Danny Orbach

@APHClarkson Erdogan does threat Greece and Cyprus so much that they are arming. By contrast, what threat does Israel pose to the EU, but for the obession of some EU countries with Israeli affairs?

Erdogan's regime has not been viewed as a systemic threat to the EU system since 2022 and has largely avoided trouble with Athens and Nicosia Even in realist theory terms, the actions of the Netanyahu are viewed as disrupting regional stability in ways that endanger EU interests

אני כל כך אוהב את האנשים האלה. אחים על מלא.

Consider the contrast: many European governments that routinely invoke human rights principles when criticizing Israel have no hesitation in cultivating ever closer relations with Erdoğan’s Turkey, despite its increasingly authoritarian trajectory. In recent years, Erdoğan’s government has intensified pressure on the opposition through criminal investigations, arrests of politicians and activists, restrictions on independent media, and legal measures against elected opposition officials. The crackdown reached a new peak with moves against leading figures of the main opposition party, widely criticized by observers as an attempt to weaken political competition and consolidate presidential power. Yet far from discussing sanctions or boycotts, European leaders continue competing to strengthen political, economic, and strategic ties with Ankara.

@lou10999019 @MattiFriedman It is indeed a barbaric, abominable act - as is violence of radical settlers against Palestinians, that has to be condemened and prosecuted without "if" and "but".

@Mujakura @MattiFriedman x.com/i/status/20553…

My reading recommendation for this week is one of the most important articles published so far on October 7 — if not the most important. My colleague Dr. Daniel Sobelman, an expert on strategy, Hamas, and Hezbollah, published an article in the journal Studies in Conflict and Terrorism titled The Strategic Origins of Hamas's October 7 Attack. Based on a treasure trove of original Hamas documents captured during the war, alongside other sources, the article describes in detail Hamas’s “Ring of Fire” strategy and the Axis of Resistance’s plan for the destruction of Israel, which became concrete after what Hamas perceived as its victory in Operation Guardian of the Walls. The article shows that, in Sinwar’s eyes, the destruction of Israel was not a distant vision for the future, but an immediate, feasible, and realistic plan. Israel, which believed it was deterring Hamas and Hezbollah, was in fact being deterred by them, restricting its own freedom of action while facing adversaries that were increasingly intervening in other arenas such as Jerusalem and the West Bank, where any wrong move could trigger a major escalation. Iran surrounded Israel with a “ring of fire” of proxies, foremost among them Hezbollah, while Hamas assumed an increasingly central role within this deadly array. By no later than 2021, a series of discussions had taken place between Sinwar and his counterparts in the Axis of Resistance regarding the implementation of the destruction plan. The Iranians were represented by Saeed Izadi, head of the Palestine branch in the Quds Force of the Revolutionary Guards. Sinwar presented several scenarios to his counterparts: the first was the destruction of Israel; the second was forcing Israel to withdraw from the West Bank and breaking its strength in a way that would accelerate emigration from the country and lead to its later destruction; and the third was a more limited war that would still inflict enormous damage on Israel. Hamas documents show that — according to Hamas’s own account — Nasrallah supported the first scenario (namely total destruction), but was more cautious regarding timing, apparently believing that the Axis of Resistance should wait several more years until it was fully prepared.In the end, Sinwar moved ahead of schedule and surprised his Axis counterparts with the October 7 attack. Within Hezbollah there were disagreements: many commanders wanted to enter the war with full force, which in my opinion would have caused Israel enormous and possibly irreversible damage. Nasrallah, however, was more cautious and believed the time was not yet ripe. Ultimately, Sinwar’s haste combined with Nasrallah’s caution saved Israel from a far worse scenario.The article also describes the testimony of Amit Saar, then head of Military Intelligence research, according to whom the real plan for Israel’s destruction — a deliberate, coordinated offensive by the entire Axis — was still about two years away in October 2023. In my view — and this does not appear in the article — had Sinwar waited, Israel would have been in a much worse position: the internal crisis would have deepened and, above all, the ground forces would have been cut back and further hollowed out. My personal assessment is that under such conditions, the destruction of Israel, even if carried out in stages, would have become a realistic possibility. Therefore — and here I am expressing my personal opinion and going beyond the scope of the article — Israel saved itself and its people from genocide on October 7 (a real genocide, like Rwanda, not the kind that “genocide scholars” write about today in the context of Gaza). In this context, the new Israeli doctrine of crushing genocidal threats on its borders is a matter of necessity. Once Israel faces enemies for whom, unlike the state adversaries of the past, the destruction of Israel is a top priority, deterrence is no longer possible. Such enemies can only be eradicated; otherwise they will continue building up their forces along the borders until they decide to strike in coordination. On October 7 we escaped that fate, at a terrible price, and awakened to the realities of the Middle East. Had we failed to do so, it is not certain we would have had another opportunity.A link to the article is in the first comment. P.S. Considerations such as the internal Israeli crisis, Al-Aqsa, Jerusalem, and similar issues were not the cause of Hamas’s attack, but they certainly influenced its timing and Hamas’s assessment of the IDF’s weakness. It should also be noted that here too Sinwar acted contrary to the assessments of his own intelligence officials, who argued that the IDF had not yet weakened sufficiently because of that crisis.

The NY Times purported to address the issues with the "dog rape" story but ignores or mostly sidestep the key issues. Here is my response: 1. Sami al-Sai is a confirmed Hamas operative, he had a documented history of working for them, per PA sources, not Israel. He alleged sexual violence against them too, which the PA denied. He is not a credible witness; at minimum his past work for Hamas and the incident with the PA should have been disclosed. 2. Euro-Med and its head Ramy Abdu have a long list of close ties to Hamas, it's not just that Abdu supported 10/7. Significant additional evidence has been brought forth to prove this connection, including close ties between Abdu and Ismail Haniyeh. A Hamas front should not be cited at all. It was not even disclosed in the piece, which was stunning. 3. The testimony from Chile, if you actually read what the victims say, is that there was no penetration, just mounting. One victim said the dog was ordered to "climb on top of me...mercifully, there was no penetration.” No victim claimed penetration. The medical journal cases are based on human initiated contact, nothing as alleged in Israeli prisons. There is no documented example in history of a dog trained to be aroused, mount and penetrate. Never. This should have been noted that the specific claim against Israel is unique in documented history. 4. Several prominent canine experts have made it clear that training dogs to reach arousal and penetrate on command (and anally as alleged) is not possible. It's notable that the article did not cite an expert to back the claim and still has not. Such as sensational claim should have included experts for fact checking. No dog expert has yet emerged that back the assertions in the article. It's a fatal gap in the story. 5. The penetration claims comes from an unnamed "Gaza journalist." However, dozens of Gaza journalists have now been outed as Hamas & PIJ combatants, by their own martyr notices. The fact that his claim is considered by canine experts to be impossible further harms his credibility. 6. Shaiel Ben Ephraim, a key source linked to, and featured in the video, has walked back the claim of "dog rape." On Piers Morgan he said: “the detainee sort of exposed and having a dog sort of seemed like it was about mounting… Whether there’s been penetration or not, I don’t know if there has been or hasn’t.” It seemed dubious to cite a source based in California with no first hand knowledge of the goings on in Israeli prisons. Add in the "Gaza journalist" and lack of a canine expert, and this part of the story falls apart. A correction should be issued. 7. Ehud Olmert said he was misrepresented in the piece. This should be acknowledged and a correction issued. 8. If it's: "It’s impossible to know how common sexual assaults against Palestinians are" as written, then how is it possible to then claim it's "standard operating procedure" as also written? Anything beyond recounting cases of abuse is thus pure speculation. There is no evidence beyond cases of alleged abuse in prisons, which few deny and are unfortunately quite common in prisons worldwide. In the US there were 8,628 allegations of staff-committed sexual misconduct victimizing adult inmates in 2020 - is it fair to call it "standard operating procedure"?

@ChaimCurrent Then Sinwar would have postponed the attack, only to strike later at the first opportunity.

@Mujakura Yet had the idf kept two or three more battalions on alert facing the Gaza Strip hamas would have been deterred or dealt with trying to cross the border saving the lives of almost a thousand civilians.

It turns out that Nicholas Kristof’s negligence in reporting is not confined to Israel—it is a recurring pattern. Time and again, he falls prey to fraudsters and dubious sources, swallowing stories without properly verifying them, all in order to preserve the image of the “moral journalist,” the “champion of the downtrodden” exposing injustice. And the truth? What does it matter when readers are wiping away tears? Link in the first comment.

@thisischaim לצערי כבר לא. הלוואי שכך היה.

@Mujakura באמת מתעניין, זכיה בשני פרסי פוליצר לא מעידה על איכות עיתונאית?

If you haven’t read enough rebuttals to the new blood libel by the New York Times about the “systematic rape of Palestinian prisoners,” along comes federal judge Roy Altman and tears Nicholas Kristof’s column to shreds — the way a strict judge dismantles testimony from the bench. In the article (link in the first comment), he discusses the absurdity of relying on anonymous testimony, something fundamentally contrary to any modern method of discovering the truth. Had Kristof provided identifying details — precise times, names of prisons, specific wings — it would have been possible, for example, to demand that Israel release the relevant surveillance footage and verify whether abuse had in fact occurred. Kristof does not do this.Moreover, it turns out that the one of the two witnesses Kristof identifies by name — a well-known Hamas inciter — complained to the Israeli courts about poor treatment in prison, yet did not mention rape or sexual abuse at all in real time. Nor is there evidence that any of the hundreds of Palestinian prisoners who filed complaints suffered consequences for doing so. In fact, even Kristof’s main witness, Sa’i, suffered no such repercussions. And that is in addition to the dogs — the dogs. It is depressing to see how a bizarre conspiracy theory that until now had been confined to the fringes of the internet has migrated into the mainstream press thanks to a negligent reporter who previously believed professional liars and even admitted it, and who today tried to score a few points through blood libels against Jews.

@OfirNiv @the_yaniv להיפך, צריך לענות לו. התגובה לשקרים היא אמת. והתגובה לעיתונאות גרועה היא מחקר טוב.

@Mujakura @the_yaniv אני יודע, אני חושב שאחרי מה שניר חסון כתב עליך במלחמה אתה לא צריך לשתף פעולה איתם.

אני מאד אוהב להאזין לדני אורבך (@Mujakura) וחושב שיש לו תמיד דברי טעם ורוחב יריעה מסקרן. הוא לטעמי טעה ערכית בכך שהוא יושב בפאנל ונתן את הגרביטס שלו לריקלין. לא סתם נאמר מה שנאמר על מושב ליצים.

@moshe_stein @the_yaniv אני אחראי רק על העמדות שאני מביע, ובכל פעם אני מבטא התנגדות עזה לגזענות. אין לי שום אחריות למה שאומרים אחרים בפאנלים שאני משתתף בהם.

@Mujakura @the_yaniv מה הגבול שלך? יש בך טולרנטיות גם לגזענות?

@OfirNiv @the_yaniv אני אשמח להתראיין גם ל"הארץ" ואכן מפרסם שם מדי פעם.

@the_yaniv @Mujakura לא, הוא בטח צריך להתראיין בהארץ, שהכתבלב של עמוס, ניר חסון, טוען שהוא משקר ומכשיר פשעי מלחמה.. תן לי לנחש שזה לא היה מפריע לך

דיווחנו הערב במהדורה המרכזית של ערוץ 14: דוח של מכון המחקר ISIS בראשות דייויד אולברייט, מי שנחשב על ידי רבים כבר הסמכא מס' 1 בעולם בנושא תוכנית הגרעין של איראן, מפריך את הנרטיב לפיו תוכנית הגרעין כמעט לא נפגעה, וקובע כי התקיפות של ישראל וארה"ב הסיגו את איראן לאחור באופן משמעותי הן בהקשר להשגת פצצה גרעינית מבצעית, והן בהקשר להשגת התקן גרעיני לצורך ניסוי. בכך, מפוצץ אולברייט את הבלון שהופרח על ידי שרלטנים שפועלים ממניעים פוליטיים, וטענו שוב ושוב בלהט ש"איראן רחוקה שבועות מהשגת נשק גרעיני". לא פצצה מבצעית ולא התקן גרעיני - את שניהם, קובע אולברייט, ייקח לאיראן בסבירות גבוהה זמן משמעותי בהרבה להשיג, וקיים ספק גדול אם בכלל תצליח בכך. וכפי שמביא אולברייט את הדברים במילותיו שלו בדוח של ISIS: "התקיפות (של ישראל וארה"ב) בשני שלבי המלחמה ראויות להערכה על כך שהאריכו באופן משמעותי הן את הזמן הנדרש להשלמת פיתוח נשק גרעיני, והן את הסיכוי לכישלון במידה והדבר ינוסה. "בעוד שהמשטר האיראני החדש נתפס בעיני רבים כבעל מוטיבציה גבוהה יותר לקבל החלטה על ייצור נשק גרעיני, האמצעים שלו לעשות זאת נפגעו קשות, וכך גם הביטחון שלו בניסיון כזה. ​ "בעוד שלפני מלחמת יוני 2025 איראן הייתה יכולה לפרוץ קדימה ולבנות נשק גרעיני שאינו מורכב על טיל בוודאות של כמעט 100 אחוזים ותוך פחות משישה חודשים, כעת היא תתמודד עם מאבק קשה בהרבה להשגת הצלחה אם תנסה זאת בחודשים הקרובים. "הסיכוי להצליח - בין אם בעוד תשעה חודשים, שנה או שנתיים - רחוק כעת מלהיות ודאי מבחינה טכנית, ונמוך משמעותית מ-100 אחוזים. הסיכון הממשי הזה, להיכשל בבנייה מוצלחת של נשק גרעיני, עשוי לשמש כגורם מרתיע מפני עצם ההחלטה לנסות זאת". חשוב להדגיש כי העובדה שאולברייט מפריך את האגדה בדבר "שבועות מהשגת נשק גרעיני", אינה מצדיקה בשום אופן את הסרת הדרישה הישראלית והאמריקנית להוצאת האורניום המועשר מאיראן. בניהול סיכונים שקשור לנשק גרעיני, "הרבה יותר טוב" זה לא בהכרח "מספיק טוב" - השאיפה היא להגיע קרוב ככל שניתן לוודאות מוחלטת. ועם זאת, בדיון ציבורי גם העובדות חשובות, והניסיון להשטיח את הוויכוח לשחור או לבן, לגמד הישגים משמעותיים ממניעים זרים ולזרוע פאניקה מופרכת בציבור כחלק מקמפיין פוליטי - ראוי לכל גינוי.

The Iranian regime’s attack targeting the Barakah Nuclear Power Plant represents a dangerous escalation and a grave violation of international law and the principles protecting civilian nuclear facilities. Such acts threaten regional stability, endanger civilian lives, and undermine the security framework upon which international order depends. The international community must take a firm and unified stand against attacks on critical civilian infrastructure and reject policies built on aggression, intimidation, and disregard for international norms. Such behavior from the Iranian terrorist regime proves that this regime can’t be trusted at all . #iran