A marvelous quotation by Albert Einstein

It's a really good one, and a friend of mine sent it to me - I thought it would be worth posting it here, but first...

But first . . .

When Paul Newman died, they said how great he was but they failed to mention he considered himself Jewish (born half-Jewish).

When the woman (Helen Suzman) who helped Nelson Mandela died recently, they said how great she was, but they failed to mention she was Jewish.

On the other side of the equation, when Ivan Boesky or Andrew Fastow or Bernie Madoff committed fraud, almost every article mentioned they were Jewish.

However, when Ken Lay, Jeff Skilling, Martha Stewart, Randy Cunningham, Gov. Edwards, Conrad Black, Senator Keating, Gov Ryan, and Gov Blagojevich messed up; no one reported what religion or denomination they were, because they were not Jewish.

This is a reminder of a famous Einstein quote:

In 1921, Albert Einstein presented a paper on his then-infant Theory of Relativity at the Sorbonne, the prestigious French university.

"If I am proved correct," he said, "the Germans will call me a German, the Swiss will call me a Swiss citizen, and the French will call me a great scientist.

"If relativity is proved wrong, the French will call me a Swiss, the Swiss will call me a German, And the Germans will call me a Jew".

Iran - .... all the way

Until Hitler was ready to launch a major attack, he bought time.

First, internally, he built the infrastructure. As years went by and segments of the population started being concerned with the direction of things with his Hitler Youth and his Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler (personal bodyguard regiment), the world thought that perhaps things would change in Germany. But not only that nothing happened, Europe looked for ways to appease him. First, it was with the Munich Pact, where the British, French and Italians handed parts of Czechoslovakia to Germany in 1938. Then in 1939, the Molotov-Ribbentrop non-agression treaty.

Initially Germany invaded Poland, still in 1939.

...And in 1940 and 1941 all the wishful thinking and acting came apart when Hitler started his invasions in the Western and Eastern front.

Fast forward 70 years, and I will just make some "slight" changes to the above paragraphs....

Until Ahmedinajad was ready to launch a major attack, he bought time.

First, internally, he built the infrastructure. As years went by and segments of the population started being concerned with the direction of things with his Basij and his Revolutionary Guard, the world thought that perhaps things would change in Iran. But not only that nothing happened, the world looked for ways to appease him. First, it was with the 5+1 Nuclear negotiations, where the Americans, Chinese, Russians, British, French and Germans extended month after month deadlines for Iran to comply with the international requirements to prevent them from having nuclear weapons. In addition to that, different countries started making individual agreements with Iran, as a way to ensure that economic sanctions would not affect the Iranian regime.

Initially Iran invaded Iraq, still in 2009 (in fact today, as I write these lines).

...And in 2010 and 2011 all the wishful thinking and acting came apart when Ahmedinajad.......

Wait a minute.... we are still in 2009. There's still time to avoid history to repeat itself all the way....

Lebanon, once upon a time - but now.....

When in Brazil, I had many Lebanese Christian friends before I moved here 18 years ago. In a sign of appreciation towards the good relations the Jewish and Israeli community had with the Lebanese Christian, I received the entire collection of speeches by Bashir Gemayel, who was assassinated by the Syrians at the age of 35, shortly after he was elected President of Lebanon in 1982.

Slowly (or perhaps not so slowly) but surely, the Lebanese Christian, once the largest and thriving population in what used to be called the "Paris of the Middle East" have been wiped out by the Muslim not just in Beirut, but in entire Lebanon.

The latest absurdity happening in Lebanon, is the inclusion of Hizbullah in the Lebanese government, and that government's authorization for the terrorist organization to hold on to their armaments and own "army".

Here's what a member of the dwindling Christian community in Lebanon had to say about this:

"The new move by PM Saad Hariri only shows that Muslims are regrouping in Lebanon brought together by a common enemy, Israel. Hariri would not have done this without the blessing of or even direction from Saudi Arabia. The US is the big sucker in this now. We just handed Hezbollah under the title of "aid to Lebanon" over $1 billion in military and peripheral weapons to use freely against Israel. And I suspect Hezbollah will soon find a way to drag Lebanon down a very nasty conflict and get that weapon in the name of "resistance."- not just because Israel remains their target, but also gives them an opportunity to neutralize the Christians of Lebanon once and for all. Two birds in one stone.

"First comes Saturday and then comes Sunday."

Then Hezbollah empowers the palestinians to march down with them and Israel faces enemies on three major fronts; Hezbollah, Hamas and the world of public opinion.

There has to be a major move to shake up the Lebanese Christians to regroup as they did in 1976 because quite honestly, the Christians of Lebanon are toast. They are about 3 steps from being told "check mate" by both the Sunnis and the Shiites.

Someone needs to keep the US from delivering the rest of installments of that $1 billion that is yet to be handed over in 2010.

Israel can but shouldn't be the only entity trying to neutralize Hezbollah. They need to find and strengthen an internal ally. The US can't and won't touch this. Europe is too influenced by the Arabs. Israel seems to be alone and isolation is not a good thing. UN is useless and words don't heal.

Time for some serious strategies."

If only the Palestinian-Israeli conflict were resolved.....

Yes, this is what critics of Israel say about Islamic fundamentalist terrorism: "if only Palestinian-Israeli conflict were resolved.....if Israel would just freeze the settlements.... we would have a more secure and peaceful world..."

Sure....

12/04/09 - Militants attacked a mosque during midday prayers in Rawalpindi today killing at least 40 people and wounding 83, Pakistan authorities said.....

12/04/09 - The death toll rose to 23 on Friday in a suicide bombing attack at a Somali graduation ceremony at Banadir University...The attack in Mogadishu on Thursday was carried out by a male suicide bomber dressed in women's clothing, witnesses said.Somali President Sheikh Sharif Sheikh Ahmed has blamed the Islamist rebel group Al-Shabaab for the attack.

12/04/09 - Guinea's president has been flown to Morocco for medical treatment after he was shot during an assassination attempt nearly a year after he seized power in a coup, a government official said Friday. Since winning independence half a century ago from France, Guinea has been pillaged by its ruling Muslim elite. Its 10 million people are among the world's poorest, even though its soil has diamonds, gold, iron and half the world's reserves of the raw material used to make aluminum.

12/02/09 - Chechen Muslim rebels claimed responsibility Wednesday for blowing up a high-speed Russian train last week, an attack that killed 26 people, injured scores of others and raised fears of a fresh wave ofterror attacks....

11/25/09 - The death toll from the Philippines’ worst politically-linked massacre has risen to 57. The victims were abducted as they were travelling to nominate an opposition candidate for governor in upcoming elections in the Muslim province of Maguindanao

Indeed... "if only Palestinian-Israeli conflict were resolved.....if Israel would just freeze the settlements.... we would have a more secure and peaceful world..."

Dumb, Naive, Incompetent or Ill-intentioned?

These are the people that “we” are engaging in a dialogue. Are “we” dumb, naive, incompetent or ill-intentioned?

Attached is a link to important footage of a massive arms shipment intercepted by the Israeli Navy last night (3/11/09)

The approx. 6 min. video shows the ship entering Ashdod port after it was seized and revealing the Iranian weapons found on it.

http://switch3.castup.net/cunet/gm.asp?ClipMediaID=4497352

Roughly 500 tons of weapons, rockets, and missiles was uncovered aboard the cargo vessel “Francop” flying an Antiguan flag, which was intercepted and brought to the Ashdod port.

36 shipping containers with 500 tons of weaponry were found on the ship disguised as civilian cargo, and hidden among hundreds of other containers onboard.

The naval commando force boarded the vessel and conducted an initial search. The search was conducted in accordance with the usual search protocols as dictated by International Law.

Following the initial search and after it became clear that the vessel was carrying weapons, the vessel was directed by the Israel Navy to dock at the Israeli Ashdod Naval base for additional searches and a detailed inspection of the hull’s cargo. The captain of the ship agreed to the search and the Israeli Navy conducted all its activity without any force.

Following the necessary inspections of the boat, it is expected to be released.

The “Francop”, owned by the Cypriot shipping company UFS, was carrying containers marked IRISL (Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines), as can be clearly seen in these pictures of the seized ship in Ashdod port:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/slideshow/ALeqM5h3S0DqyLu9CfgcBASy2XHOGCk0IAD9BONONG0?index=0

Under the guise of legitimate commerce, and by using ships, flags and ports of blameless countries, Iran is turning the Mediterranean into a base for its nefarious activities, with the aim of destabilizing regional security, as has recently come to light in the cases of the Monchegorsk and the Hansa India.

UN Security Council Resolution 1747 prohibits weapons export from Iran. The existence of Iranian weapons in the containers represents, therefore, a severe violation of this resolution. This violation is one of many violations of UN Security Council Resolutions by Iran. Iran continues to systematically ignore UNSC Resolutions, supplying weapons to terror organizations.

As it appears that the weapons were destined for terrorist organizations in Lebanon, it seems apparent that this is also a violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1701.

Despite UNSCR 1701, the transfer of weapons from Iran and Syria to Hizbullah is continuing unmolested, including the intent to transfer new and dangerous weapon types

Changing History

Here's a quote from PA Prime-Minister Mahmoud Abbas today:

"Israel is working on a daily basis to Judaize Jerusalem by building settlements, not permitting (Palestinians) to build and by assaults on the Al-Aqsa mosque, like we see today," Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas told Yemen's state-run TV on Monday.

Hmmmm..... from what I knew and from history books, the Al-Aqsa Mosque was built on top of the site of the Second Jewish Temple in an attempt to "Islamize" Jerusalem.....

Israel's press office should quickly reach out to news agencies and set the record straight on this matter, and if the reaction is... : "well... this was long ago, we need to see the facts on the ground now", then perhaps Israel should hold tight and in a few centuries the facts on the ground will be that Jerusalem is the capital of the Jewish state called Israel. Period.

Jimmy, the provocateur

Because he was once a president, all the microphones are still open to him. Knowing this fact, he takes full advantage of it in order to show that he's still alive.

Some people find noble ways to be relevant. Other choose to create polemics and to be provocative in order to be relevant.

Jimmy Carter certainly belongs to the last category, and to say that the overwhelming opposition to Obama's health care plan is due to racism, is not only a statement that is an insult to the intelligence and/or to the diligence of those who took the time to learn about the health plan, and rightfully or not have objections to it, but it is also a defamation that will contribute to increase the racial divide, since now all those that oppose anything that Obama will bring to the table will be deemed as racists.

Newspapers, from the left to the right, must love Jimmy. In the last few years, Jimmy, the provocateur, made quite a good number of headlines.

Other Presidents, Democrats or Republicans, were dearly missed when they departed our world. Not so sure if this will be the case with Jimmy.

Taking Stock of U.S. Policy toward Israel

This is an excellent speech by David Harris, Executive Director of AJA, which I believe is worth reading:

Taking Stock of U.S. Policy toward Israel

David Harris
Executive Director
American Jewish Committee (AJC)
July 23, 2009

The following is adapted from my remarks to a meeting of the U.S. Senate Democratic Steering and Outreach Committee, attended by about 20 Democratic Senators, on Capitol Hill on July 22.

Thank you for the privilege of speaking once again before this distinguished group.

I represent AJC – the American Jewish Committee. We have been active for decades in supporting Israel and advancing peace. I would describe our outlook in the words of President John F. Kennedy, who said, "I’m an idealist without illusions."

We welcome President Obama’s groundbreaking speech in Cairo on June 4th.

We applaud his statement that the bonds between America and Israel are "unbreakable."

We praise his principled condemnation of the Holocaust denial that is all too common in Arab and Muslim societies.

We fully embrace his commitment to peace – peace among Israel, its Palestinian neighbors, and the larger Arab world.

And we share his vision of a region where "children grow up without fear."

At the same time, I wouldn’t be honest if I didn’t tell this audience that we have some specific areas of concern. This is a caring critique from a friend, and we hope that these issues can quickly be put behind us.

Let me cite three.

First, in his Cairo speech, the President implied that the Holocaust was the primary reason forIsrael’s creation. That is unfortunate – and factually incorrect.

Israel was born out of an ancient vision unique in the annals of history. In the words of its Declaration of Independence, Israel "was the birthplace of the Jewish people. Here their spiritual, religious and political identity was shaped. Here they first attained statehood, created cultural values of national and universal significance and gave to the world the eternal Book of Books."

This was understood by President Harry Truman, who defied the advice of his State Department to recognize the re-establishment of Israel in 1948.

His favorite Psalm, according to presidential historian Michael Beschloss, was Number 137: "By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, yea, we wept, when we remembered Zion."

Why is this important now? Because the Arab world has long challenged Israel’s legitimacy by arguing that it is a Western implant in the Middle East, created to appease the conscience of aEurope with Jewish blood on its hands.

President Clinton encountered this view when his valiant efforts to make peace were rebuffed, as Yasser Arafat outrageously denied the historical Jewish connection to Jerusalem.

Indeed, more than any other issue, this gets to the root of the conflict. The United States must take every opportunity to reinforce Israel’s rightful place in the region.

Second, the President juxtaposed the Palestinian condition with that of black Americans and other suffering people "from South Africa to South Asia; from Eastern Europe to Indonesia."

Whatever its intent, this seemed to create a regrettable equivalence.

I would not for a minute deny that Palestinians have suffered. I have visited the West Bank andGaza and know that the lives of many Palestinians have not been easy.

Yet I also know that the Palestinian condition is, above all, self-inflicted. That is to say that the Palestinian people have been ill-served by their own leaders.

Where are the Martin Luther King and John Lewis, the Vaclav Havel and Lech Walesa, and the Mahatma Gandhi of the Palestinian people – individuals of visionary greatness and deep commitment to non-violence?

According to a senior British official, Palestinians are the world’s largest per capita recipients of foreign aid. Yet corruption and mismanagement have siphoned off too much from the intended recipients.

To suggest that Palestinians are the modern-day version of those who endured inescapable oppression is to give them, and especially their leaders, a free pass. Those leaders should be held accountable for failing to move Palestinian society from victimization to responsibility.

On this front, there are glimmers of hope today in the West Bank, but there remains a long road yet to be traveled. Meanwhile, of course, Gaza is in the iron grip of Hamas, which continues its implacable hostility toward Israel, and, indeed, toward the Palestinian Authority.

And third, the President, in his speech in Cairo, made a specific demand for action by only one country. He said, "It is time for these settlements to stop." Like the Secretary of State, the President made clear that he was referring to all settlements, everywhere.

The President has said that friendship entails honesty, and that he is being honest with a friend.

Yes, but among all the countries of the region, it was unusual to see our President single out only Israel – our "stalwart democratic ally," in the words of Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) – with such sharp focus.

To be sure, the settlements are an issue. We at AJC have said so more than once.

But they are not the underlying cause of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. They should be addressed in the context of negotiations, not treated as a sine qua non for talks, as Palestinian leaders are doing now.

In fact, Palestinians seem to have interpreted – or misinterpreted – President Obama’s stance as a license to sit back while Israel is forced into concessions. As President Abbas said in a revealing interview, "I will wait for Israel to freeze settlements. … Until then, in the West Bank we have a good reality. … The people are living a normal life."

In the end, Israel cannot and will not return to the fragile armistice lines of 1967. This was acknowledged by Presidents Clinton and Bush, and we hope that it will be reaffirmed.

As the late Abba Eban, an Israeli diplomat and peacemaker par excellence, said, "We have openly said that the map will never again be the same as on June 4, 1967. … The June map is for us equivalent to insecurity and danger."

Distinguished Senators, no nation other than Israel has experienced the daily trauma of more than six decades without peace. Today, Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah openly call for its destruction.

No other nation in the Middle East has been a more steadfast friend and democratic partner of theUnited States.

No other nation, victorious in wars thrust upon it, has demonstrated more willingness to make painful concessions to advance peace.

The UN embraced the idea of two states – one Arab, the other Jewish – as early as 1947. Prime Minister Netanyahu’s call for recognition of Israel as a Jewish state is not new. It was embraced by a majority of UN member states six decades ago.

An agreement, however difficult, remains possible today. Indeed, four consecutive Israeli prime ministers have called for a two-state accord.

Yet their Palestinian counterparts have not reciprocated, even when Prime Minister Olmert made what the Palestinians themselves acknowledged was an unusually far-reaching offer.

As Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) recently said, "I believe negotiations will be successful only with a renewed commitment from the Palestinians to be a true partner in peace."

In that spirit, why has Saeb Erekat, the PA’s principal negotiator, refused to negotiate with the current Israeli government, while holding talks with the Iranian foreign minister instead? Shouldn’t it be the other way around – spurning the Iranians and meeting the Israelis?

It’s no wonder that many Israelis are skeptical about the chances of achieving a solution. They seek reassurance that the United States, their indispensible friend and partner, stands with them in their quest for lasting peace and security.

President Obama has laudably reiterated his deep and abiding friendship for Israel on numerous occasions. Quite frankly, though, the polls show that many Israelis are not convinced.

Perhaps he could soon find an opportunity to pay a visit and speak with Israelis directly. It might do a lot to advance understanding among the Israeli public – and to reaffirm America’s belief, expressed by President Truman, that Israel is "not just another sovereign nation, but … an embodiment of the great ideals of our civilization."

Thank you.

---

2nd Round - Bloody and Bloodless Coup

Honduras - where the bloodless coup happened - is expelled from the Organization of American States.

Ahmedinajad - the protagonist of a bloody coup in Iran - invites Obama for negociations.

Interesting what will be Obamas's position. Will he refuse to talk to Ahmedinajad the same way he is refusing to talk to Micheletti because, as Obama said to Micheletti "the takeover of power was not legal".

What do you think?

Bloody and Bloodless Coups

The Bloody Coup:

Iran's regime, ruled by the fanatic clerics, manipulate the ballots, and give the victory to Ahmedinajad. In the ensuing protests, they kill and wound demonstrators against what I call the "white gloves coup". They further arrest demonstrators and close affiliates of the candidate that should have won the election. The international community condemns the event, talks about sanctions....... nothing more than that, and life goes on....

The Bloodless Coup:

After the Supreme Court of Honduras rejects the Zelaya's - President of Honduras - request to have a referendum to change the Constitution (something that they were concerned could be manipulated, given Hugo Chavez's support for this change), Zelaya removes the Chief of the Armed Forces, whom the court ordered to protect the location where the ballots were guarded. Zelaya orders the invasion of that location, in order to proceed with the referendum against the Court's order. This is what led to the coup that removed him from power.

Not one drop of blood. You know why? Because unlike in the case of Iran, the new President has popular support.

How the international community reacts to it? In a much harsher way than in the case of Iran: the EU removes all its ambassadors, so does the Organizations of the American States which is expelling Honduras from the Organization and will boycott the country, and the United States issues a much stronger protest than in the case of Iran, and so it goes.

This is our world.....

Misleading Press

The Spanish news agency EFE distributed on June 14 a piece of news related to Benjamin Netanyahu's Sunday's speech. In their article they say " The USA demand that Israel accepts the creation of a Palestinian state in about 22% of the historic Palestine in order to solve the Middle East conflict".

So, here is why in a very subtle way EFE misleads the public:

a) by using the 22% in that phrase, it gives the impression that Israel is in control of the other 78%. Wrong: Jordan was created and currently occupies over 50% of the area know as the "Palestine Mandate".

b) by using the term "historic Palestine", readers get the impression that there was historically a land of the Palestinians. Wrong: Palestine was a name that the Romans gave the what was then the land of Israel, after they defeated the Jews in 135 A.D. The Romans not only expelled the Jews but changed the name with the intention of totally wipe out the connection of the Jews with their land.

As it stands, almost two millennia later, the EFE and many others bought into it...

Settlements - the buzz word

Settlements seems to be the buzz word now....

President Obama repeatedly refers to settlements as the main impediment to peace in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Of course the media promptly selects this topic as its headliner. After all, Obama said to Shimon Peres "erect no new settlement and begin dismantling existing communities in the West Bank"; Obama met Netanyahu and again said... "erect no new settlement and begin dismantling existing communities in the West Bank"; finally, Obama went to Egypt and told the Arab World: "It is time for these settlements to stop."

Hillary also added: "He wants to see a stop to settlements - not some settlements, not outposts, not 'natural growth' exceptions..."

I would like to give a different perspective on this issue of settlements, hopefully one that would allow for an even-handed solution.

Let's first look at some facts:

a) There was always (for centuries) a Jewish presence in different parts of Israel and the West Bank, including and not limited to Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Jericho and Hevron to name a few. As, of course, there was also Arab presence in these areas.

b) Israel never demanded that Arab growth be frozen within its internationally recognized borders, neither population nor construction of new homes.

c) Israel never suggested throughout its entire history that it should be an "Arabischefrei" (free of Arabs) country, although the Arab countries and certainly the Palestinian Authority want their land to be "Judenfrei" (free of Jews).

d) Countries dictate their immigration policies according to their different interests.

Based on the above facts, this is how I would suggest that the settlements issue be handled:

a) The Israeli government needs to inform the settlers that settlement activity - especially natural growth - will not be halted, but settlers need to accept the fact that the same way Arabs are currently living within the borders of a Jewish State, some settlers could one day - within the context of a Palestinian-Israeli agreement - be living within the borders of either an autonomous Palestinian area or country.

b) The international community should accept the existence of those settlements and settlement activity - especially activity prompted by natural growth - the same way Arabs have been accepted within Israeli borders;

c) Israel should demand total assurance from the Palestinian Authority that settlers' lives will not be endangered by living within the borders of the area under control of the Palestinian Authority; the same way Arabs have never been in danger by living within the borders of the State of Israel

d) Once an agreement between the Palestinian Authority and Israel is reached regarding the West Bank, the Palestinian Authority's conduct regarding Jewish settlements would dictate Israel's conduct regarding its Arab population: if a freeze is imposed upon the settlements' natural growth, the same would be imposed upon the Arab population in Israel.

In short, the freezing and removal of the settlements is nothing more than ethnic cleansing of one community living as a minority in the midst to another. The international community has always rejected the concept of ethnic cleansing (although it always did little to prevent it from starting), and therefore, Jews should not be singled out when it comes to the West Bank. 

So...in my opinion, the suggestion outlined above, represents an even-handed solution for this issue, and I hope the readers will agree.

Boycott!! Boycott??

Can someone help me understand this guy.. Omar Barghuoti?

He is a doctoral candidate at Tel-Aviv University, in Israel, and yet, as you can see from his Wikipedia entry, he is a "founding member of the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel" and one of his publications deals with what he calls the "Israel's Apartheid".

Now, let's see again - where is he obtaining his Ph.D.? Israel? So, what is this deal about Israel's "apartheid" when he is at an Israeli university side by side with Israelis? And what about the call for boycott when he himself is enjoying what an Israeli academic and cultural institution has to offer?

(By the way, thousands of Palestinians learn at different universities in Israel)

This is just one example of the cynical behavior of the Palestinian leadership, one that calls for their people to be "martyrs" by becoming suicide bombers, one that calls for boycott or destruction of Israel, while they themselves act the exact opposite way of what they preach.

Perhaps the Palestinian people should be driven by their acts rather then by their sound-bytes?

The letter that NYT did not publish

Considering that the New York Times has an agenda regarding the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, I did not take it as a surprise that the following letter was not published:

Dear Editor,

Nothing helps propagate conflicts more than institutions like Columbia University and the New York Times giving room to people like Rashid Khalidi to change historical facts. In his op-ed "What you don't know about Gaza" published Jan. 9, among the several falsehoods mentioned, there is one that has been adopted and propagated by Arab apologists since the early 50's, one that claims that Arabs where expelled from their lands by the Jews during the 1948 war that the Arabs themselves imposed on Israel. Several sources, including Arab newspapers from that time, confirmed that the Arabs were induced by their own leaders to leave their homes and join their brethren in the fight against Israel. Here is a quote from the Jordanian newspaper Falastin, dated February 19, 1949: "The Arab States encouraged Palestinian Arabs to leave their homes temporarily to be out of the way of the Arab invasion armies". Note that not only the article attributes the Palestinian exodus to the Arabs themselves, but it also refers to the "Arab invasion".

Having said that, it is also imperative to ask why the media never addresses the plight of the 850,000 Jews that were expelled from the Arab countries since 1948?

Rockets fired from Lebanon into Israel - so what?

Apparently, to CNN, this new development of terrorists sending rockets from Lebanon into Israel must be into the same category of news as "First trip to Malmo? Here's some insider advice to help you get the most out of your visit.", since the rockets firing at Israel was buried on CNN news at the same level as the trip to Marmo....

Here's CNN home page at 8:20am on Jan. 8. Try to find the news about rocket firing from Lebanon into Israel:

CNN - Sleeping or biased?

It is 12:20 AM Central Time.
Since 11:00 PM I am listening to Israel Radio. At around 11:30PM, the radio announced in Hebrew that rockets hit Ashkelon and Ashdod in Central-South Israel. Immediately after the announcement a reporter comes in and informs that three loud explosions were heard in north Israel, in the city of Naharya. This is a new and important development.
A few minutes later I switch my web browser to Fox News and see that there is a News Alert banner announcing this new development. I open another browser for CNN.....nothing there.
It's 12:20 AM Central Time. I refresh my 2 browsers - CNN and FoxNews. Only now, 50 minutes later, CNN updates its home page. Here's what I see. Try to find the news about rockets firing into north Israel at CNN. You judge: sleeping or biased? Or both?