Catch and release fish - not terrorists!

Is it a war of words or has something begun to happen internally in Iran? (See 1 and 1a below.)

Black on black. (See 2 below.)

Caroline Glick asks is Livni a lamb? Based on Glick's assessment and comments, Livni would make a great V P for Obama. Hezballah release does not sit well and is seen as another Hezballah victory.(See 3 and 3a and 3b below.)

And Qassams keep "acoming!" (See 4 below.)

Glowing prospect regarding Ahmadinejad. (See 5 below.)

Dick



Chantrill finds liberals mean spirited. People in general can be mean spirited. I don't think this trait is limited to political types.(see 3 below.)

1) US Fifth Fleet Chief: Iran will not be allowed to close Strait of Hormuz

At a media briefing in Bahrain Monday, June 30, US Vice-Admiral Kevin Cosgriff warned that the United States and its allies would not allow Iran to hamper shipping in the Gulf and close the Strait of Hormuz which carries oil from the world’s largest oil exporting region.

The US fleet commander was responding to a threat Saturday from Iran’s Revolutionary Guards commander, Ali Mohammed Jafari, that Tehran would impose controls on the Gulf and the strategic strait if Iran were attacked.

1a) Mysterious explosion at Iranian military facility

Iranian sources report that an explosion Monday, June 30, at Bidganeh near the town of Shahriar 40 kilometers east of Tehran occurred at a military installation, not a civilian building as Tehran claimed.

At first, the Iranian authorities reported 15 people were killed, correcting this later to no casualties. The precise function of the targeted facility is not known. While Iran claimed the blast was caused by a gas leak, Western military sources are skeptical and believe the authorities are trying to cover up some sort of sabotage.

2)Obama's Callous Indifference
By Peter Kirsanow
Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen declares that Barack Obama is " 'likable enough' -- in fact, so much so that he is the most charismatic presidential candidate I have seen since Robert F.Kennedy." Well, even though I've never spoken with Obama, I don't like him very much (I did testify with him [and a few others] once about a bill he'd sponsored on voter intimidation, but at the time he didn't impress me as unlikable, just a little intellectually lazy) .

This hasn't always been the case. Until early February, I tended to agree with all the news stories that contained the obligatory man-in-the-street quotes proclaiming him "decent," "likeable" and a "nice guy with a beautiful family."

According to the hagiography that passes for reporting about Obama, my attitude is rare. And, admittedly, unsophisticated. After all, I'm black so I shouldn't just like Obama, I should love and praise him. Sure, I'm conservative, but according to a recent AP story the Obama magic is so powerful that even black conservatives are in a swoon. But then, I'm also one of those bitter guys from flyover country.

I disagree with nearly all of Obama's positions, ranging from energy policy to the Iraq war. The National Journal's determination that he's the most liberal member of the Senate is a serious understatement. There may not be a more liberal elected official in all of Washington. But like most people, I like lots of folks with whom I have major policy disagreements. Put another way, if Barack Obama came up to me tomorrow, took my hand, looked me in the eye and said "when I'm president, I'll fight to win in Iraq, beat hell out of terrorists, appoint Supreme Court justices like Thomas and Roberts, cut taxes, secure the border, enact free market health care reform, honor our military and use the bully pulpit to prevent cultural decay,'' I'd still dislike him. Maybe more than I do now.

To be sure, Obama displays horrible judgment, surrounding himself with the likes of Wright, Pfleger and Ayers. He has a lot of close friends who seem to hate America. That's pretty unusual for the average person, but it's highly peculiar and troubling for someone running for Commander-in-Chief. It alarms me and makes me suspicious, but it's not why I dislike him.

Nor is it because he's an empty suit. He's gone further saying nothing than almost anyone in recent history. He's done nothing, yet he's poised to become the most powerful man on earth. He looks like he's never broken a sweat, furrowed a brow or dirtied a knee. That's not something to dislike. In today's culture it's something to admire-even envy.

These all may be reasons for voting against Obama, but they're not, to my mind, reasons for disliking him. No, I dislike Obama because of his personal qualities.

Wait a minute. Aren't we constantly regaled about all of his endearing qualities? He makes people faint and write songs about him. Hardened journalists get tingles up their legs just thinking about him.

Yet certain discrete actions can provide instant insights into a person's character. They can betray vivid flaws in a seemingly gleaming persona.

And they compel one to make judgments about the actor.

The acts may vary by degree, in turn prompting different degrees of reaction: the pillar of the community seen pilfering from the collection plate; the co-worker who uses a racial epithet behind a colleague's back. Indeed, people recoiled from the once popular Michael Vick when they found out he'd abused dogs.

I began to dislike Obama when I discovered that while in the Illinois state legislature in 2002, he voted against the Induced Birth Infant Liability Act. The bill was designed to extend the same medical care to babies who happen to survive an abortion attempt as is enjoyed by all babies born alive.

I couldn't believe anyone would vote against such a bill. In fact, when a similar measure-- the Born Alive Infant Protection Act-- was brought before the U.S. Senate, not one Senator voted against it. Even NARAL Pro-Choice America didn't oppose the bill.

Admittedly, I'm a bit of a curmudgeon. It's difficult for me to like someone who's eager to extend a panoply of constitutional rights to terrorists but who refuses to provide the most fundamental rights to a living, breathing infant.

Perhaps it's a failure to comprehend Obama's exquisite intellectual nuance. He rationalized his vote in language that evokes Dred Scott. Obama challenged the constitutionality of the bill,contending that conferring equal protection, i.e.,personhood, upon a "pre-viable fetus" would render the bill an unlawful anti-abortion statute.

At what point after birth does Obama call a baby a person and not a fetus? One day? Six months?

To be clear: I don't hate Obama as those suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome hate President Bush. I just have a hard time generating warm, fuzzy feelings for someone who voted against helping newborns struggling to live. But that's just me.

I suspect most people don't know about Obama's position on babies who survive abortion attempts and it's unlikely that they'll ever find out. The media seem more interested in reporting on the cultural implications of fist-bumps or the racial animus of those who question Obama's policies. I would wager, however, that if more people knew about Obama's disregard for babies who have the audacity to survive an abortion, there would be more scrutiny and less adulation.

3) Those Mean-Spirited Liberals
By Christopher Chantrill

Every now and again our learned scholars in the liberal university come up with a study, financed by taxpayers' money, that concludes what every liberal already knows. Conservatives are rigid and not very intelligent. In fact, as one study by two Berkeley professors claimed, the the "whiny, insecure kid in nursery school" probably grew up to be a conservative.

Of course two can play at that game, and so conservative Peter Schweizer took a look at the University of Chicago's General Social Survey and a few other generally available opinion surveys and came to the opposite conclusion in his book Makers and Takers. He found that conservatives are the good guys and liberals are the whiners.

Maybe he got different results because the General Social Survey covers the whole United States while the Berkeley professors only studied a single school in Berkeley, California.

Either way, Schweizer's findings make sense.

Liberals are more materialistic than conservatives, he finds. Of course they are. Believing in equality, differences in material things are very important to them. Not surprisingly, when they discover material differences in society, liberals are offended. There is a word for this feeling of offence: Envy. And so it is that liberals are more envious than conservatives.

Liberals celebrate anger. No, we are not just talking about Bush Derangement Syndrome. "Since the sixties, modern liberals have embraced anger as a sign of genuine commitment to the cause," writes Schweizer and their political rage leaks into their personal lives. The General Social Survey shows that liberals are more angry than conservatives and "three times more likely (17 percent to 6 percent) to have actually done something to get back at someone who had hurt or offended them in the past month."

Liberals are stingy with their money. Again, this is hardly surprising. Liberal political philosophy says: People Have Needs, and the government should provide. Thus liberals, when they actually spend money on anyone other than themselves, give money to the activist organizations that advocate for bigger government. Conservatives, on the other hand, give money to organizations that actually help people. Schweizer shows us that the headline liberals of recent memory-the Clintons, Gores, Kerrys, and Obamas-don't give much. But headline conservatives like Bush, Cheney, and Limbaugh do give, and give generously.

But then they would. Conservatives believe that people should help people, and governments should stick to the stuff that governments do best, defending society against enemies, foreign and domestic.

Liberals are less honest than conservatives. Peter Schweizer compares liberals and conservatives using the World Values Survey and the National Cultural Values Survey. Liberals admit that they don't value honesty as much as conservatives. They are more willing to sell "Aunt Betty a car with a bum transmission" than conservatives, and "twice as likely as conservatives to say it is okay to get welfare benefits they were not entitled to." Schweizer's poster boy for welfare cheat is billionaire George Soros, who once "tried to get a Jewish charity to give him money while also receiving public assistance."

Did you know that liberals are not just angrier but whinier than conservatives? Peter Schweizer samples liberal Whine Country using the Clintons, Bill and Hillary, as representative varietals.

But at least liberals are smarter than conservatives. Everyone knows that Calvin Coolidge was "weaned on a pickle," that Ike fumbled his syntax, that Reagan was an amiable dunce, and that President Bush is too dumb to be president. But navy veteran Sam Sewell found one liberal dumber than President Bush. Browsing presidential candidate John Kerry's website he happened upon the results of "an IQ-like qualifying test Kerry had taken in 1966." It showed that Kerry belonged in the 91st percentile on intelligence, a bit lower than President Bush in the 95th percentile.

Conservatives also rank better on political knowledge, according to Schweizer. Here's the result of a political knowledge test conducted in 2000. A high score is good.

Strong Republican 18.7
Independent-Republican 15.7
Strong Democrat 15.4
Independent-Democrat 14.2
Weak Republican 14.1
Weak Democrat 13.3
Independent 9.5


All this may be true, you will say. But how mean-spirited must Peter Schweizer be to drone on for 200 pages about "why conservatives work harder, feel happier, have closer families, take fewer drugs, give more generously, value honesty more, are less materialistic and envious, whine less... and even hug their children more than liberals?"

Conservatives had better hug their children more. They have more children to to hug than liberals. Forty-one percent more, to be exact.



3) Our World: Livni the leader, or Livni the lamb?


What is one to make of Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni? Is she the next Golda
Meir? Is she a woman of steel who can stand before world leaders and demand
that they treat Israel with respect? Can she win a war? Can she - as Golda
did in the Yom Kippur War - keep her head when all about her are losing
theirs and blaming it on her?

On Sunday, Livni dutifully followed Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in voting to
approve the terrorists-for-dead-hostages deal with Hizbullah. Despite the
government's best efforts to put a brave face on the decision, the deal with
Hizbullah is arguably the most humiliating step ever taken by a government
of Israel.

In exchange for the bodies of two dead soldiers - Eldad Regev and Ehud
Goldwasser - Israel has succumbed to all of Hizbullah's demands. It will
release six murderers from prison and send them to Lebanon for a hero's
welcome. It will give Hizbullah the bodies of 200 terrorists and so empty
Israel's Potters Field for terrorists. Moreover, it has pledged to close
Israel's graveyard for terrorists and so has committed future governments to
never keeping terrorists' bodies as bargaining cards for future swaps of
Israeli hostages. Israel has agreed to provide Hizbullah with information on
four missing Iranian "diplomats." And it has agreed to release an unknown
number of Palestinian terrorists from prison.

This deal will cement Iran's control of Lebanon through Hizbullah. It also
all but guarantees that any future Israeli soldiers taken hostage by
Hizbullah will be killed on the spot. Why care for hostages when you can
murder them and expect to receive the same payoff you would get if you kept
them alive?

Livni voted for this deal along with 21 of her fellow ministers. Unlike her
colleagues, who hide behind their surrogates and spokesmen, Livni is out in
front - lying to the public about the nature of her action.

Obviously cognizant of just how humiliating and strategically disastrous
this deal is for Israel, Livni is spinning her move in a naked attempt to
shirk her responsibility for having voted as she did.

After the government's vote, Livni told reporters that she will not support
implementing her own decision if the Palestinians Israel releases are
"central terrorist operatives." She will only agree to release terrorists
who are small-time operators. And if she is called upon to release senior
terrorists, she will not support moving ahead.

LIVNI'S STATEMENT is disturbing on many levels. First, it raises the
disconcerting prospect that the government never discussed the identity - or
number - of Palestinian terrorists it just agreed to release. Are we to
believe that Livni sat through a five-hour cabinet meeting and never once
asked who she was voting to release? Is it possible that Israel's Foreign
Minister never took it upon herself to be informed of the substance of her
decisions? Beyond that, how could she have voted to approve a deal that she
doesn't understand?

More than anything, Livni's statement is depressing for what it says about
her character - or lack thereof. By making this statement, Livni was
attempting to evade responsibility for her own actions. And these actions go
beyond her vote in favor of this execrable, morally atrocious and
strategically disastrous deal with Hizbullah. They consist of all her moves
as foreign minister since Regev and Goldwasser were abducted from their
position at the border with Lebanon on July 12, 2006.

From the earliest stages of Israel's war with Hizbullah two years ago, Livni
preached defeatism. Livni began calling for a negotiated cease-fire that
would leave Hizbullah in charge of South Lebanon just hours after Hizbullah
attacked Goldwasser's and Regev's unit and began bombing northern Israel
with rockets. She exhorted her colleagues that Israel had no prospects for
military victory. Livni did this even as it was clear that the only good
option Israel had was to fight for a military victory.

Had Israel defeated Iran's foreign legion in Lebanon on the battlefield, it
would have secured northern Israel and enabled the March 14 democracy
movement to fulfill its promise of transforming Lebanon into a multi-ethnic
democracy. Already on July 12, 2006, it was clear that an Israeli defeat
would pave the way for Hizbullah's takeover of the country.

Yet in the face of this known reality, Livni called for Israel to
capitulate. The policy she advocated involved Israel throwing itself at the
mercy of the UN and begging the Security Council to deploy forces to the
border to protect Israel. And in the end, Livni's defeatism was embraced by
Olmert and her fellow ministers and so Israel lost its first war.

On the ground, the international forces whose deployment along the border
was the centerpiece of Livni's policy are a joke. As was foreseen by her
critics both within the government and in the public discourse at the time,
UNIFIL is wholly ineffective because it has absolutely no interest in
fighting Hizbullah. As expected, it has done nothing to prevent Hizbullah's
rearmament. It has done nothing to protect the pro-democratic forces in
Lebanon from Hizbullah. Indeed, in Hizbullah's putsch last month, UNIFIL
forces behaved as if nothing was going on. Far from protecting Israel's
border, UNIFIL forces have acted as a buffer to enable Hizbullah to reassert
its control over the border unchallenged.

LIVNI OF course, has never acknowledged her own mistakes or share of
responsibility for this dismal state of affairs. And now, after voting to
cement Hizbullah's victory over Israel, far from accepting responsibility
for the situation she has been instrumental in fomenting, Livni makes
self-serving and patently false statements to reporters in an obvious
attempt to hide her own basic defeatism.

Livni's character and behavior are worth considering because the media has
all but anointed her Israel's next prime minister. Every article about
businessmen making cash payments to Olmert is accompanied by a fawning
profile of Livni. She is down to earth. She looks good in tailored pants
suits. She is hard working. She isn't a thief. And she plays the drums.

The media would have us believe that the mere fact that Livni is not under
police investigation renders her competent to lead the country. Obviously
this is ridiculous. The real question is not whether Livni is a crook, but
whether she is a leader. Is she?

OVER THE past three years, Livni has introduced and implemented a new
doctrine for Israeli foreign policy. Its central theme is Jewish
powerlessness. Livni has expressed this basic guiding notion in every major
foreign policy address she has given since late 2005. Most recently, she
repeated her view at a speech at Tel Aviv University's Institute for
National Security Studies on June 22.

There Livni explained that Israel's legitimacy as the Jewish state is
conditional. The Jewish people's right to sovereignty is completely
dependent on Israel's acceptance by the international community. And in her
mind, that acceptance is completely contingent on the push to establish a
Palestinian state.

As she put it, "Today, the existence of Israel is being delegitimized, not
just its physical survival, but also its existence as the national home for
the Jewish people... Only the fact that a profound international argument is
being waged because of the Palestinians' demand for their own national state
leads the world to perceive Israel's demand to be recognized as a national
home for the Jewish people as legitimate... That means that [the
Palestinians,] demand solidifies and reinforces the perception of the
existence of Israel as the national home of the Jewish people."

In other words, as Livni sees things, if Israel is not perceived as wholly
committed to Palestinian statehood - by the Arabs and the West alike - then
the world will never accept Israel and therefore, in her view, Israel's
right to exist will disintegrate.

Livni's doctrine is unacceptable for two basic reasons. First, it is
inherently bigoted against Jews. Livni's world view is built on the
assertion that unlike every other nation on earth, the Jewish nation has no
inherent, natural right to self-determination.

Moreover, from her perspective, Israel itself is completely powerless to
change the situation. It cannot defend itself in international arenas. It
can only bow to the prevailing winds and hope for the best. So in Livni's
view, the fact that Israel has already existed as the sovereign Jewish state
for 60 years has in no way changed the Jewish people's status. We are just
as vulnerable to the political machinations of others today as we were for
2000 years of stateless exile, and we are fated to always be powerless. By
her lights, our hard-won sovereignty is an empty shell that can never be
filled.

LIVNI'S DOCTRINE does not merely make clear that she is a deeply limited
thinker. It also exposes her as a follower. British Field Marshal Bernhard
Montgomery once said, "My definition of leadership is this: The capacity and
the will to rally men and women to a common purpose and the character which
inspires confidence." The essence of leadership is the ability to present
people a vision of a goal and then rally them to work with you towards
achieving it.

Livni's world view is completely antithetical to this basic central notion
of leadership. Far from rallying the people to a common purpose, she tells
us that there is no goal we can achieve. As far as she's concerned, our
state is nothing at all. Our power is nothing. Our collective will to
persevere is counter-productive. Our heritage has value only if outsiders
recognize it. Our rights are only as great as others' willingness to accept
them.

Livni is not the first empty shell to be proclaimed by Israel's media as the
next great white hope. Others, such as former IDF chief of staff Lt. Gen.
(ret.) Amnon Lipkin-Shahak and former Labor party leader Amram Mitzna, have
also enjoyed that distinction. After years of media build-up, both men were
quickly exposed as followers once they were actually challenged to lead.

It can only be hoped that Livni will be similarly challenged and so exposed
before she is propelled to Israel's top spot. The nation can scarcely afford
to be led by another weak-kneed sheep.

3a) The Kuntar Letter: Terrorist Samir Kuntar vows to continue path of terror.
By Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook



Background:

Samir Kuntar is the Lebanese terrorist serving four life sentences in an Israeli jail for murdering a four-year-old Israeli girl, Eynat Haran. He crushed her head with his rifle butt after murdering her father, Dani, and two policemen. Eynat's two-year-old sister, Yael, also died in the terror attack. Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah announced last week that Israel had agreed to release Kuntar in exchange for Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev (or their remains), the IDF reservists kidnapped in July 2006. Media reports indicate that such a deal is imminent.

The Kuntar letter:

After the killing of international terrorist Imad Mughniyeh in Syria three months ago, Kuntar wrote a letter to Nasrallah in which he glorified terrorists and martyrdom, and vowed to continue in the path of terror "until complete victory."

The following is the text of the Kuntar letter:


"My dear and honored commander and leader, The Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah,

Peace be unto you and our Shahids, and may Allah's mercy and blessing be upon you.

Peace be unto the men in the convoys of the righteous.



Peace be unto he who has [given and has] not taken anything other than the Shahadah (Martyrdom), the highest rank of honor before Allah.



Peace be unto the distinguished, glamorous convoys [of Shahids] who travel toward eternity, toward the men of glory, dignity and pride, toward those who have marked our path for hundreds of years.



Peace be unto the last to leave, the Hajj and leader, Imad Mughniyeh.



Peace be unto him, as he passes the message on to those who await his arrival, as he brings them stories of the glory and victories, news of steadfastness and loyalty of the men of the fulfilled promise [a reference to the operation in which the two Israeli soldiers were kidnapped which was called the 'Fulfilling the Promise',] news of "those who still wait [for Shahadah]; but they have never changed (their determination for Shahada)." [Quote from Quran, Sura 33:23.]



Peace be unto him, as he announces to the most honored among the Believers [previous Shahids] that the waiting convoys have chosen [they await the Shahadah] to draw their swords, and their swords are calling out: "We are far from degradation" [a Nasrallah's phrase].



May peace be unto you, Hajj Imad. My oath and pledge is that my place will be at the battlefront, which is soaked in the sweat of your giving, and the blood of the most beloved among men [Shahids], and that I shall continue down the path, until complete victory.



I give to you, Sir Abu Hadi [name for Hassan Nasrallah] and to all the Jihad Figthers, my congratulations and [my] renewed loyalty."



[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, February 19, 2008]

3b)Hizbullah won again:Swap with Hizbullah a victory for terror group, but it didn’t get everything it wanted
By Roee Nahmias


Following the approval of the swap with Hizbullah in Sunday’s government session, we can cautiously say that Hizbullah won again, although it won by points, rather than by knockout.


First, in the immediate future, Hizbullah and Nasrallah will deliver on what they promised – securing the release of Samir Kuntar, who killed the Haran family. However, this was not done in the way Hizbullah hoped. Initially, Nasrallah demanded the release of many Palestinian prisoners, as well as Arab-Israeli ones. He will not get most of it (Israel will only release a very small number of Palestinian prisoners.)


However, the principle has been maintained: Nasrallah looked into the cameras a few times and promised to Kuntar that he shall be released. The operation to abduct the IDF soldiers was called “the promise that was kept.” What can we say; this promise at least was indeed kept.


Another achievement is the price. We are talking about a relatively modest price for Israel, yet according to the prime minister’s statement at least, our two captives are no longer alive. Getting Kuntar in exchange for two dead soldiers is a pretty good bargain.


Thirdly, the question of “bargaining chips” – whether we like it or not, Nasrallah has methodically been able to take away the bargaining chips held by Israel. At this time Israel no longer holds any meaningful prisoners, and the Ron Arad affair will remain a mystery.


Fourthly, this is an achievement for Nasrallah’s approach. The way Hizbullah sees it, this is further evidence that their modus operandi is working. The first goal was to remove the IDF from south Lebanon – and it happened. Then came the issue of the prisoners – and this too has been achieved now. The next issue is the Shebaa Farms. Here too, Prime Minister Olmert recently declared that Israel is willing to discuss the issue in the framework of peace talks with Lebanon. Hizbullah ignored the second half of this sentence and went out to celebrate – “Israel’s withdrawal from the Shebaa Farms is a victory for the way of resistance,” they have been saying in the past two weeks.


Fifthly, this is a domestic Lebanese victory: While Nasrallah’s rivals have been struggling for a long time now, he boasts yet another victory. After he managed to enforce his will on Lebanon’s political establishment in the form of the “Doha Agreement” (or as it’s popularly known, the “capitulation agreement”) that gave him veto power on government decisions, he has another reason for celebration – he managed to enforce his will on Israel as well. Nasrallah gains a significant and morale-boosting achievement at a time when the political crisis in Lebanon is still alive and kicking.


Struggle to go on

Is the price we paid Hizbullah proper? This is a subject for debate within Israeli society, rather than Lebanese society. For Israel as well, the picture is not wholly dark. First of all, this is not the price Hizbullah demanded at the outset. Nasrallah is not the same confident Nasrallah he was before the war, but rather, a leader of an organization who is hiding somewhere in Lebanon and not moving around freely – moreover, it is doubtful whether Kuntar’s release would prompt any of Nasrallah’s rivals to support him. Still, in Shiite eyes in Lebanon this is a morale victory on Israel and this is no small matter.


And a final matter: Many in Israel, including myself, waited with great interest in the years 1999-2000 to see what Nasrallah will be doing if the IDF indeed withdraws from southern Lebanon. Will he end his armed struggle against Israel or will it continue, and what will be the excuse this time around? The answer came soon after: Several months before the IDF withdrew from southern Lebanon, Nasrallah started marking the next target: Liberating the Shebaa farms. This is the place to note that almost nobody in Lebanon heard about these “farms” and nobody thought of demanding them.


Nasrallah, after digging through the archives, managed to identify a plot of land that was shrouded in controversy from the days of the French Mandate. Ever since he came up with the idea, his television network was instructed to air countless broadcasts regarding the “occupied Lebanese territory,” even though it’s Syrian territory. For the time being, Syria is refusing to renounce it. A Syrian source even said so explicitly this week. This is not the issue. It is very possible that within a short period of time Nasrallah will accomplish his mission both on the issue of prisoners and, who knows, on the Shebaa Farms question.


So what will be the next step? Will he stop his armed struggle against Israel? When it comes to Nasrallah, predictions are dangers, but we can cautiously assume that abductions of soldiers will not be his top priority at this time. It would be a shame to jeopardize such successful statistics for him and risk a furious response from Israel.


Yet you can count on Nasrallah to find a new target for slamming Israel. Perhaps the Palestinian prisoners or Israel Air Force flights over Lebanon, or perhaps the “seven Lebanese village” in the north, which he already mentioned in the past. The struggle, regrettably, won’t end this time, for the simply reason that this is the Shiite militia’s raison d’etre.




4)Gaza crossings to remain closed Tuesday due to Qassam fire.


Defense Minister Ehud Barak has decided that Israel will not open the
crossings on the Gaza-Israel border Tuesday for the transfer of goods into
the Strip due to the firing of a Qassam rocket on the Negev earlier in the
day.

5) 'Ahmadinejad was target of X-ray plot'


Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was the target of an 'X-ray plot' when he attended a UN-sponsored global food summit in Rome earlier this month, Iran's former ambassador to Italy, Abolfazl Zohrevand, claimed Monday.


"A day before Ahmadinejad's arrival in Rome, I checked and found out that the (security) X-ray machines installed gave off too powerful radiation. It measured over 900 instead of 300 as normal," Zohrevand told Iran's IRNA news agency.

"We changed the machine, thinking that it was faulty, but realized the rays were being remotely controlled," he said.

"Bearing in mind that rays of over 1,500 are extremely dangerous to human life, this makes us think there was a plot," Zohrevand continued.

Zohrevand didn't say which units he was using but radiation is usually measured in milligrams. He also didn't say whether Ahmadinejad was staying was a hotel or an official residence.

Zohrevand was removed from his position and ordered to return to Teheran, a website affiliated to Iran's Revolutionary Guards reported in June.

His dismissal came shortly after Ahmadinejad's trip to Rome in early June, during which he did not manage to meet with any members of the Italian government or the opposition.