Israel to help restore Lake Victoria in Africa

August 20, 2012
(YNET) During visit to Kenya, Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon signs cooperation agreement aimed at purifying waters of east African lake, improving lives of some 5 million people Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon, who is visiting Kenya, signed a cooperation agreement with Kenya and Germany that aims to improve the lives of millions of Africans who reside around Lake Victoria.
The goal of the project is to promote fish farming techniques and desalinate and purify the waters of the lake, which is one of the main sources of livelihood for some 5 million people living in Uganda, Kenya and Tanzania.
According to the agreement, Israel will donate advanced technologies especially developed in the Jewish state, as well as knowledge and professional guidance.
Deputy Minister Ayalon said that “projects of these kinds show the true and beautiful side of Israel, and strengthen Israel’s ties with the continent of Africa.
“While Iran tries to get a foothold in Africa with weapons, bombs and terror, Israel brings Africa progress, as well as agricultural and economic humanitarian aid. This is just an example of the difference between the fanatic ayatollahs’ regime and the Israeli democracy,” he added.
Israel’s Ambassador to Nairobi Gil Heskel said Israel intends to develop more projects, noting that it was received with “tremendous appreciation.”
“We have since received many requests from other heads of African states to expand the project to their countries as well,” Heskel added.

Funding the enemy

September 20, 2011

Like quiting smoking. You know it is bad for you, but you can’t stop spending money on it There is a lot of social pressure to keep your former lethal habit going and you may not survive kicking the vice. I have a lot of empathy. I’d like to go to Israel, but I’m afraid I’m not ready… and I’m not sure Israel is ready to protect me either… or if I could protect myself from some of the leftist Israelis that I met in NYC or online.Sorry to make this personal.

PA militias.jpg (Caroline Glick) Cong. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, is a true friend of Israel. Her bill calling for a cutoff of US aid to the PA and a massive decrease of US aid to the UN in the event the UN upgrades the Palestinians’ diplomatic status is one of the most important pieces of pro-Israel legislation to be introduced in the US Congress in a generation. By announcing it opposes an aid cutoff, Israel undermined Ros-Lehtinen’s position. It betrayed its good friend. No doubt Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman were under great pressure from the IDF and from the Obama administration to call for continued international funding of the PA. But the public didn’t elect them with the expectation that they would abandon Israel’s national interest and harm its friends just because they feel the heat. (MORE)

Can Latin America be saved

June 1, 2011

Israel’s Deputy Foreign Minister, Danny Ayalon, is headed for Latin America on Wednesday to try to convince countries there to vote against the unilateral recognition of ‘Palestinian statehood’ in the UN General Assembly in September.

Ayalon will travel to Mexico City on Wednesday, for meetings there, followed by a trip to El Salvador where he will attend a meeting of the Organization of American States (OAS). Israel has observer status in the OAS.
“We have realized that we can make a counter campaign,” Ayalon said Tuesday. “We must conduct a counter campaign to the Palestinians, even though they have a comparative advantage in the General Assembly. We are not going to give up.”
Mexico did not follow Brazil’s lead late last year and recognize a Palestinian state, and its position on the matter is considered very influential with a number of Central American states that have not yet recognized a Palestinian state. Among these are El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Panama.
The wave of recognition of a Palestinian state that began with Brazil last year swept South America, with the exception of Colombia, but did not wash over Central America or the Caribbean states, who are also members of the OAS.
Colombia, Israel’s closest ally in South America, is currently a member of the UN Security Council, and in various assessments being made in Jerusalem could very well vote with the US against a Palestinian state resolution in the Security Council.
While it is widely expected that the US would veto any such resolution in the Security Council, Washington is keen on not being isolated on the matter and is interested in getting other countries on the council to vote with it – thereby preventing it from having to use its veto.

Ayalon should at least be going to Honduras and Colombia. I’d even consider a trip to Aerrorisrgentina. Even though they have come out in favor of recognizing the ‘Palestinian’ reichlet, they are also familiar with the scourge of terrorism.

if there is one guy that needs to undo a misdeed it’s Ayalon… or so I am told. He was responsible for the withdrawal from Gaza. My friend says this is unforgivable… but I at the time thought it was a good idea myself.  Thousands of Jewish families lost their homes because of Danny’s actions.  Let’s hope Ayalon gets a chance for redemption


Danny Ayalon: Israel’s Right in the ‘Disputed’ Territories

April 7, 2011
The recent statements by the European Union’s new foreign relations chief Catherine Ashton criticizing Israel have once again brought international attention to Jerusalem and the settlements. However, little appears to be truly understood about Israel’s rights to what are generally called the “occupied territories” but what really are “disputed territories.”


That’s because the land now known as the West Bank cannot be considered “occupied” in the legal sense of the word as it had not attained recognized sovereignty before Israel’s conquest. Contrary to some beliefs there has never been a Palestinian state, and no other nation has ever established Jerusalem as its capital despite it being under Islamic control for hundreds of years.

The name “West Bank” was first used in 1950 by the Jordanians when they annexed the land to differentiate it from the rest of the country, which is on the east bank of the river Jordan. The boundaries of this territory were set only one year before during the armistice agreement between Israel and Jordan that ended the war that began in 1948 when five Arab armies invaded the nascent Jewish State. It was at Jordan’s insistence that the 1949 armistice line became not a recognized international border but only a line separating armies. The Armistice Agreement specifically stated: “No provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims, and positions of either Party hereto in the peaceful settlement of the Palestine questions, the provisions of this Agreement being dictated exclusively by military considerations.” (Italics added.) This boundary became the famous “Green Line,” so named because the military officials during the armistice talks used a green pen to draw the line on the map.

After the Six Day War, when once again Arab armies sought to destroy Israel and the Jewish state subsequently captured the West Bank and other territory, the United Nations sought to create an enduring solution to the conflict. U.N. Security Council Resolution 242 is probably one of the most misunderstood documents in the international arena. While many, especially the Palestinians, push the idea that the document demands that Israel return everything captured over the Green Line, nothing could be further from the truth. The resolution calls for “peace within secure and recognized boundaries,” but nowhere does it mention where those boundaries should be.

It is best to understand the intentions of the drafters of the resolution before considering other interpretations. Eugene V. Rostow, U.S. Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs in 1967 and a drafter of the resolution, stated in 1990: “Security Council Resolution 242 and (subsequent U.N. Security Council Resolution) 338… rest on two principles, Israel may administer the territory until its Arab neighbors make peace; and when peace is made, Israel should withdraw to “secure and recognized borders,” which need not be the same as the Armistice Demarcation Lines of 194.”

Lord Caradon, the British U.N. Ambassador at the time and the resolution’s main drafter who introduced it to the Council, said in 1974 unequivocally that, “It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of June 4, 1967, because those positions were undesirable and artificial.”

The U.S. ambassador to the U.N. at the time, former Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg, made the issue even clearer when he stated in 1973 that, “the resolution speaks of withdrawal from occupied territories without defining the extent of withdrawal.” This would encompass “less than a complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from occupied territory, inasmuch as Israel’s prior frontiers had proven to be notably insecure.”

Even the Soviet delegate to the U.N., Vasily Kuznetsov, who fought against the final text, conceded that the resolution gave Israel the right to “withdraw its forces only to those lines it considers appropriate.”

After the war in 1967, when Jews started returning to their historic heartland in the West Bank, or Judea and Samaria, as the territory had been known around the world for 2,000 years until the Jordanians renamed it, the issue of settlements arose. However, Rostow found no legal impediment to Jewish settlement in these territories. He maintained that the original British Mandate of Palestine still applies to the West Bank. He said “the Jewish right of settlement in Palestine west of the Jordan River, that is, in Israel, the West Bank, Jerusalem, was made unassailable. That right has never been terminated and cannot be terminated except by a recognized peace between Israel and its neighbors.” There is no internationally binding document pertaining to this territory that has nullified this right of Jewish settlement since.

And yet, there is this perception that Israel is occupying stolen land and that the Palestinians are the only party with national, legal and historic rights to it. Not only is this morally and factually incorrect, but the more this narrative is being accepted, the less likely the Palestinians feel the need to come to the negotiating table. Statements like those of Lady Ashton’s are not only incorrect; they push a negotiated solution further away.

Mr. Ayalon is the deputy foreign minister of Israel.



Roger Cohen is a sadist not an optimist

May 2, 2010

If New York Times columnist Roger Cohen is telling the truth, in effect, the Obama administration asked him to issue a warning threat to the Netanyahu government.

But there’s no indication that this was discussed with or conveyed to Israel until they read it in the New York Times, just like you and me. Once again, the Obama administration is treating one of its most important allies like a third-rate thugocracy.

via israelmatzav.blogspot.com

As I was lulling to sleep I saw a tweet from @Daroff of the UJC: Roger Cohen is optimistic on the peace process in his @nytimes column from #Israel http://j.mp/akcvkq   ….so I responded: @Daroff you can’t be serious about retweeting Roger Cohen? poison! you really did work for the Bush Sr. admin if you like that guy.   ….but Mr. Daroff tweeted back:  @CriticalAnalyst I do not endorse every author I RT, obviously. Mostly I tweeted it because I spoke w/Danny  tonight about his role in it. (Danny Ayalon I presume)   …so I guess now I have to read this…. and it was a waste of time:

  let me summarize. It opens with a lot of bullshit about being a realist… and then pulls a fake Anne Frank.  despite it all he claims to see the better in people… and yet his main argument is that Obama is going to stay the course because kids going into the middle east think that Israel is causing them harm.

Not very optimistic at all… complete nonsense.  Most kids going to Afghanistan are not going to have a dynamic to make such an analysis unless you push that opinion on them. Most likely they joined the army because they believe in what they are fighting for and Israel is part of that Western identity of freedom. Perhaps this is Cohen’s Freudian slip?  Maybe Cohen hopes that the youth will parrot back his own hateful rhetoric?   


Cohen thinks a guy like Fayyad is going to be the changing dynamic in the conflict. Fayyad who told a crowd that a future Arab state in Judea and Samaria must be free of all Jews. Fayyad, who was never elected to his office democratically.  Fayyad is a mere figurehead. Muhammad Ghaneim and the Committee and Council run Fatah. For there to be real peace with Fatah the Israelis need to shake hands with all 23 members of a Central Committee, 80 members of a Revolutionary Committee and a 350-member General Council.  and yet Cohen thinks Fayyad is the future.
He then claims that building in http://xrl.us/RamatShlomo is provacative.  A Jewish neighborhood that is overcrowded, surrounded in Jerusalem by other Jews.  An easy to pick on place because it is a neighborhood of religious Jews.  This Cohen is a bully looking to taunt those that adhere to a faith he rejected obviously. I’m not religious myself, but I can see how he thinks.

I’m not convinced that I learned anything here.
if you want to read this crap at the nytimes.com <—here it is.

Conclusion:
…if you read the article Danny Ayalon is hardly mentioned beyond the fact that he is concerned about a border.  There is no reason to retweet this.  Mr. Daroff could of just as easily reposted Ayalon’s concerns without pushing this guy’s lies.

UJA Federation Sponsors No Israel Fund (a/k/a New Israel Fund) Event

Unfortunately, this isn’t the first time it’s happened.  Remember when the UJA Federation of NY sponsored an antisemitic blood libel film?   We’ve also pointed out how one New Israel Fund staffer believes that Israel is guilty of terrorism, and how the mainstream “Jewish” establishment organizations such as the UJA/UJC/Jewish Federations of North America, etc., help fund the No Israel Fund, and how even the Jewish Chronicle in London celebrated the No Israel Fund and we’ve pointed out facts about the NIF, such as these from NGO Monitor:

  • NIF has granted more than $200 million to more than 800 organizations in Israel.” This includes $40 million from the Ford Foundation for “peace and social justice” programs.
  • In 2008, NIF distributed over $20 million to over 300 NGOs in Israel. Approximately 20% goes to NGOs that engage in political activities related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, including some that reject the legitimacy of Israel as Jewish democratic state, and are active in boycott and similar campaigns.
  • Examples:
read the rest at thejidf.org