An arms purchase request from Turkey has been denied

Israel has declined a request by Turkey to purchase several different military systems, including an anti-tank guided weapon and a missile system for its navy.

via israelmatzav.blogspot.com

The request by the Turkish government was rejected by Israel's SIBAT, the defense assistance and export organization, which is currently reviewing each order on a case-by-case basis.

Turkey said it wanted to buy the Spike non-line-of-site (NLOS) anti-tank guided weapon, the Namer heavy infantry fighting vehicle, and the Israel Aerospace Industries' (IAI) Barak 8 theater-defense missile system for its navy, according to UK-based Jane's Defence Weekly.

Since that time, relations between the two countries have steadily deteriorated, a trend reflected in Turkey's decision in October 2009 to bar Israel's Air Force from participating in the joint Anatolian Eagle exercises. Turkey ultimately chose to cancel the drill rather than back down in response to pressure from the United States and Italy, who were also set to participate.

As a result, Israel has also been searching for new air space in which to conduct long-range training exercises, since Turkey has refused the IAF use of its air space. Recently the Defense Ministry has been exploring the possibility of renewing a 2006 agreement to deploy IAF fighter jets in Romania.

via israelnationalnews.com

You will recall that two weeks ago, Israel delivered the last of 170 upgraded M601a tanks to the Turkish army. It sounds like that will be the last weapons deal with Turkey for a while. Let them go buy from Iran or Syria.

via israelmatzav.blogspot.com

it is amazing that Israel still approved delivery of those last 170 tanks.  Why play fair with foul business?

Conservatives that Enabled Iran too

How many times will the CIA or any other security service in our country be wrong about Iran because they slander so called Zionist thinkers who believe Iran will get a Nuke sooner then expected and at the very least presently has the means to distribute a dirty bomb to terrorists to take to the United States? This has nothing to do with Obama because these people were running the show during the Bush administration.

Another poor U.S. http://xrl.us/CostBenefit Analyis: flashback to 2007 - Ehud Barak told Army Radio: “IRAN] ...apparently continued that program. We cannot afford to rest just because of an intelligence report from the other side of the globe, even if it is from our greatest friend.

...and apparently Bush was lied to by his own Secret Service... and he pushed those lies on Israel

An Interview Of Diana West by Ruth King via docstalk.blogspot.com

As al Qaeda imam Abu Qatada once said in similar context about George W. Bush’s misreading of Islam as a “religion of peace”: “I am astonished by President Bush when he claims there is nothing in the Koran that justifies jihad or violence in the name of Islam. Is he some kind of Islamic scholar? Has he ever actually read the Koran?”

The impulse on the Right has been to deny, downplay or just ignore the implications of http://xrl.us/Petraeus' Arab-Israeli comments. Amazingly, at two weeks into the controversy, Petraeus' Senate testimony still hadn't received any coverage at NRO or The Corner, (Andy McCarthy's piece came later), had been whitewashed in brief at the Weekly Standard's blog, whitewashed at the American Spectator, and ignored in columns (John Bolton, Linda Chavez) on Israel's abuse at the hands of the Obama administration (predicated on the mindset, sensationally enough, shared by Petraeus) or further whitewashed (Brett Stephens). A particularly virulent (and even slanderous to me) Petraeus defense was mounted at Commentary's blog Contentions summed up first and then here.

Dick Morris was the first conservative that I know of to "come out" and, in effect, join me in noting Petraeus' hostility to Israel. He wrote: "Gen. Petraeus told the Senate Armed Services Committee that `Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with governments and peoples [in the region] ... Enduring hostilites between Israel and some of its neighbors present distinct challenges to our ability to advance our interests in the area of responsibility.' In other words, blame Israel." It's that simple.

Caroline Glick has recently examined the evidence and come to a similar conclusion.

Rashid Khalidi on CNN with Fareed Zakaria

You will recall that during the election campaign, the Los Angeles Times had but did not release a video of Khalidi's going away party from Chicago, which was attended by Barack Obama, at which some extremely anti-Israel statements were made.

 the segment about Israel with Khalidi and Stephens starts around the 11:00 mark and ends around the 27:15 mark.

Ron Radosh notes the part that is most problematic.

During the discussion, Zakaria asked whether or not it was “a shift for the — the United States to be suggesting that this stalled peace process [between Israel and the Palestinians] hurts America’s ability to pursue its interests.” What the administration is now saying, Khalidi responded, “is that Israel is a drag on the United States. It’s not a strategic asset, and this is a discursive shift of some significance.” (my emphasis) To put it a bit differently, Rashid Khalidi, who in 2008 worried that because of American politics Obama had to appear to be a supporter of Israel, now believes that Obama’s promise to move U.S. policy towards the Palestinian perspective is coming true.
Khalidi again emphasized his main point: “that Israel is not the strategic asset it was touted as during the Cold War” and that the U.S. had returned “…in effect, to the Eisenhower administration’s view of the Middle East as an area where the United States has problems, and Israel is, in some small way, one of those problems.” Clearly, all the boilerplate assurances coming from the Obama camp in the past few weeks — assuring Americans that the U.S. commitment to Israel as a major ally is as firm as ever — have not dissuaded Khalidi from reaching a quite different conclusion.

via israelmatzav.blogspot.com

the hidden clause in the ownerless society, that it is not about owning, but about being owned

Still as the left institutionalized, it understood that to win, it had to gradually convince the "middle class" that what they had was worthless, and that security could only come from collective ownership. The ObamaCare debate is a classic example of the left preying on middle class fears about security (with a subtle dose of guilt about the less well off to make the case seem like a moral one) and promising them "ownerlessness" as the preferred alternative to self-reliance.

via sultanknish.blogspot.com

Posted via web from noahdavidsimon's posterous