rush to declare the deal has failed. On the contrary, until such time as clear-cut intelligence mandates an American response, the majority of the year-long retaliation window will have elapsed. Reinstating international sanctions at that time would be nearly impossible, becoming all the more reason to avoid a military strike.

The goals set by the U.S. for that year-long window -- detecting any violations and retaliating, either via sanctions or a military strike -- will fail the test of reality. The Iranians are too smart to make a mistake of that caliber. 

Iran has been fooling the world for 20 years, and the deal will make it that much easier, as it would be easier for the West to believe Tehran's lies than to admit it made a historic mistake and mount a military operation.

Furthermore, the agreement stands to have serious geopolitical repercussions. The deal with Iran is likely to lead to a nuclear arms race in the Sunni Middle East, as well as to increased belligerency from Iran and its allies, such as Hezbollah, the Houthis, Syrian President Bashar Assad and Hamas.

In the long run, the deal could potentially compromise what little stability is left in the region, which in turn would lend the Shiite-Sunni struggle new and terrifying dimensions, making an already violent theater even more volatile. 

Iran will try to capitalize on the regional superiority the U.S. has afforded it the first chance it gets, knowing American statements suggesting all options on the table are nothing but hollow rhetoric. 

A tough call

The most important American achievement in the framework deal was Iran's agreement to remove all the enriched material it currently has, or plans to produce, excluding a symbolic amount of enriched uranium. 

It is important to ascertain this commitment and to see it through. According to the American concept, the difference between Iran's considerable enrichment capabilities, which will remain intact, and the amount of enriched material it actually retains is a key factor in the agreement.

However, in the long run, it is the number of operational centrifuges that matters -- not the amount of enriched material removed from Iran. Given the deal's sunset clause, Iran's centrifuges would allow it to resume rapid enrichment activities as soon as it seeks them.

The fact that Iran has agreed to cease plutonium enrichment is trivial. The Arak reactor is not fully operational, so it was easy for the Iranians to relinquish something they never had.

The concept of time is a fundamental bone of contention between the U.S. and Israel and other countries in the region. A decade may seem like a long time for leaders who are elected for a limited period of time, but for leaders with historical perspectives of national security, 10 years is no time at all.

The final deal brewing between the Islamic republic and the West will afford Iran the conveniences of honing its nuclear expertise, giving it the ability to produce weapons within a decade. 

The Iranians understand this deal will buy them time, and their price is future recognition of Iran as a nuclear power. That is an impossible price for Israel and other nations in the Middle East to pay. 

I believe the best alternative should have been to continue imposing and aggravating the sanctions, while making it clear to Iran that any nuclear endeavor on its part would be limited by clear, bold red lines, and if any of them are ever crossed, the U.S. will react forcefully. 

Exhausted by current sanctions, Tehran would be wary of violating the deal. This could have made Iran relinquish its nuclear program, especially faced with a viable military threat, but given the American policy, which no longer seems to want to strip Iran of its nuclear capabilities, other concepts must be introduced.

Should the outline of the framework agreement mature into a final deal, Israel will be faced with only a handful of options: making do with the deal, meaning preparing for the day when Iran becomes nuclear while trying to generate deterrence, or trying to forcibly stop Tehran, contrary to world powers' wishes. Neither option is a good one, making for a very tough call.

Maj. Gen. (ret.) Yaakov Amidror

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=24897

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

I Sing of Arms and Iran - Michael Curtis

by Michael Curtis

This arms sale, in addition to being a very public projection of Russian power and disregard for the views of the United States administration, is also likely to be the forerunner of business deals, including arms supplies, between other countries and Iran. 

Casey Stengel, sometimes reputed as the greatest 20^th-century American philosopher, is reported to have asked a simple but critical question: “Can’t anybody here play this game?”  He was apparently referring not to the Obama administration’s Middle East policy, but to the ineffectiveness and hapless performance of the New York Mets, the team he was managing.

President Barack Obama stated in an interview in Vox on January 23, 2015 that the goal of any good foreign policy “is having a vision and aspirations and ideals, but also recognizing the world as it is, where it is, and figuring out how you tack to the point where things are better than they were before.”

It is obvious that the United States does not have solutions to every problem in the 21^st century.  However, the urgent issue at the moment is whether Obama is accurately recognizing the state of relations of the United States and its five allies with Iran, and the likelihood of successful negotiations between the parties.

The dramatic decision on April 13, 2015 by Russian President Vladimir V. Putin to deliver to Iran the S-300, the most advanced air defense missile system, believed to be the Russian version of the U.S. Patriot missile system, has come as an unwelcome surprise to the White House.  Putin’s action is a direct confrontational challenge to the U.S. and to the international concern to limit Iran’s nuclear program.  The missile system, which has different versions with different capabilities, is intended to protect the country against rockets, missiles, and aircraft.

This arms sale, in addition to being a very public projection of Russian power and disregard for the views of the United States administration, is also likely to be the forerunner of business deals, including arms supplies, between other countries and Iran.  Putin’s decision comes at a moment when President Obama has said he would sign a compromise bill giving Congress the opportunity to review and respond to the final text of the multinational negotiations between the P5+1 powers and Iran on the latter’s nuclear facilities.  Thus, the U.S. Senate will vote on legislation to approve any agreement with Iran.

Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov said that the delivery of the advanced weaponry was being made “given the progress in talks on Iran’s nuclear program.”  This statement suggests that the arms deal is the direct result of the legitimacy Iran has obtained from the publication of two documents on April 2, 2015.  One is a document that the U.S. State Department has called “The Framework Agreement.”  The other is a declaration issued by the Iranian foreign minister, Mohammed Javad Zarif.  To this date there is a contradiction between the documents and declared intentions.

The position of U.S. Secretary State John Kerry is that there will be a phased removal of sanctions imposed against Iran after an agreement has been reached.  In contradiction, the Iranian leaders – Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, President Hassan Rouhani, and foreign minister Zarif – have all demanded that all sanctions, economic and financial, imposed on Iran be lifted on the day of a final agreement, and that there will not be an agreement if this removal of sanctions is not accomplished.  They have specified that this position is non-negotiable.

In addition, the Iranian leaders insist that Iranian military sites will be off limits to inspectors.  Already it is clear that the lifting of sanctions, demanded by the Iranian leaders, will not only help the Iranian economy in general, but also provide financial resources to strengthen its military machine and sponsorship of terrorism.

The possession of the S-300 weapon system by Iran will clearly have at least two consequences.  First, it is likely to make Iran a more aggressive power.  It will make any air strike by Israel or the United States against an Iranian defense system more difficult, if not impossible.  Second, in the event of no agreement on Iran’s nuclear activity, the use of military force to halt further development may not be feasible.

The arms deal, worth $800 million, was first signed in 2007, but the sale was suspended, partly because of international pressure from the United States and Israel and partly because of the embargo on arms transfers to Iran imposed by the U.N. Security Council in 2010.  Though that embargo is technically still in effect, the Russians will now deliver S-300 missile system, five squadrons, with missiles that have a range of 93 miles and can fire at multiple targets flying up to 90,000 feet.  Russia has offered Iran an even more advanced system, but no agreement has been reached.  Russia is also negotiating a $20-billion oil-for-goods agreement with Iran.

The missiles clearly pose a threat to the State of Israel, especially if they are given by Iran to Hezb’allah, Hamas, or Syrian president Assad.  All three, as well as Iran, are capable of striking deep inside the State of Israel.  Hamas has already been receiving from Iran heavy machinery and engineering tools that it has been rapidly using to reconstruct tunnels that will allow attacks from the Gaza Strip into Israel, as well as supplying an arsenal of rockets with which to make those attacks. Iran has also been arming members of Hamas who are resident in the West Bank.

The specious answer by the Russian president and foreign minister to criticism of its action is that the S-300 system has only defense capabilities, that it is not designed for attacks, and that it does not pose a threat to the security of any country in the Middle East, including Israel.  The arms sale, the foreign minister said, will stimulate a constructive process of the talks on Iran’s nuclear program.  What was left unsaid by Lavrov, whose cynical humor is not always fully understood by Western interlocutors, is that if the negotiations fail, Iran will resume its nuclear program and also have the advanced S-300 system.

Once again, the resurgent Russian nationalism of President Putin has manifested in an aggressive policy to exert power and influence through military actions not only in Eastern Ukraine, in Crimea, and in the Donbas region, but also elsewhere in the world, including the Middle East.  Control of Crimea, allowing expansion of its Black Sea fleet, provides Russia with a platform for its projection of power, as a forward operating base with mobile ballistic missile systems, capable of air defense and surface attack.

General Philip Breedlove, NATO supreme allied commander, on February 25, 2015 called for the United States and its allies to respond to Russia’s offensive campaign, diplomatically and economically if not militarily.  These countries must also counter, by similar means and the effective use of informational tools, the danger of an Iran being armed with advanced weapons.  Finally, they must recognize the fallacy of removing sanctions imposed on Iran.

Michael Curtis

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/04/i_sing_of_arms_and_iran.html

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

ISIS drive on Ramadi could be a game changer - Rick Moran

by Rick Moran

The administration is downplaying the threat, saying that if IS takes Ramadi, it won't be a big deal. But the Iraqi government begs to differ and is pouring troops into the battle to keep IS from overrunning the city.

Every time the administration tries to spin the war against Islamic State in Iraq as going well, IS fighters make them out to be liars.

Last week, the administration trotted a Pentagon spokesman out to tell the press that US coalition efforts have pushed Islamic State out of 30% of the territory they captured last year.

No problem, says IS. We'll just take Ramadi and make you look like fools.

Ramadi, the city in Anbar province that has earned a place in the Marine Corps history as a bloody victory in 2005, is under a dire threat from Islamic State forces who are attacking the outskirts and threatening to overturn the US plans in Iraq.

The administration is downplaying the threat, saying that if IS takes Ramadi, it won't be a big deal. But the Iraqi government begs to differ and is pouring troops into the battle to keep IS from overrunning the city.

Although troops and armed tribesmen had previously been able to stop the militants reaching the compound that hosts the provincial government and security headquarters, Mr Fahdawi said it was now within range of their weapons.
The interior ministry has sent "an urgent response unit", but Mr Fahdawi said the reinforcements were insufficient to repel the assault.
Another member of the provincial council insisted that Ramadi was not falling.
But Farhan Mohammed told the BBC that while Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi and Defence Minister Khaled al-Obeidi were both out of the country, Anbar was in the midst of a major battle.
He accused the government in Baghdad of not being serious about tackling the crisis in the province.
The BBC's Paul Adams says Anbar is overwhelmingly Sunni Muslim and its leaders have accused the Shia-dominated government of ignoring their concerns - something that has helped to turn Anbar into fertile territory for IS.
The latest fighting is taking its toll on the people of Ramadi, who have suffered terribly for more than a decade, our correspondent adds.
More than 2,000 families had fled from their homes because of the fighting, migration ministry official Sattar Nowruz told AP.

How bad would it be if IS took Ramadi? You will note the tone of frustration by the Sunni leader, chastising the government for not caring. This is is the suspicion harbored by many Sunnis in Anbar, who can't decide who's the bigger enemy; Shia militias that rampage through Sunni towns or Islamic State fanatics who execute anyone they don't much care for.

ISIS’s defeat in Tikrit could not have happened without thousands of Shiite militia members, many trained, advised and armed by Iranian Quds force members. When Iraqi and militas forces faltered, the U.S.-led coalition began airstrikes on the condition that Iranian advisers on the ground leave.
But in Ramadi, which sits 70 miles northwest of Baghdad, there is no significant Shiite militia presence. Rather, there’s an Iraqi Security forces that is struggling to fend off the ISIS threat on its own.
Should Iraqi forces appear to only be able to win with the help of militiamen that reportedly looted their communities, it could exacerbate the very same sectarian tensions that led to the rise of ISIS.
“It can increase Sunni resentment and can set the stage of future Sunni resistance against Shiite advancement,” Gartenstein-Ross said. Given that the groups were also backed in some way by Iran “creates risks of perception of regional Shite war.”
And with less territory to control, there could be more ISIS fighters available to move to other areas to “surge them somewhere else or try to capture new territory.”

A week ago, the administration was debating whether they should try to retake Mosul this spring or wait until the fall. Now they have disaster staring them in the face and the best they can do is pretend that what matters almost more than anything, doesn't matter at all.

If Ramadi falls, most of Anbar goes with it and civil war with the Shia militias becomes more likely. That's a scenario that would blow up US plans for the future in Iraq and allow Islamic State a virtual free hand in the western and central parts of the country.

Rick Moran

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/04/isis_drive_on_ramadi_could_be_a_game_changer.html

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Hamas's Plan: A Hamas State of Palestine in Gaza (For Now) - Khaled Abu Toameh

by Khaled Abu Toameh

Translations of this item:

Danish Swedish

Hamas is consolidating its grip over the Gaza Strip and making plans to turn it into a separate state.
Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas and Fatah consider the purported plan a "severe blow" to the two-state solution and unity among Palestinians.
The Americans and Europeans will also have to listen very carefully to what Hamas is saying: namely that a Palestinian state in the West Bank or Gaza Strip -- or any part of the Palestinian territories, would not end its struggle to destroy Israel and replace it with the State of Greater Palestine.

As the U.S. Administration and the international community continue to push for a two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinians, Hamas seems to be working toward establishing an independent state of its own in the Gaza Strip.

In recent weeks, reports have surfaced in a number of Arab and Western media outlets to the effect that Hamas leaders have decided to establish a "higher committee" for managing the affairs of the Gaza Strip.

Although Hamas spokesmen have denied the reports, sources close to the Islamist movement said that discussions were underway with representatives of other Palestinian groups in the Gaza Strip to set up the "higher committee."

The sources said that the decision came after Hamas gave up on the idea of achieving "national reconciliation" with Mahmoud Abbas's rival Fatah faction.

Abbas and Fatah see the talk about a "higher committee" as a sign of Hamas's intention to proceed with its scheme to establish a Palestinian state in the Gaza Strip. They consider the purported plan a "severe blow" to the two-state solution and unity among Palestinians.

Mahmoud Zahar, a senior Hamas leader, last week confirmed that his movement was working toward turning the Gaza Strip into an independent state. "There is nothing wrong or shameful about labeling the current situation in the Gaza Strip an authority or administration," Zahar said. "If we establish an emirate or state in the Gaza Strip or in any part of Palestine, this would not mean that we are prepared to give up one inch of Palestine."

He later went on to explain that Abbas's Fatah faction, which controls the West Bank, would be excluded from the proposed administration in the Gaza Strip "because of its collusion with the Israeli occupation."

Zahar's statements came amid mounting tensions between Hamas and the Fatah-dominated Palestinian Authority.

Senior Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahar is shown in an August 2014 television clip, addressing a Hamas rally to celebrate their attacks on Israel during last summer's Operation Protective Edge. (Image source: MEMRI video screenshot)

In the past few weeks, Hamas leaders stepped up their criticism of Abbas, who recently celebrated his 80^th birthday, and called for his removal from the political scene. Hamas leaders also do not miss an opportunity to remind everyone that Abbas is no longer a legitimate president, because his term in office expired back in January 2009.

Salah Bardaweel, another senior Hamas official, said that Abbas was acting as if he were a dictator "who lives in a state of personal intransigence and total refusal to share powers."

Hamas's attacks on Abbas are seen by some Palestinians as part of its efforts to prepare for the creation of a separate entity or state in the Gaza Strip. Today it has become obvious that the talk about "national reconciliation" and "unity" between Hamas and Fatah is not serious.

Hamas and Fatah officials agree that the split between the West Bank and Gaza Strip is likely to continue for many years.

Abbas's repeated statements that there would be no Palestinian state without the Gaza Strip reflect nothing but wishful thinking on his part. Deep inside, Abbas knows that Hamas is not going to allow him to set foot in the Gaza Strip or set up any governing body there.

Abbas and the Palestinian Authority continue to seek the world's help and support in establishing an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem. But they are not telling the world how exactly they intend to achieve this goal, at a time when Hamas is consolidating its grip over the Gaza Strip and making plans to turn it into a separate state.

Palestinian political analysts believe that it is only a matter of time before Hamas succeeds in fulfilling its scheme to turn the Gaza Strip into an independent state.

"The discussion is no longer whether there is a separationist plan for the Gaza Strip, but when and how it would be implemented," said Hassan Asfour, a former Palestinian Authority minister affiliated with Fatah. "It is the duty of the Palestinian Authority leadership to say what it intends to do to foil this plan."

Addressing the Palestinian Authority president, Asfour added: "Mr. Mahmoud Abbas, it is not enough to talk on television about [Hamas's] separation plan. Think of ways to thwart it. Otherwise, no one will say that Hamas 'hijacked' the Gaza Strip; instead everyone will be talking about how the Palestinian Authority leadership abandoned the Gaza Strip."

If and when Hamas carries out its plan and establishes its own sovereign state in the Gaza Strip, the international community, primarily the U.S. and EU, will have to come to terms with the fact that the two-state solution has finally been realized; the Palestinians ended up with two states of their own -- an Islamist emirate in the Gaza Strip and a PLO-controlled state in the West Bank.

The Americans and Europeans will also have to listen very carefully to what Hamas is saying: namely, that a Palestinian state in the West Bank or Gaza Strip, or any part of the Palestinian territories, would not end its struggle to destroy Israel and replace it with the State of Greater Palestine. Follow Khaled Abu Toameh on Twitter


Khaled Abu Toameh

Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5576/hamas-state-palestine

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Exclusive Translation from Hebrew: Chaos in the Palestinian Authority - Asaf Gabor, Makor Rishon

by Asaf Gabor

While The Nablus police force struggles to control radical elements of Fatah, in Gaza, Hamas is trying to deal with incipient elements of ISIS. Who will ultimately emerge in control?

The Balata Refugee Camp in Nablus continues to burn, and the involvement of Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Rami Hamdallah in the negotiations between leaders of the camp and the Palestinian Authority, has not helped the situation. Masked gunmen armed with M-16 rifles went out from the camp this week, stopped the traffic and blocked Jerusalem Road, in the direction leading to Nablus from Route 60.

The residents of the camps do not see the Palestinian Authority as a legitimate ruling power. Interested actors such as Mohammad Dahlan are taking advantage of the deep sediment of social between the sides. They shower the residents of the camps with money to buy weapons, with the goal of creating pockets of resistance to the Palestinian Authority and encouraging the violent battle that they hope will lead to the end of Abu-Mazen’s rule.

The governor of Nablus, Akram Rajoub, clarified in an interview with the Palestinian media that the PA will not tolerate the return of chaos to the city’s streets, and he vowed to act harshly against those who bear arms illegally. In answer to the question of the interviewer as to what he meant by “harshly”, Rajoub, who served for many years as a person employed by the security apparatus, answered that “we intend to respond with live fire toward anyone who carries weapons illegally”.

Rajoub’s words are a sign of the Palestinian Authority’s great concern: the fear that the events in Nablus signify a loss of control and the return of armed opposition to Abu-Mazen.

Just one day after the words of Rajoub, who is a representative of Abu-Mazen, the IDF carried out a series of arrests in Nablus. The headlines in the Palestinian media, especially those identified with Hamas, spoke of “collaboration between Israel and the PA against the gunmen”. Palestinian bodies noted that the IDF’s action in Nablus and in the Balata Refugee Camp proves that the PA is not in control of the area, and that it needs help from the “army of the occupation”.

The fact that despite the “occupation”, it is Israel that enables a relatively secure life for the Palestinians, compared to the situation of their brothers in the Al-Yarmouk Refugee Camp in Syria, or in those of Jordan or Lebanon, is not expressed, of course, in the Palestinian society or media – at least by official bodies.

In a poll that was done by A-Najah University in Nablus, sixty percent of the respondents expressed the wish to end the security cooperation with Israel, and saw it as the main reason for the internal Palestinian conflict between Fatah and Hamas. Forty percent of the respondents noted that they believe that the day is not distant when ISIS operatives will be active in areas where the PA is responsible for security. Seventy Seven percent of them expressed the fear that ISIS’s entry into the area would lead to a severe escalation of security dangers for the Palestinians themselves.

It is Hamas that deals with the seeds of ISIS in Gaza. ISIS proclamations have already been distributed in the city, and explosive devices of organizations identified with it are hidden throughout the Gaza Strip. In Hamas’ Ministry of the Interior in the Strip, they announced this week the detonation of an explosive device near the organization’s security center. A security agent said that the mysterious explosion occurred after the Hamas forces carried out arrests of Salafi activists who were accused of belonging to the Islamic State (ISIS) organization, and especially after the arrest of Sheikh Adnan Mayat, senior Salafi member, who identifies with ISIS.

This is, actually, a war involving all sides: the PA is waging an internal war with armed groups in Judea and Samaria; Hamas is waging an internal war against radical Salafi agents in the Gaza Strip and the Palestinian Authority and Hamas are waging a war to the death against each other under the heading “Reconciliation Government”.


Asaf Gabor

Source: Makor Rishon, Issue 923, Pg. 3, 17.4.2015

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Putin Warns Israel: Do Not Send Arms to Ukraine - Arutz Sheva Staff

by Arutz Sheva Staff

Moscow threatens that sending arms to Kiev in retaliation for S-300 missile agreement with Iran will raise the death toll.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has warned Israel against sending arms to Ukraine on Saturday, days after reports emerged that Jerusalem would be in contact with Kiev in retaliation for Moscow lifting a ban on S-300 missile sales to Tehran. 

Putin warned in an interview on Russian television that Israeli retaliatory measures would only bring on a new round of violence and raise the death toll in the embattled Donetsk region of eastern Ukraine, which has been the center of a bloody war between the Ukrainian army and pro-Russian separatists for over a year. 

“It’s a choice for the Israeli leadership to make, they can do what they see necessary,” Putin said.

Putin signed a decree on Monday lifting a ban on the delivery of S-300 anti-missile rocket systems to Iran. 

His latest comments surface days after Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu phoned him to express Israel's great concerns over the deal. In the phone call, Netanyahu warned Putin that the sale will increase Iran's aggression in the region and shake the security of the Middle East.

Russia signed a contract in 2007 to supply Iran with five S-300 advanced missile batteries, which can be used against aircraft or guided missiles, at a cost of $800 million.

In 2010, Russia's then-president Dmitry Medvedev cancelled the deal, after the United States and Israel applied strong pressure on him. Both countries worry that the S-300 would make Iran less vulnerable to attack by either one of them, and motivate Iran to develop a nuclear weapon.


Arutz Sheva Staff

Source: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/194226#.VTKs8pOzd-8

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Islamic Jihad Comes to Campus - David Horowitz

by David Horowitz

According to the FBI, three-fifths of all religious hate crimes in America are now committed against Jews, while a recent Pew poll revealed that 54 percent of Jewish students have either been the subject of an anti-Semitic attack or witnessed one.

Learn about the Freedom Center’s “Jew Hatred on Campus” Campaign.
Originally published by the Washington Times. 

The world is witnessing a resurgence of global anti-Semitism not seen since the 1930s and the “Final Solution.” In the Middle East, Hitler-admiring regimes like Iran, and Hitler-admiring parties like Hezbollah, Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, are openly planning to finish the job the Nazis started. Even in America, until now the most hospitable place outside of Israel for Jews, the atmosphere is more hostile than at any time in the last 70 years.

According to the FBI, three-fifths of all religious hate crimes in America are now committed against Jews, while a recent Pew poll revealed that 54 percent of Jewish students have either been the subject of an anti-Semitic attack or witnessed one. The frequency of these attacks among college-aged students, moreover, is five times that of any other age group. The reason for this is obvious: Across the United States student groups associated with the Muslim Brotherhood, specifically Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) and the Muslim Students Association, are engaged in a vitriolic campaign against Israel and those students who support its right to exist. These organizations promote the propaganda of the terrorist organization Hamas, and call for the destruction of the Jewish state.

Students for Justice in Palestine, the more active of the two groups, claims to support a left-wing agenda of “social justice,” and “universal human rights.” Like the left itself, though, Students for Justice in Palestine doesn’t stand for the rights of Palestinians in the territories controlled by Palestinians, including the rights of Palestinians to disagree with each other without being targeted by their terrorist rulers. Instead, SJP’s sole agenda is the destruction of the Jewish state.

While SJP’s self-professed purpose is “to promote self-determination for the Palestinian people,” the organization defines the boundaries of this liberation as extending “from the river to the sea,” i.e., from the Jordan River on Israel’s eastern border to its western border on the Mediterranean. To advance this genocidal agenda, SJP endorses the lie that Israel was created on territory stolen from the Palestinians and, therefore, Jews illegally occupy Arab lands from which they must be purged.

In fact, Israel was created on land that had belonged to the Turks, who are not Arabs, for 400 years previously. In 1948 when Israel was created, there was no Palestinian political entity, no movement for a Palestinian state, and no people calling itself Palestinian. These core genocidal lies make up the primary agenda of SJP and its anti-Jewish allies, and are crowned by the ludicrous claim that Israel is an “apartheid state” with policies worthy of the “Nazis.” In fact, Israel is the only democratic and ethnically tolerant state in the Middle East, the only place where gays, Christians and women are safe. The real Nazis in the Middle East are the Arabs who openly call for the extermination of the Jews.

Despite its anti-Semitic, pro-terrorist agendas, SJP is funded by university fees. University administrations officially recognize the organization and grant it the privilege of erecting walls of hate, and conducting “die-ins” and other propaganda stunts in campus centers where other students can’t avoid being assaulted by their noxious accusations.

University administrators who refuse to rein in this hatred operate under pressure from faculty and student activists of the anti-Israel “social justice” left. These include the self-hating Jews of J Street and Jewish Voice for Peace, who join hands with their mortal enemies to condemn anyone who confronts SJP and the malignant forces it represents as “Islamophobes.”

As it happens, “Islamophobe” is a term coined by the Muslim Brotherhood to demonize its opponents, and the center of a campaign seeking a universal ban on critics as religious blasphemers. The campaign’s success can be seen in President Obama’s refusal to call the terrorist Islamic State “Islamic,” or to describe the war waged by the Islamic State, al Qaeda and other Islamic terror organizations as a religious crusade.

Thanks to the savageries of the Islamic State, however, Americans have begun to wake up and to see Jews as canaries in the mine, and to understand that what is happening to Jews is also happening to Christians and others in the way of Islamic Nazis. Nonetheless, the continuing successes of front organizations such as Students for Justice in Palestine are ominous indicators of the dangers that confront us, and should be a wake-up call, too.


David Horowitz was one of the founders of the New Left in the 1960s and an editor of its largest magazine, Ramparts. He is the author, with Peter Collier, of three best selling dynastic biographies: The Rockefellers: An American Dynasty (1976); The Kennedys: An American Dream (1984); and The Fords: An American Epic (1987).

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/2015/david-horowitz/islamic-jihad-comes-to-campus/

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

The Other Face of Terrorism - Raheel Raza

by Raheel Raza

We live in a country where we embrace liberal democracy, gender equality, freedom of speech and individual freedoms, so we naïvely think that everyone who comes here has the same values. Wrong. Those are the very values that the terrorists abhor.
We must be aware that there are organizations and individuals right here in the United States and Canada who have exactly the same ideology as Boko Haram, the Taliban and ISIS. The only difference is these North American organizations are required to follow the law of the land.
In many instances, these subversive organizations have succeeded in suppressing free speech by aggressively intimidating academic institutions.
This threatening, silencing and censoring is the other face of terrorism.

According to a UNICEF report published this week, an estimated 800,000 children in and around Nigeria were forced from their homes by Boko Haram extremists. This report was published almost a year after the mass kidnappings of nearly 300 schoolgirls from Chibok. There are reports that many of these kidnapped girls were terrorized, raped and later forced to marry their captors.

On the other side of the world, the Taliban have been consistently targeting women and girls. Human Rights Watch's World Report for 2015 says that there continue to be threats to women's rights and freedom of expression. The report notes that other setbacks for women's rights in 2014 included a continuing series of attacks on, threats toward, and assassinations of, high-profile women, including policewomen and activists, to whom the government failed to respond with any meaningful measures to protect them in the future. Nobel laureate Malala Yousafzai, who was shot in the head for asking for education, is a sad testimony to the Taliban's hatred toward educated and empowered women and its terrorist attacks on unarmed schoolgirls.

In between these two worlds, there exists yet another terrorist threat to women. The Islamic State (ISIS) has consistently targeted women in their brutal battle for control of the Muslim world. In this process, members of ISIS have perpetrated barbaric and horrific attacks on minority Yazidi women. Haleh Esfandiari, the director of the Middle East program at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, explains how the extremist group attacks women when they seize an area. "They usually take the older women to a makeshift slave market and try and sell them. The younger girls, basically they ... are raped or married off to fighters," Esfandiari said. "It's based on temporary marriages, and once these fighters have had sex with these young girls, they just pass them on to other fighters."

What do these three groups, Boko Haram, the Taliban and ISIS, which are terrorizing our world today, have in common?

• They are Islamists touting political Islam over the spiritual message and looking for political power and hegemony in the Muslim world
• Their ideology is: We are the only ones who know the truth; we will lead and others should follow without questioning our tactics, and only then will they find salvation (perhaps a few virgins thrown in for fun); The West is evil and we will teach them a lesson; our ideology must engulf the Muslim world with the establishment of a Caliphate.
• They work on creating terror among their victims by using tactics of intimidation and threats both physical and emotional.
• As they operate in countries where there is little accountability or law enforcement, they are able to get away with acts of violence and terror, mostly against women and minorities.

Those of us living comfortable lives in North America, sometimes think that this is all happening "out there somewhere," and that we are safe from these terrorists. We live in a country where we embrace liberal democracy, gender equality, freedom of speech and individual freedoms, so we naïvely think that everyone who comes here has the same values. Wrong. Those are the very values that the terrorists abhor, as they tell us time and again.

We must be aware that there are organizations and individuals right here in the United States and Canada who have exactly the same ideology as Boko Haram, the Taliban and ISIS. The only difference is that these North American organizations are required to follow the law of the land. They therefore cannot use violent measures against women and minorities quite so overtly while living here; so they resort to subversive tactics.

They nevertheless follow similar ideologies as other terrorist groups:

• Follow us -- we will represent you as we are the ones on the right path.
• Others (especially women) who are speaking of reform and change within the Muslim world are heretics and not really good Muslims because many of them do not wear a hijab.
• These "heretics" are friends with the "infidels" so how could they be true representatives of Islam or Muslims?
• We will tell you what "authentic" Islam is, and anyone questioning the status quo is an Islamophobic racist bigot, so we will help you play the "victim card."

This is a message that resonates not only from some pulpits, but from some Muslim organizations based in U.S. and Canada, which like to say that they are the voice of the majority of Muslims living here. What is frightening is how many people fall into the trap of believing them, including some of the mainstream media.

It is not surprising, therefore, that a film such as Honor Diaries, which exposes injustices and violence against women in Muslim-majority societies, is a slap in the face of some of these North American Muslim organizations. They cannot handle the truth; they have been caught, cornered and trapped. The only way to deflect the issue is to intimidate and silence those who speak out. Like Boko Haram, the Taliban and ISIS, they specifically target women because they think they are the weaker gender.

Subversive North American Islamist organizations have succeeded in suppressing free speech, writes Raheel Raza, such as using intimidation in attempts to cancel screenings of the film Honor Diaries. The film exposes injustices and violence against women in Muslim-majority societies. Above, a screenshot from Honor Diaries, relating to child brides.

In many instances, these subversive organizations have succeeded in suppressing free speech by aggressively intimidating academic institutions. Recently Asra Nomani, a former Wall Street Journal reporter, experienced Duke students trying to cancel her speech.

Recently, at The University of South Dakota, one screening of Honor Diaries was cancelled, and at another screening, there were threats and intimidation toward the faculty and the speaker.

This threatening, silencing and censoring is the other face of terrorism; it is no wonder that one such organization, the Muslim Brotherhood, famous for trying to silence free speech, finds its name on the terrorist list published even by the United Arab Emirates. Follow Raheel Raza on Twitter and Facebook


Raheel Raza

Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5578/islamist-groups-terrorism

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Postcard from the past - Nadav Shragai

by Nadav Shragai

A new translation of the Latin accounts of one of the most famous 15th century pilgrims to the Holy Land, Friar Felix Fabri, includes unique, humorous descriptions of Solomon's Stables, the Tomb of Absalom, the Tomb of the Patriarchs, and more.

 

Photo credit: Ariel

"The pilgrims should avoid wrapping white tarbushes, cloths or turbans, about their heads, since only the Muslims have the right to do so," the Dominican theologian and medieval traveler Friar Felix Fabri (c. 1441-1502) recommended to his fellow pilgrims, either sincerely or ironically; it is not certain which.

In a sheet that he wrote as a guide for pilgrims to the Holy Land, which he appended to his account of his travels, Fabri also warned visitors "to be sure not to laugh as they walk together to visit the holy places." He cautioned them "to take care to avoid passing by the tombs of Muslims," since "the Muslims become very angry on seeing pilgrims near their tombs ... and throw stones at anyone who passes by there, believing that this disturbs the rest of the deceased."

A preacher and pilgrim of Swiss descent, Fabri visited Israel in 1480 and 1483 during the late Mamluk period, roughly 35 years before the Turks conquered the country, and wrote Latin accounts of his travels. His writings show that he was a colorful, sharp-tongued cynic blessed with a sense of humor, unlike the sober seriousness of the writings of many other pilgrims who traveled to the Land of Israel.

Although Fabri visited all the sites that were visited by other well-known pilgrims of his time -- such as Rabbi Meshullam of Volterra, the German pilgrim Bernhard von Breidenbach, and Rabbi Obadia ben Avraham Bartenura -- his works differed from theirs in spirit. He took a much freer tone and was less restrained by convention, and was not afraid to poke fun at his co-religionists and lash out at the Muslims and a little at the Jews as well, all in lighthearted language.

His writing also stands out for its down-to-earth angle. He tells not only stories of saints and holy places, but also provides pilgrims with practical information such as lodging, prices and the order of prayer, a bit like the information that is printed in popular travel guides of our own day.

His Latin writings run for a thousand pages, and have since translated into English and French. Now, thanks to a project undertaken by Ariel, the oldest journal of Land of Israel studies, selected portions of Fabri's work are being published in Hebrew for the first time.

Brief excerpts of Fabri's work were previously translated into Hebrew by Michael Ish Shalom in his book, "Christian Travels in the Holy Land." The translators of the current project, who worked on a volunteer basis, are several Ariel readers. The publication is edited by Eli Schiller and Gabi Barkai, both well-known contemporary scholars of the Land of Israel and of Jerusalem.

Fabri visited Israel during the same decade as Bartenura, a renowned commentator on the Mishnah. Both men visited the same places on several occasions, and anyone who compares their descriptions will certainly learn a great deal not only about the sites in the Land of Israel more than 500 years ago, but also about the different ways in which these travelers -- one a Jewish rabbi and the other a Christian friar -- portrayed the situation there.

In the hands of the Muslims

"When I arrived in the Land of Israel," Fabri writes, "the passengers, with encouragement from the captain, broke out in hymns, and their singing combined into one sweet sound, full of enthusiasm, the like of which I had never heard before."

Two sites mistakenly linked to King Solomon were extensively described by Fabri and are especially relevant today: Solomon's Stables on the Temple Mount -- which the Muslims transformed into the Al-Marwani mosque about 15 years ago, to the detriment of the antiquities on the mount -- and Solomon's Pools south of Bethlehem, which were constructed to provide water to Jerusalem during the Second Temple era. Today the pools are located in Area A, under the Palestinian Authority's control, and a special permit is required to visit them.

Fabri describes the curves of Solomon's Stables as a large trash dump into which "the Muslims throw all the trash in the Temple and in the courtyard." Like contemporary scholars, he dismisses the mistaken assumption that the underground chambers were the stables where King Solomon's horses were kept, and offers an explanation of his own: that they were used to prepare medicines and perfumes.

In his letters, Bartenura describes a building whose structure is reminiscent of Solomon's Stables, saying that it is "full of dust that was cast from the ruin of the Temple," and that "in every single column is an aperture for inserting a rope, and it is said that the rams and bulls for the sacrifices were tied there."

Many sections of the ancient aqueduct that brought water from Solomon's Pools to Jerusalem were discovered in our own time, and the aqueduct is considered a tourist and archaeological attraction of the first degree. Fabri, who witnessed the reconstruction of that aqueduct by workers of the Mamluk sultan Qaitbay (1468-1496), gives the following description: "Above those pools, opposite the mountains, we saw more than six hundred non-believers digging and working to bring pure water to Jerusalem."

Fabri continues: "Since water was found among the hills of the desert, not far from Hebron, a great distance from those pools, the sultan is trying to bring their water to Jerusalem at great expense and labor, by wise work and sophisticated methods ... by hewing boulders and in stone shafts, at a distance of eight German miles, on the slope that is being created according to calculations in a suitable plan.

"Everyone wonders what the sultan is thinking about doing to Jerusalem, that he is wasting so much money and doing so much work to bring water there. The Muslims believe that he intends to move the seat of government from Babylonia to Jerusalem. The Jews hope that once Jerusalem is rebuilt, he will restore it to them. But the Christians wonder whether he intends to return to Christianity, from which he turned away, and restore the city of Jerusalem and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre to them."

Of the Muslims' behavior during those years, Fabri says: "They do not permit anyone who is not of the faith of Muhammad to enter the shrine, and they force anyone who is caught there, be he Jew or Christian, to convert; otherwise, he will pay with his life." Bartenura (during those same years) describes a similar situation, and also describes the Golden Gate in the eastern wall of the Temple Mount as "two closed iron gates ... that are not seen above the earth's surface; half of them are outside and half of them submerged in the earth, and it is said that the Ishmaelites tried several times to remove them and were unable to do so."

Fabri also lingers in his description of the Golden Gate, through which, according to Christian tradition, Jesus entered Jerusalem. He provides a description that is both entertaining and serious about the behavior of the Christians near the gate, which "the Arabs do not allow them to approach." 

"The gate is made of wooden boards with stripes of copper," he writes. "The Arabs cut pieces from it and remove nails from it and sell them to the Christians ... and good Christians risk their lives to approach the gate at night and take pieces from it. ... Anyone who carries a piece of this gate is protected from epilepsy and plague."

Fabri also visited the Tomb of Absalom and described how "all the children who pass by that monument, be they Jewish or Muslim or Christian children, pick up stones from the ground and hurl them toward the monument, and while they throw the stones, they curse Absalom and mock him and his evil end because he disobeyed his father. This is the most effective method of atonement for the children in Jerusalem."

Highwaymen in the Holy Land

A well-known medieval traveler who devoted many pages to a historical description of the Crusader kingdom of Jerusalem and of the Mamluk sultanate in his time also made a sketch of the Christian pilgrims "lying powerless on the ground [on Mount Zion]."

The sights are reminiscent of the phenomenon known as Jerusalem Syndrome: "Their strength abandoned them, as if they no longer felt their suffering, since their feelings of devotion overcame them. Others moved hither and thither, striking their breasts as if driven by an evil spirit. Some knelt upon their bare knees and prayed tearfully ... the bodies of others trembled with bitter, uncontrollable weeping. ... Some lay without moving for so long that it seemed that they were no longer among the living. ... Some of them, from an excess of devotion ... made odd and childish movements or grimaces."

Fabri does not regard these images as indications of illness or deficiency, as we would. On the contrary. 

"It was pleasant to see the great sincerity and different behavior of the pilgrims," he wrote.

Qaitbay, then the reigning Mamluk sultan, was considered the greatest of the Mamluk rulers. He oversaw the enormous construction project from his seat in Cairo. Bridges, caravanserais and guardposts were built and preserved throughout the length and breadth of the Land of Israel. He also invested in luxurious buildings and madrasas, Muslim religious academies, in the Old City of Jerusalem and on the Temple Mount. The architectural gems that he built are regarded as tourist attractions to this day.

Although Qaitbay also reduced the fees that the pilgrims had to pay to visit the holy sites, he could not subdue the gangs of highwaymen who roamed the roads of country, doing whatever they wished. Fabri himself fell victim to them. He devotes many pages to the culture of bribery and road tolls that Muslim robbers collected from the Christian pilgrims as a condition for visiting various sites and for passage on the roads that led to them. Fabri's first encounter with this phenomenon took place in the caves known at Saint Peter's Cellars near the Jaffa port. He experienced it again south of Jerusalem when a group of Arabs from Bethlehem approached his group. He describes the fear that gripped the members of the group and the negotiations that were held with the Arabs, "who wished only to extort money from us."

The worst Muslim robbers of that time were the members of the Taamra tribe, who built a cemetery around Rachel's Tomb and were known for their terrible violence. Fabri visited Rachel's Tomb and describes the complex as a building resembling a chapel, built entirely of stone, with no wood, unlike its structure today or at the beginning of the 20th century. Fabri also describes a rahat, or sebil, a water fountain that the Muslims built to provide water to visitors. The fountain, which can be seen on postcards of the area from the early 20th century, no longer exists.

Fabri also toured the Valley of Jehoshaphat, which lies between the Mount of Olives and the City of David. The valley has special significance in Christian tradition, which states that all people will stand there together on Judgment Day. But Fabri has his doubts. 

"The pilgrims pile up stones for themselves in the valley to make a place for themselves where they will be able to sit on the Day of Judgment," he writes. "When asked about the size of the valley, in all honesty you must admit that it is not of spacious dimensions and that it can hardly contain a single nation within it. ... But on the Day of Judgment the shape of the valley will be different. ... In addition, the narrow places shall be made broad and the rough places shall become a plain" [alluding to Isaiah 40:4].

'Unhappy Jerusalem'

At a certain point, Fabri and his group arrived at the Jordan River, "where Saint John baptized Jesus." He recalls that there, "the children of Israel passed through the river on their way to the Holy Land, after they had left Egypt and crossed the desert. God performed many miracles for them. When they arrived at the river, the water stood still on either side and they passed through it on dry land. ... Let the pilgrims honor the place with sobriety and devotion, and refrain from light-minded swimming."

Fabri and his group also looked toward Sodom and Gomorrah. "Those cities were destroyed by heavenly fire because of countless sins. Thus was created the deep Dead Sea, and to this day smoke and vapor from the furnaces of hell rise from it," wrote Fabri. After immersing in the Dead Sea, he wrote, "We touched and tasted the accursed waters and felt in them revealed signs of divine wrath."

Fabri met the German pilgrim Bernhard von Breidenbach, another well-known traveler to the Land of Israel, on the ship over. Both Fabri and von Breidenbach visited Hebron, but the entrance to the Cave of the Patriarchs was barred to them, as it was to the thousands of pilgrims who visited the country during that time. This infuriated Fabri. 

"We were told that we must not ask that [to enter the cave] because they could not grant our request for all the world's wealth; to them, the mosque [in the cave] was a great deal more sacred than the mosques in Jerusalem. Still, they allowed us to pray near the steps going up to the mosque," he wrote.

Another account that has significance for our own time is that of how the Jews tried in vain to purchase the building on Mount Zion where the tomb of King David is located, and how the Muslims destroyed the images and pictures that the Christians had placed there. 

"Unhappy Jerusalem has known, and will know in the future, siege, ruin, terror, humiliation and torments more than any other city in the world," he wrote.

Fabri died in 1502, nine years after returning to Germany. The detailed Latin version of his writings appeared only centuries afterward, in 1843 and in 1849. The portions about the Land of Israel were translated into English and were published by the Palestine Pilgrims' Text Society, a publication society that specialized in publishing editions and translations of medieval texts relevant to the history of pilgrimage to the Land of Israel. And now, selected portions of the work have been published in Hebrew by Ariel.

Nadav Shragai

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=24885

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.