by David Bedein
JERUSALEM - The intelligence communities of Israel and the United States differ over Iran’s progress toward nuclear weapons.
“I think that beyond that there is, of course, a certain difference in perspective and difference in judgment, difference in the internal clocks and difference in capabilities,” Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said.
In a Feb. 26 address to the Washington Institute, Mr. Barak acknowledged that Israel and the United States might not bridge their differences over Iran’s capabilities. He said the U.S. objections to Israel’s assessment should not block any campaign against Tehran’s nuclear program.
“And I don’t think that there is a need to coordinate in this regard,” Mr. Barak said. “That should be understood. It should be an exchange of views. We do not need to coordinate every step.”
The statement marked a rare occasion that Mr. Barak, regarded as the most U.S.-oriented member of the Israeli Cabinet, played down the need to coordinate with the administration of President Barack Obama. Mr. Barak, however, stressed that Israel supported Mr. Obama’s policy to employ diplomacy rather than military means against Iran.
“We clearly support the attempt to solve it through diplomacy,” Mr. Barak said.
The Israeli government has been pressing the U.S.administration for a timetable for harsh U.S. sanctions on Tehran, beginning with a gasoline embargo that would spark critical fuel shortages in Iran.
Instead, Washington has moved cautiously in efforts to draft sanctions against Iran. The State Department has ruled out significant measures against Iran’s energy sector.
For his part, Mr. Barak did not rule out the prospect that Iran could develop what he termed “second or second-and-a-half generation of nuclear warheads.” He said these warheads could be installed on ballistic missiles that could reach Moscow or Paris.
“If Iran will not be stopped from moving there, it will reach a certain point of nuclear military capability, and one can close his eyes and see what it means,” Mr. Barak said. “What is really needed is significant sanctions, effective ones with a time limit, together with the Russians and the Chinese.”
See this story in the Philadelphia Bulletin
See this report at Israel Behind the News
Showing posts with label Ehud Barak. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ehud Barak. Show all posts
Friday, March 5, 2010
Sunday, February 7, 2010
FAYYAD TO ISRAELI AUDIENCE; YOU MAKE CONCESSIONS - WE WON'T
by Barry Rubin
Imagine this. You're prime minister of a regime that isn't yet a state. You are praised in the Western media as a great moderate man of peace. You represent a people who the U.S. president says is in an intolerable situation. You supposedly want a country of your own. Indeed you've announced you will get a state in two years, something conceivable only if your negotiating partner agrees. You're dependent on contributions from Western democratic countries that want you to make a deal. Your rivals have seized almost half the land you want to rule and work tirelessly to overthrow your regime and very possibly to kill you personally.
But here comes a big opportunity.
You are invited by your negotiating partner to its most important meeting of the year. All the other side's top leaders and opinionmakers are listening to you.
And that country's second most powerful leader has just made a very conciliatory speech praising you personally, urging peace, offering concessions, and telling his own people they must be ready to give you a lot.
What do you do?
Make a warm conciliatory, confidence-building speech, showing by substantial offers that you, too, are willing to compromise; stretching out your hand in order to build friendship and ensure you get a country?
Hey, we're talking about the Palestinians here! And as I say over and over again: anyone who thinks the Palestinian Authority (PA) is going to make peace hasn't been paying attention to what they say and do.
So here is what PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad told the audience at the Herzliya Conference, held at the Interdisciplinary Center (IDC), following Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak's conciliatory speech:
--Israel must immediately start pulling out of the rest of the West Bank, without getting anything in return.
--It must immediately stop all construction on settlements, including apartments now being completed.
--Israel's army should never enter PA-ruled areas. Even if the PA refuses to arrest those who have murdered Israelis or won't stop planned attacks, Israel's army must do nothing, despite the 1993 agreement between the two sides permitting this. Fayyad said this isn't necessary because the PA is taking care of these matters. But this makes no sense: when Israel sees that to be true it never orders incursions in the first place.
--Israel should end its blockade of the Gaza Strip, even though the Hamas movement ruling there refuses to make a deal with the PA, openly announces its goal of destroying Israel, and smuggles in as many weapons as possible. Moreover, as soon as it feels secure again, Hamas will launch new attacks on Israel. Fayyad claimed, however, that if Israel did so, the PA could then build government institutions in the Gaza Strip, though it has no control whatsoever there.
--He openly stated that his goal was to mobilize international support and create such a strong state apparatus that the world would pressure Israel to end any presence in the West Bank or east Jerusalem, apparently without the Palestinian side giving anything.
--While Barak said that the "roughness" of the region made it harder to give the Palestinians everything they wanted (for example, the PA could be overthrown by Hamas; subverted by Iran and Syria; unwilling or unable to stop cross-border attacks), Fayyad responded that once Israel left all of the West Bank the region would become more stable and peaceful. That's a rather questionable assertion.
It is true that he ended by saying:
"The Israeli people have a long history, they have pain, they have ambition, and like you, we Palestinians have our own history. Right now we are going through lots of pain and suffering. And we have one key aspiration, and that is once again to be able to live alongside you in peace, harmony and security."
Yet he addressed none of the points in Israel's own peace plan: an official end to the conflict if there is an agreement; resettlement of Palestinian refugees in Palestine; an end to incitement (which would be easy to do) to kill Israelis; limits on the militarization of a Palestinian state; or recognition of Israel as a Jewish state alongside a Palestinian Arab Muslim state (the PA constitution says that Islam is the country's official religion).
This was not an extremist speech or one seeking conflict. Fayyad is probably the most moderate guy in the PA leadership. He was doing about the best he could. But that's the point. He has no base of support, isn't a member of Fatah, and doesn't really represent Palestinian thinking. He is in office for one reason only: the Western donors demand it. Fayyad, and arguably the PA leadership as a whole, don't want a new war with Israel. But Fatah will sponsor one if it thinks such a step is advantageous or needed to out-militant Hamas.
Equally, Fayyad couldn't go any further than he did because he knows that his Fatah bosses, Palestinian constituents, and Hamas enemies would throw him out if he offered the slightest concession to Israel and demanded any less than everything they want.
We will see how much progress Fayyad makes over the next two years in building strong and stable institutions. Yet it should be understood that what he is doing is not a way to convince Israel that both sides can reach a compromise peace but to persuade the world to force Israel to make compromises without the PA having to do so.
The irony is that it doesn't matter what Barak says, except to show the world that Israel wants real peace and to encourage Israeli voters to back Labor as a party that balances a strong desire for peace with a smart sense of security for the country.
Barak warned the right-wing in Israel that it would be a mistake to oppose a genuine two-state solution, an outcome that Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu-like Barak--has accepted. But the defense minister also urged the left-wing not to be naïve.
Here's a fascinating example of how the world generally interprets the situation. Read this paragraph from the Washington Post coverage carefully:
"But there was a common thread, too, with each acknowledging an international consensus on the idea of two nations. Barak said that Israel risks becoming 'an apartheid state par excellence' if it does not negotiate the terms of Palestinian statehood soon, and Fayyad said the work being done in the West Bank on governance needs to be matched by political progress."
The two statements are supposed to be parallel. Barak says: Israel must get rid of the West Bank for its own good. Fayyad says: progress must be made in negotiations, in the context of a speech in which he asked for a long list of Israeli concessions and offered nothing in exchange. These statemens are not parallel. A parallel statement would be if Fayyad had said something like:
The Palestinians risk becoming permanently mired in violence and backwardness unless they negotiate terms for Israel feeling secure in giving up the territory.
Since 1993 not a single Palestinian leader has ever made a speech to his own people like Barak's, never said that they should have to give up something to get a state, never urged the media and public debate to become more moderate.
Four days before Fayyad's speech, here is the Friday prayer sermon given in Nablus by the imam appointed there by Fayyad and broadcast on the television Fayyad controls:
"The Jews are the enemies of Allah and [Muhammad], the enemies of humanity in general, and of the Palestinians in particular.... Jews will always be Jews. Even if donkeys cease to bray, dogs cease to bark, wolves cease to howl, and snakes cease to bite, the Jews will not cease to be hostile to the Muslims. The Prophet Muhammad said: 'Whenever two Jews find themselves alone with a Muslim, they think of killing him.' Oh Muslims, this land, these holy places, and these mosques will only be liberated when we return to the Book of Allah, and when all Muslims are prepared to become mujahideen for the sake of Allah, in support of Palestine, its people, its land, and its holy places."
How can this be reconciled with Fayyad's claim that the sole aspiration is "to live alongside you in peace, harmony and security"?
Note that this is a Palestinian Authority, not a Hamas, cleric speaking. Note, too, that while Fayyad's speech is covered around the world, sermons like these are never quoted in the Western media. This is not to say that the sermon is real and Fayyad's views are fake, it is to say that the sermon is meant to shape Palestinian politics and public opinion and what Fayyad says is meant to shape Israeli and Western politics and public opinion. Fayyad, a figurehead, is not going to make anything change and he isn't even going to try. Nor does Fayyad have any control over the ruling party, Fatah, whose leadership is still hardline on goals and negotiations, though not on more immediate issues.
The Israeli audience applauded Fayyad because it does want peace and prefers him to all the worse alternatives, especially Hamas but also those in Fatah. Yet few have any illusions that peace is at hand or that Fayyad is going to deliver it.
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), with Walter Laqueur (Viking-Penguin); the paperback edition of The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan); A Chronological History of Terrorism, with Judy Colp Rubin, (Sharpe); and The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley). To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books, go to GLORIA Center.
See the original article at the GLORIA Center.
Imagine this. You're prime minister of a regime that isn't yet a state. You are praised in the Western media as a great moderate man of peace. You represent a people who the U.S. president says is in an intolerable situation. You supposedly want a country of your own. Indeed you've announced you will get a state in two years, something conceivable only if your negotiating partner agrees. You're dependent on contributions from Western democratic countries that want you to make a deal. Your rivals have seized almost half the land you want to rule and work tirelessly to overthrow your regime and very possibly to kill you personally.
But here comes a big opportunity.
You are invited by your negotiating partner to its most important meeting of the year. All the other side's top leaders and opinionmakers are listening to you.
And that country's second most powerful leader has just made a very conciliatory speech praising you personally, urging peace, offering concessions, and telling his own people they must be ready to give you a lot.
What do you do?
Make a warm conciliatory, confidence-building speech, showing by substantial offers that you, too, are willing to compromise; stretching out your hand in order to build friendship and ensure you get a country?
Hey, we're talking about the Palestinians here! And as I say over and over again: anyone who thinks the Palestinian Authority (PA) is going to make peace hasn't been paying attention to what they say and do.
So here is what PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad told the audience at the Herzliya Conference, held at the Interdisciplinary Center (IDC), following Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak's conciliatory speech:
--Israel must immediately start pulling out of the rest of the West Bank, without getting anything in return.
--It must immediately stop all construction on settlements, including apartments now being completed.
--Israel's army should never enter PA-ruled areas. Even if the PA refuses to arrest those who have murdered Israelis or won't stop planned attacks, Israel's army must do nothing, despite the 1993 agreement between the two sides permitting this. Fayyad said this isn't necessary because the PA is taking care of these matters. But this makes no sense: when Israel sees that to be true it never orders incursions in the first place.
--Israel should end its blockade of the Gaza Strip, even though the Hamas movement ruling there refuses to make a deal with the PA, openly announces its goal of destroying Israel, and smuggles in as many weapons as possible. Moreover, as soon as it feels secure again, Hamas will launch new attacks on Israel. Fayyad claimed, however, that if Israel did so, the PA could then build government institutions in the Gaza Strip, though it has no control whatsoever there.
--He openly stated that his goal was to mobilize international support and create such a strong state apparatus that the world would pressure Israel to end any presence in the West Bank or east Jerusalem, apparently without the Palestinian side giving anything.
--While Barak said that the "roughness" of the region made it harder to give the Palestinians everything they wanted (for example, the PA could be overthrown by Hamas; subverted by Iran and Syria; unwilling or unable to stop cross-border attacks), Fayyad responded that once Israel left all of the West Bank the region would become more stable and peaceful. That's a rather questionable assertion.
It is true that he ended by saying:
"The Israeli people have a long history, they have pain, they have ambition, and like you, we Palestinians have our own history. Right now we are going through lots of pain and suffering. And we have one key aspiration, and that is once again to be able to live alongside you in peace, harmony and security."
Yet he addressed none of the points in Israel's own peace plan: an official end to the conflict if there is an agreement; resettlement of Palestinian refugees in Palestine; an end to incitement (which would be easy to do) to kill Israelis; limits on the militarization of a Palestinian state; or recognition of Israel as a Jewish state alongside a Palestinian Arab Muslim state (the PA constitution says that Islam is the country's official religion).
This was not an extremist speech or one seeking conflict. Fayyad is probably the most moderate guy in the PA leadership. He was doing about the best he could. But that's the point. He has no base of support, isn't a member of Fatah, and doesn't really represent Palestinian thinking. He is in office for one reason only: the Western donors demand it. Fayyad, and arguably the PA leadership as a whole, don't want a new war with Israel. But Fatah will sponsor one if it thinks such a step is advantageous or needed to out-militant Hamas.
Equally, Fayyad couldn't go any further than he did because he knows that his Fatah bosses, Palestinian constituents, and Hamas enemies would throw him out if he offered the slightest concession to Israel and demanded any less than everything they want.
We will see how much progress Fayyad makes over the next two years in building strong and stable institutions. Yet it should be understood that what he is doing is not a way to convince Israel that both sides can reach a compromise peace but to persuade the world to force Israel to make compromises without the PA having to do so.
The irony is that it doesn't matter what Barak says, except to show the world that Israel wants real peace and to encourage Israeli voters to back Labor as a party that balances a strong desire for peace with a smart sense of security for the country.
Barak warned the right-wing in Israel that it would be a mistake to oppose a genuine two-state solution, an outcome that Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu-like Barak--has accepted. But the defense minister also urged the left-wing not to be naïve.
Here's a fascinating example of how the world generally interprets the situation. Read this paragraph from the Washington Post coverage carefully:
"But there was a common thread, too, with each acknowledging an international consensus on the idea of two nations. Barak said that Israel risks becoming 'an apartheid state par excellence' if it does not negotiate the terms of Palestinian statehood soon, and Fayyad said the work being done in the West Bank on governance needs to be matched by political progress."
The two statements are supposed to be parallel. Barak says: Israel must get rid of the West Bank for its own good. Fayyad says: progress must be made in negotiations, in the context of a speech in which he asked for a long list of Israeli concessions and offered nothing in exchange. These statemens are not parallel. A parallel statement would be if Fayyad had said something like:
The Palestinians risk becoming permanently mired in violence and backwardness unless they negotiate terms for Israel feeling secure in giving up the territory.
Since 1993 not a single Palestinian leader has ever made a speech to his own people like Barak's, never said that they should have to give up something to get a state, never urged the media and public debate to become more moderate.
Four days before Fayyad's speech, here is the Friday prayer sermon given in Nablus by the imam appointed there by Fayyad and broadcast on the television Fayyad controls:
"The Jews are the enemies of Allah and [Muhammad], the enemies of humanity in general, and of the Palestinians in particular.... Jews will always be Jews. Even if donkeys cease to bray, dogs cease to bark, wolves cease to howl, and snakes cease to bite, the Jews will not cease to be hostile to the Muslims. The Prophet Muhammad said: 'Whenever two Jews find themselves alone with a Muslim, they think of killing him.' Oh Muslims, this land, these holy places, and these mosques will only be liberated when we return to the Book of Allah, and when all Muslims are prepared to become mujahideen for the sake of Allah, in support of Palestine, its people, its land, and its holy places."
How can this be reconciled with Fayyad's claim that the sole aspiration is "to live alongside you in peace, harmony and security"?
Note that this is a Palestinian Authority, not a Hamas, cleric speaking. Note, too, that while Fayyad's speech is covered around the world, sermons like these are never quoted in the Western media. This is not to say that the sermon is real and Fayyad's views are fake, it is to say that the sermon is meant to shape Palestinian politics and public opinion and what Fayyad says is meant to shape Israeli and Western politics and public opinion. Fayyad, a figurehead, is not going to make anything change and he isn't even going to try. Nor does Fayyad have any control over the ruling party, Fatah, whose leadership is still hardline on goals and negotiations, though not on more immediate issues.
The Israeli audience applauded Fayyad because it does want peace and prefers him to all the worse alternatives, especially Hamas but also those in Fatah. Yet few have any illusions that peace is at hand or that Fayyad is going to deliver it.
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), with Walter Laqueur (Viking-Penguin); the paperback edition of The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan); A Chronological History of Terrorism, with Judy Colp Rubin, (Sharpe); and The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley). To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books, go to GLORIA Center.
See the original article at the GLORIA Center.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
The Philadelphia Bulletin: Abbas Refuses to Negotiate with Israel
by David Bedein
Even after meeting on Monday with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, Palestinian Authority (PA) Chairman Mahmoud Abbas is sticking to his view that peace negotiations with Israel should not begin until Israel meets his demands, including a complete halt to all construction in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria.
A high-ranking Israeli government source said “the Palestinians want an American guarantee on the matter of Jerusalem and the refugees.”
“President Mubarak told me that Jerusalem must be part of the negotiations,” Mr. Abbas said yesterday right after the conclusion of his meeting with the Egyptian president in Sharm el-Sheikh, which was also attended by Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit and Director of Egyptian Intelligence General Omar Suleiman.
The meeting took place just a few days after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s and Industry, Trade and Labor Minister Benjamin Ben-Eliezer’s meeting with President Mubarak, which was meant to put pressure on the Palestinians to begin negotiations with Israel.
In the course of the meeting with the Palestinian leader, Mubarak reviewed the subjects that had come up in his meeting with Netanyahu, but Abbas was not impressed.
“We don’t want to pass judgment on proposals that at the moment are still vague,” he said. “We have no objection in principle to negotiations or to meetings. We are not posing conditions, but we’ve said over and over and are still saying - when the construction in the settlements stops and there is recognition of international principles, we will be willing to renew the negotiations.”
Hossam Zaki, a spokesman for the Egyptian Foreign Ministry, confirmed yesterday that the American administration had drawn up a new plan, in which the Palestinian state is to be established within two years.
Egyptian officials Suleiman and Aboul Gheit have traveled to the United States to meet with American and British officials to discuss these proposals. Mr. Zaki said that the plan will include a presentation of Israeli and Palestinian guarantees.
At this stage, the goal of Egypt, the U.S. and of Israel is to hold a summit early next month at which the negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians will be launched under the sponsorship of Egypt and with the participation of the U.S. and Jordan. After yesterday’s meeting, Abbas rejected this scenario, but the top political echelon in Israel has not lost its optimism.
Defense Minister Ehud Barak, who is involved behind the scenes in restarting the negotiations, said last night, “the goal is to shorten the foreplay, to shorten the corridor quickly and to move quickly onto the path of negotiations at the end of which there will be an agreement based on two states for two peoples.”
In contrast, a person projecting a clear lack of optimism is Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, who met this week with Quartet envoy to the Middle East Tony Blair at the Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem. Mr. Lieberman told Blair that it would be impossible to reach agreement on the permanent borders within nine months and a full agreement within two years. “This is not a realistic goal, and therefore what we have to do is to begin direct talks without committing to and sanctifying a date,” he said.
See the original at The Philadelphia Bulletin: Abbas Refuses to Negotiate with Israel
Even after meeting on Monday with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, Palestinian Authority (PA) Chairman Mahmoud Abbas is sticking to his view that peace negotiations with Israel should not begin until Israel meets his demands, including a complete halt to all construction in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria.
A high-ranking Israeli government source said “the Palestinians want an American guarantee on the matter of Jerusalem and the refugees.”
“President Mubarak told me that Jerusalem must be part of the negotiations,” Mr. Abbas said yesterday right after the conclusion of his meeting with the Egyptian president in Sharm el-Sheikh, which was also attended by Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit and Director of Egyptian Intelligence General Omar Suleiman.
The meeting took place just a few days after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s and Industry, Trade and Labor Minister Benjamin Ben-Eliezer’s meeting with President Mubarak, which was meant to put pressure on the Palestinians to begin negotiations with Israel.
In the course of the meeting with the Palestinian leader, Mubarak reviewed the subjects that had come up in his meeting with Netanyahu, but Abbas was not impressed.
“We don’t want to pass judgment on proposals that at the moment are still vague,” he said. “We have no objection in principle to negotiations or to meetings. We are not posing conditions, but we’ve said over and over and are still saying - when the construction in the settlements stops and there is recognition of international principles, we will be willing to renew the negotiations.”
Hossam Zaki, a spokesman for the Egyptian Foreign Ministry, confirmed yesterday that the American administration had drawn up a new plan, in which the Palestinian state is to be established within two years.
Egyptian officials Suleiman and Aboul Gheit have traveled to the United States to meet with American and British officials to discuss these proposals. Mr. Zaki said that the plan will include a presentation of Israeli and Palestinian guarantees.
At this stage, the goal of Egypt, the U.S. and of Israel is to hold a summit early next month at which the negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians will be launched under the sponsorship of Egypt and with the participation of the U.S. and Jordan. After yesterday’s meeting, Abbas rejected this scenario, but the top political echelon in Israel has not lost its optimism.
Defense Minister Ehud Barak, who is involved behind the scenes in restarting the negotiations, said last night, “the goal is to shorten the foreplay, to shorten the corridor quickly and to move quickly onto the path of negotiations at the end of which there will be an agreement based on two states for two peoples.”
In contrast, a person projecting a clear lack of optimism is Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, who met this week with Quartet envoy to the Middle East Tony Blair at the Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem. Mr. Lieberman told Blair that it would be impossible to reach agreement on the permanent borders within nine months and a full agreement within two years. “This is not a realistic goal, and therefore what we have to do is to begin direct talks without committing to and sanctifying a date,” he said.
See the original at The Philadelphia Bulletin: Abbas Refuses to Negotiate with Israel
Sunday, October 25, 2009
The Philadelphia Bulletin: Vienna Agreement Has Israelis Uneasy
by David Bedein
Jerusalem - The talks at the headquarters of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna ended in a draft agreement according to which Iran would transfer most of the uranium in its possession for enrichment outside its borders.
The fact that this refers to “most of the uranium” and not all of it, leaves a breach for a thief to slip through. Who can know for certain and who in Iran can force the regime to adhere to the Vienna agreement? The “small quantity” of uranium can be moved from one nuclear site to another and, at most by an optimistic forecast, the implementation of the agreement can somewhat delay the production of the doomsday weapon.
The news that Iran would hand over most of the low-grade enriched uranium in its possession for enrichment outside its borders was received by Israel as another Iranian victory, which would bring Tehran another step closer to the bomb.
It has not been lost on all Middle Eastern observers that Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s strategic objective is to develop nuclear weapons in order to become a regional power that can dictate the course of events in the Middle East.
His regime is serious, determined and cunning and will not give up such a supreme objective just because the enlightened world demands that it honor a previous commitment, which was given when Iran joined the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Officially, Israel has refrained from commenting on reports about a possible agreement with Iran, but behind the scenes, Jerusalem is following developments with concern and suspicion.
Israeli officials consider such an agreement as no more than an Iranian tactical move to buy more time and relieve the pressure.
Israel does not believe that Iran will agree to the conditions that the U.S., Russia and France have set, and believes that it will continue its effort to become a nuclear superpower. Israelis have little trust in the chairman of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed El-Baradei, who is involved in the talks.
Evidence of this suspicion could be heard in the statements that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak made yesterday during their meeting with Ms. Susan Rice, the United States ambassador to the United Nations.
Mr. Barak claimed that the superpowers must continue to keep track of Iran’s efforts to obtain nuclear weapons.
“The Iranians have misled the West in the past,” Barak said, pointing out preparations must continue for the imposition of severe sanctions on the Ayatollahs’ regime if it should turn out within several months that the Iranians are not cooperating fully with the international community.
Mr. Barak suggested to Ms. Rice that no alternative, including a military attack, could be ruled out, even if an agreement should be signed in the end, but it is found that Iran has tricked the West once again.
Israeli officials also remind the world that a uranium-enrichment compound, which was discovered in Qom. This stems from the belief, which the U.S. intelligence community shares, that these installations are only part of a more comprehensive network that the Iranians are hiding.
Barak added, in any case, Israel is not taking any option off the table.
View the original article in the Philadelphia Bulletin
Jerusalem - The talks at the headquarters of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna ended in a draft agreement according to which Iran would transfer most of the uranium in its possession for enrichment outside its borders.
The fact that this refers to “most of the uranium” and not all of it, leaves a breach for a thief to slip through. Who can know for certain and who in Iran can force the regime to adhere to the Vienna agreement? The “small quantity” of uranium can be moved from one nuclear site to another and, at most by an optimistic forecast, the implementation of the agreement can somewhat delay the production of the doomsday weapon.
The news that Iran would hand over most of the low-grade enriched uranium in its possession for enrichment outside its borders was received by Israel as another Iranian victory, which would bring Tehran another step closer to the bomb.
It has not been lost on all Middle Eastern observers that Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s strategic objective is to develop nuclear weapons in order to become a regional power that can dictate the course of events in the Middle East.
His regime is serious, determined and cunning and will not give up such a supreme objective just because the enlightened world demands that it honor a previous commitment, which was given when Iran joined the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Officially, Israel has refrained from commenting on reports about a possible agreement with Iran, but behind the scenes, Jerusalem is following developments with concern and suspicion.
Israeli officials consider such an agreement as no more than an Iranian tactical move to buy more time and relieve the pressure.
Israel does not believe that Iran will agree to the conditions that the U.S., Russia and France have set, and believes that it will continue its effort to become a nuclear superpower. Israelis have little trust in the chairman of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed El-Baradei, who is involved in the talks.
Evidence of this suspicion could be heard in the statements that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak made yesterday during their meeting with Ms. Susan Rice, the United States ambassador to the United Nations.
Mr. Barak claimed that the superpowers must continue to keep track of Iran’s efforts to obtain nuclear weapons.
“The Iranians have misled the West in the past,” Barak said, pointing out preparations must continue for the imposition of severe sanctions on the Ayatollahs’ regime if it should turn out within several months that the Iranians are not cooperating fully with the international community.
Mr. Barak suggested to Ms. Rice that no alternative, including a military attack, could be ruled out, even if an agreement should be signed in the end, but it is found that Iran has tricked the West once again.
Israeli officials also remind the world that a uranium-enrichment compound, which was discovered in Qom. This stems from the belief, which the U.S. intelligence community shares, that these installations are only part of a more comprehensive network that the Iranians are hiding.
Barak added, in any case, Israel is not taking any option off the table.
View the original article in the Philadelphia Bulletin
Sunday, October 18, 2009
The Philadelphia Bulletin: Report Charges Israel with War Crimes
by David Bedein
Jerusalem - The Goldstone report, which accuses Israel of war crimes in the course of Operation Cast Lead, was raised Thursday for discussion at the UN Human Rights Council, at the request of the Palestinian Authority.
Ahead of the discussion and the subsequent vote that will decide if the report will be adopted by the UN, Israel is getting into high gear.
Despite the low chances of obtaining a majority in Israel’s favor in the vote, politicians and diplomats are trying to influence a few countries in order to recruit them to Israel’s side.
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said last week that the Israeli battle against the report is very difficult because of the majority against Israel in the UN and in a number of UN committees.
He says that this battle will preoccupy Israel in the coming years.
High-ranking government sources said that as of now, the chances of the Goldstone report not being adopted are very low and it appears that the Palestinians will succeed in obtaining a majority.
At the moment, Israel is focusing its public relations activity in the countries belonging to the European Union, the African states, Asia and South America.
As part of the Israeli PR campaign, the work was divided between four people: President Shimon Peres, Prime Minister Netanyahu, Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman. Each of them received a list with a number of heads of state with whom they will talk and ask them not to support the report.
Israel will warn that adopting the Goldstone report means ending the peace process, because Israel will not agree to wage a legal-diplomatic battle along with conducting a peace process.
“The Goldstone report will be part of the international discourse for a long time yet and will be a heavy burden on Israel in the international arena,” said a high-ranking Israeli source.
“We can cope with its ramifications but the problem is that it turns Israel into the defendant and makes the state into a leper. It’s not good for Israel when it is spoken about as if it is a country that commits war crimes.”
What particularly irks Israel is that Palestinian Authority Chairman Abu Mazen and UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon are now aligned. The UN secretary general expressed his support for discussing the report at the U.N. Human Rights Council.
View the original article in the Philadelphia Bulletin
Jerusalem - The Goldstone report, which accuses Israel of war crimes in the course of Operation Cast Lead, was raised Thursday for discussion at the UN Human Rights Council, at the request of the Palestinian Authority.
Ahead of the discussion and the subsequent vote that will decide if the report will be adopted by the UN, Israel is getting into high gear.
Despite the low chances of obtaining a majority in Israel’s favor in the vote, politicians and diplomats are trying to influence a few countries in order to recruit them to Israel’s side.
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said last week that the Israeli battle against the report is very difficult because of the majority against Israel in the UN and in a number of UN committees.
He says that this battle will preoccupy Israel in the coming years.
High-ranking government sources said that as of now, the chances of the Goldstone report not being adopted are very low and it appears that the Palestinians will succeed in obtaining a majority.
At the moment, Israel is focusing its public relations activity in the countries belonging to the European Union, the African states, Asia and South America.
As part of the Israeli PR campaign, the work was divided between four people: President Shimon Peres, Prime Minister Netanyahu, Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman. Each of them received a list with a number of heads of state with whom they will talk and ask them not to support the report.
Israel will warn that adopting the Goldstone report means ending the peace process, because Israel will not agree to wage a legal-diplomatic battle along with conducting a peace process.
“The Goldstone report will be part of the international discourse for a long time yet and will be a heavy burden on Israel in the international arena,” said a high-ranking Israeli source.
“We can cope with its ramifications but the problem is that it turns Israel into the defendant and makes the state into a leper. It’s not good for Israel when it is spoken about as if it is a country that commits war crimes.”
What particularly irks Israel is that Palestinian Authority Chairman Abu Mazen and UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon are now aligned. The UN secretary general expressed his support for discussing the report at the U.N. Human Rights Council.
View the original article in the Philadelphia Bulletin
Sunday, September 6, 2009
The Philadelphia Bulletin: Tensions Mount on Israel's Northern Border
by David Bedein
JERUSALEM - Israel's military has determined that Hezbollah is expanding its presence along the Lebanese border with the Jewish state.
Israeli military sources said thar Israeli reconnaissance units have been detecting Hezbollah positions in Lebanese villages near the Israeli border. The operatives, dressed in civilian clothes, have been renting houses or stores for the storage of equipment and housing of fighters.
"Hezbollah has intensified its deployment along the Israeli border," a military source said. "What was secret a year ago is a lot less secret today."
These Hezbollah actions have been deemed a violation of the United Nations Security Council-arranged ceasefire that ended the Lebanon war in 2006. Under the council resolution, Hezbollah was banned from maintaining a presence south of Lebanon's Litani River.
Hezbollah weapons were said to include air defense systems, such as the SA-8 and SA-18. The sources said Hezbollah has also stockpiled rockets with a range of more than 200 kilometers.
Two Hezbollah guerrillas prepare Katyusha rockets at their base near the Chebaa Farms area on the Lebanese-Israeli border in south Lebanon during a tour for the media organized by Hezbollah in this May 22, 2001 file photo. Israel's military has determined that Hezbollah is expanding its presence along the Lebanese border with the Jewish state. The UN Security Council called a ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah in 2006. (Mahmoud Tawil/Associated Press)
Over the last year, the sources said, Hezbollah has been smuggling rockets, rocket-propelled grenades, assault rifles and other weapons into villages near the Israeli border. They said Hezbollah, which deployed both fulltime and reserve units, began operations in Shi'ite villages and moved to Christian and Sunni communities.
Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said Hezbollah has accumulated more than 40,000 missiles and rockets. Barak said he expected Hezbollah to use these weapons in any conflict with Israel.
"If there is a conflict on our northern border, we will use all necessary force," Barak said.
Meanwhile, the Middle East Newsline has confirmed that Hezbollah efforts in Sunni villages have been quietly discouraged by the government in Beirut. In mid-August, residents of Marwahin fought Hezbollah operatives who tried to bring weapons into the village, about two kilometers from the Israeli border community of Zirit.
The Israel Army, which closely monitors the border with ground and air surveillance, photographed a gun battle between Hezbollah and Sunni villagers. Lebanese Army troops were summoned and stopped the fighting. In the Israel Army video, released on Aug. 25, Marwahin residents were seen attacking Hezbollah operatives, who fled to an unmarked vehicle. Lebanese soldiers blocked the Sunni residents from reaching the Hezbollah sport utility vehicle.
Israeli Military sources said the clash was a rare demonstration of opposition by Lebanese to the Hezbollah deployment near the Israeli border. They said in most cases Hezbollah efforts to purchase or rent homes in border villages did not encounter resistance.
"It is clear that Hezbollah wants to return the Israeli-Lebanese border to the same state that existed on the eve of the [2006] war," the source said. "The difference is we are more aware of their activities."
View the original article in the Philadelphia Bulletin
JERUSALEM - Israel's military has determined that Hezbollah is expanding its presence along the Lebanese border with the Jewish state.
Israeli military sources said thar Israeli reconnaissance units have been detecting Hezbollah positions in Lebanese villages near the Israeli border. The operatives, dressed in civilian clothes, have been renting houses or stores for the storage of equipment and housing of fighters.
"Hezbollah has intensified its deployment along the Israeli border," a military source said. "What was secret a year ago is a lot less secret today."
These Hezbollah actions have been deemed a violation of the United Nations Security Council-arranged ceasefire that ended the Lebanon war in 2006. Under the council resolution, Hezbollah was banned from maintaining a presence south of Lebanon's Litani River.
Hezbollah weapons were said to include air defense systems, such as the SA-8 and SA-18. The sources said Hezbollah has also stockpiled rockets with a range of more than 200 kilometers.
Two Hezbollah guerrillas prepare Katyusha rockets at their base near the Chebaa Farms area on the Lebanese-Israeli border in south Lebanon during a tour for the media organized by Hezbollah in this May 22, 2001 file photo. Israel's military has determined that Hezbollah is expanding its presence along the Lebanese border with the Jewish state. The UN Security Council called a ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah in 2006. (Mahmoud Tawil/Associated Press)
Over the last year, the sources said, Hezbollah has been smuggling rockets, rocket-propelled grenades, assault rifles and other weapons into villages near the Israeli border. They said Hezbollah, which deployed both fulltime and reserve units, began operations in Shi'ite villages and moved to Christian and Sunni communities.
Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said Hezbollah has accumulated more than 40,000 missiles and rockets. Barak said he expected Hezbollah to use these weapons in any conflict with Israel.
"If there is a conflict on our northern border, we will use all necessary force," Barak said.
Meanwhile, the Middle East Newsline has confirmed that Hezbollah efforts in Sunni villages have been quietly discouraged by the government in Beirut. In mid-August, residents of Marwahin fought Hezbollah operatives who tried to bring weapons into the village, about two kilometers from the Israeli border community of Zirit.
The Israel Army, which closely monitors the border with ground and air surveillance, photographed a gun battle between Hezbollah and Sunni villagers. Lebanese Army troops were summoned and stopped the fighting. In the Israel Army video, released on Aug. 25, Marwahin residents were seen attacking Hezbollah operatives, who fled to an unmarked vehicle. Lebanese soldiers blocked the Sunni residents from reaching the Hezbollah sport utility vehicle.
Israeli Military sources said the clash was a rare demonstration of opposition by Lebanese to the Hezbollah deployment near the Israeli border. They said in most cases Hezbollah efforts to purchase or rent homes in border villages did not encounter resistance.
"It is clear that Hezbollah wants to return the Israeli-Lebanese border to the same state that existed on the eve of the [2006] war," the source said. "The difference is we are more aware of their activities."
View the original article in the Philadelphia Bulletin
Sunday, August 30, 2009
The Philadelphia Bulletin: Israeli Reservists to Sue Swedish Newspaper
by David Bedein
A group of Israeli Army reservists has announced that it intends to submit a lawsuit in New York for slander against the Swedish Aftonbladet newspaper for reporting that IDF soldiers trafficked in Palestinian body organs.
Heading the group is Attorney Ophir Miller from Tel Aviv, a major in reserves who served in the Paratroopers Brigade reconnaissance unit and is now an instructor in the IDF's counterterrorism unit. The group intends to sue the reporter who wrote the story, the editor and publisher of the newspaper.
Mr. Miller explained to the Voice Of Israel Radio that the case could therefore be heard in New York since the Swedish paper is also published and distributed there.
Mr. Miller said he spoke to a number of lawyers in Sweden to examine Swedish law on issues relating to such lawsuits.
"The State of Israel must pick up the gauntlet and silence the reporter and the newspaper with a huge lawsuit for injury to the state and its citizens," said Mr. Miller. "Since the heads of state are busy with requests for apologies, we had no choice but to enlist to submit the lawsuit."
To establish his claim, Mr. Miller turned to Defense Minister Ehud Barak and to Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman to learn the state's position and to receive confirmation that the claims of the Swedish newspaper have no basis in reality.
The Swedish newspaper is also being sued by two Swedish civil rights groups, since Swedish law forbids publication of material that will lead to "incitement on the basis of race, ethnicity or religion."
View this story in the Philadelphia Bulletin
View this story at Israel Behind the News
A group of Israeli Army reservists has announced that it intends to submit a lawsuit in New York for slander against the Swedish Aftonbladet newspaper for reporting that IDF soldiers trafficked in Palestinian body organs.
Heading the group is Attorney Ophir Miller from Tel Aviv, a major in reserves who served in the Paratroopers Brigade reconnaissance unit and is now an instructor in the IDF's counterterrorism unit. The group intends to sue the reporter who wrote the story, the editor and publisher of the newspaper.
Mr. Miller explained to the Voice Of Israel Radio that the case could therefore be heard in New York since the Swedish paper is also published and distributed there.
Mr. Miller said he spoke to a number of lawyers in Sweden to examine Swedish law on issues relating to such lawsuits.
"The State of Israel must pick up the gauntlet and silence the reporter and the newspaper with a huge lawsuit for injury to the state and its citizens," said Mr. Miller. "Since the heads of state are busy with requests for apologies, we had no choice but to enlist to submit the lawsuit."
To establish his claim, Mr. Miller turned to Defense Minister Ehud Barak and to Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman to learn the state's position and to receive confirmation that the claims of the Swedish newspaper have no basis in reality.
The Swedish newspaper is also being sued by two Swedish civil rights groups, since Swedish law forbids publication of material that will lead to "incitement on the basis of race, ethnicity or religion."
View this story in the Philadelphia Bulletin
View this story at Israel Behind the News
Thursday, May 28, 2009
The Philadelphia Bulletin: Hezbollah Victory Will Give Israel Sway
by David Bedein
Should Hezbollah prevail in Lebanon’s upcoming parliamentary elections next month, it could place Lebanon in Israel’s crosshairs.
Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak told Israel TV a Hezbollah election victory would render the terror group more vulnerable than in the past to the Israel Defense Force (IDF) because Israel would have freer rein in the event of a conflagration.
If the Iranian-financed terror organization were to become significantly stronger and were to hold a majority in the Lebanese government, Israeli security sources say Israel would directly retaliate against Lebanon in the event of a war along its northern border.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently said if Hezbollah were to win the Lebanese parliamentary elections: “[T]hat would be a troubling development, and our deployment will be in kind.”
Israel Defense Minister Barak also remarked on that issue, saying: “At present, Hezbollah already holds a third of the ministerial posts in the Lebanese cabinet. If Hezbollah receives a bigger chunk in the upcoming elections, that will expose it more than it was in the past to the IDF’s might, and will allow us freedom of action that we didn’t fully have in July 2006, during the Second Lebanon War.”
The Strategic Affairs Minister said he did not see any chance an independent Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria, also known as the West Bank, or in the Gaza Strip, would be able to maintain an independent economy or be able to maintain its internal security.
Mr. Yaalon referred to the experience gained from Israel’s total withdrawal from Gaza in August 2005, which occurred two months after former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon removed him as IDF chief.
“It could be presumed with certainty that any territory that Israel would evacuate in Judea and Samaria would immediately turn into a second Hamastan,” Mr. Yaalon said.
Israeli Interior Minister Eli Yishai told the seminar attendees Israel should stop trying to seek favor in the eyes of the world and work to get them to see the truth.
“The Palestinians are not even willing to recognize the state of the Jewish people, because they want to eliminate the Jewish people,” Mr. Yishai said.
Former Israel National Security Council director Maj. Gen. (res.) Giora Eiland said, commenting on the seminar, that an independent Palestinian state would not be an ideal solution for the Palestinians.
“Many senior Palestinian figures would support the idea of establishing a Palestinian confederation under Jordanian rule. They realize that a Palestinian state would be controlled by Hamas and would prefer to be under Jordanian rule,” Maj. Gen. (res.) Eilan said.
Following the seminar, some members of Israel’s Knesset suggested turning Jordan into a Palestinian state, which Israeli President Shimon Peres called “ridiculous,” even though he is not supposed to express himself politically in his non-partisan position.
After Mr. Peres’ comment, Jordan’s ambassador to Israel filed an official complaint against the government of Israel for allowing a member of Israel’s Knesset to suggest replacing the Jordanian kingdom with a Palestinian state.
View this story in the Philadelphia Bulletin
View this story at Israel Behind the News
Should Hezbollah prevail in Lebanon’s upcoming parliamentary elections next month, it could place Lebanon in Israel’s crosshairs.
Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak told Israel TV a Hezbollah election victory would render the terror group more vulnerable than in the past to the Israel Defense Force (IDF) because Israel would have freer rein in the event of a conflagration.
If the Iranian-financed terror organization were to become significantly stronger and were to hold a majority in the Lebanese government, Israeli security sources say Israel would directly retaliate against Lebanon in the event of a war along its northern border.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently said if Hezbollah were to win the Lebanese parliamentary elections: “[T]hat would be a troubling development, and our deployment will be in kind.”
Israel Defense Minister Barak also remarked on that issue, saying: “At present, Hezbollah already holds a third of the ministerial posts in the Lebanese cabinet. If Hezbollah receives a bigger chunk in the upcoming elections, that will expose it more than it was in the past to the IDF’s might, and will allow us freedom of action that we didn’t fully have in July 2006, during the Second Lebanon War.”
The Strategic Affairs Minister said he did not see any chance an independent Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria, also known as the West Bank, or in the Gaza Strip, would be able to maintain an independent economy or be able to maintain its internal security.
Mr. Yaalon referred to the experience gained from Israel’s total withdrawal from Gaza in August 2005, which occurred two months after former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon removed him as IDF chief.
“It could be presumed with certainty that any territory that Israel would evacuate in Judea and Samaria would immediately turn into a second Hamastan,” Mr. Yaalon said.
Israeli Interior Minister Eli Yishai told the seminar attendees Israel should stop trying to seek favor in the eyes of the world and work to get them to see the truth.
“The Palestinians are not even willing to recognize the state of the Jewish people, because they want to eliminate the Jewish people,” Mr. Yishai said.
Former Israel National Security Council director Maj. Gen. (res.) Giora Eiland said, commenting on the seminar, that an independent Palestinian state would not be an ideal solution for the Palestinians.
“Many senior Palestinian figures would support the idea of establishing a Palestinian confederation under Jordanian rule. They realize that a Palestinian state would be controlled by Hamas and would prefer to be under Jordanian rule,” Maj. Gen. (res.) Eilan said.
Following the seminar, some members of Israel’s Knesset suggested turning Jordan into a Palestinian state, which Israeli President Shimon Peres called “ridiculous,” even though he is not supposed to express himself politically in his non-partisan position.
After Mr. Peres’ comment, Jordan’s ambassador to Israel filed an official complaint against the government of Israel for allowing a member of Israel’s Knesset to suggest replacing the Jordanian kingdom with a Palestinian state.
View this story in the Philadelphia Bulletin
View this story at Israel Behind the News
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
The Philadelphia Bulletin: Israeli Reaction to North Korea - 'We Told You So'
by David Bedein
From Israel’s perspective, North Korea’s nuclear test, conducted Monday, was almost old news. Although the world was shocked when the news broke, Israeli security and Foreign Ministry officials could have said: “We told you so.”
Sources in the Israeli security establishment say they have been reporting on the connections between North Korea and Iran since the mid-1990s, when they started warning that North Korean technology was behind Iran’s Shahab missile. North Korean military, missile and nuclear experts have roamed the planet, mainly in the Middle East, seeking to sell their technologies to the highest bidder.
“And two years ago we reported - and backed it up with documentation - that North Korea was building Syria a nuclear reactor, and after we told them, we also attacked and destroyed it, to make sure that the threat was removed,” the sources said.
From Israel’s perspective, this is an existential issue: If the Americans blink, that will be sensed very clearly, and it will tell North Korea that it can continue to go about its nuclear weapons business. The North Korean developments likely will lead to Syria gaining improved missile technology and Iran accelerating its nuclear program.
Another senior Israeli official angrily chastised the United States for its lack of action after it learned North Korea was helping Syria build a nuclear reactor.
“What did the Americans do with all that? Not much,” the official said. “The Syrian reactor ought to have taught them that North Korea had lied throughout the entire affair, but Washington nevertheless preferred to persevere with its critical dialogue.
“The result of that is that the missiles were fired, the tests continued. Yesterday was a resounding slap on the cheek, which ostensibly is supposed to indicate to all of us that the time has come for the administration either to sober up, or for us to despair of it.”
Barak: ‘Talk And Sanctions Don’t Stop Rogue Regimes’
Israel Defense Minister Ehud Barak called on the United States and the international community to learn lessons from North Korea’s nuclear defiance.
“It is incumbent upon the United States and the international community to learn the lessons so as to convey a clear message to Iran,” Mr. Barak said. “Israel is concerned by the free world’s failure to stand up to North Korea.
“Talk, declarations and soft sanctions do not stop rogue regimes from endangering world peace. This test is a warning sign and a message to the world to wake up.”
Mr. Barak also expressed skepticism about the United States’ ability to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power.
“The chance of the dialogue between the United States and Iran producing an end to the Iranian effort to advance towards the attainment of a military nuclear capability is very low,” said Mr. Barak. “The Americans understand that the chance is very low, just that they think that there is a logic to this dialogue and yet, if that doesn’t happen, they are going to have to cope with the significance of that further on.”
The Defense minister says he believes the dialogue between the United States and Iran needs to be time limited, but the Obama administration has refrained from setting a firm timetable so far.
Tzahi Hanegbi, chairman of the Israeli Knesset Parliament Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, was more explicit, saying: “The North Koreans’ flaunted nuclear test was registered not only by the seismographs, but mainly by the Iranian regime of ayatollahs. If the United States surrenders unconditionally to the axis of evil, the entire world can expect to face difficult and demanding moments.”
View this story in the Philadelphia Bulletin
View this story at Israel Behind the News
From Israel’s perspective, North Korea’s nuclear test, conducted Monday, was almost old news. Although the world was shocked when the news broke, Israeli security and Foreign Ministry officials could have said: “We told you so.”
Sources in the Israeli security establishment say they have been reporting on the connections between North Korea and Iran since the mid-1990s, when they started warning that North Korean technology was behind Iran’s Shahab missile. North Korean military, missile and nuclear experts have roamed the planet, mainly in the Middle East, seeking to sell their technologies to the highest bidder.
“And two years ago we reported - and backed it up with documentation - that North Korea was building Syria a nuclear reactor, and after we told them, we also attacked and destroyed it, to make sure that the threat was removed,” the sources said.
From Israel’s perspective, this is an existential issue: If the Americans blink, that will be sensed very clearly, and it will tell North Korea that it can continue to go about its nuclear weapons business. The North Korean developments likely will lead to Syria gaining improved missile technology and Iran accelerating its nuclear program.
Another senior Israeli official angrily chastised the United States for its lack of action after it learned North Korea was helping Syria build a nuclear reactor.
“What did the Americans do with all that? Not much,” the official said. “The Syrian reactor ought to have taught them that North Korea had lied throughout the entire affair, but Washington nevertheless preferred to persevere with its critical dialogue.
“The result of that is that the missiles were fired, the tests continued. Yesterday was a resounding slap on the cheek, which ostensibly is supposed to indicate to all of us that the time has come for the administration either to sober up, or for us to despair of it.”
Barak: ‘Talk And Sanctions Don’t Stop Rogue Regimes’
Israel Defense Minister Ehud Barak called on the United States and the international community to learn lessons from North Korea’s nuclear defiance.
“It is incumbent upon the United States and the international community to learn the lessons so as to convey a clear message to Iran,” Mr. Barak said. “Israel is concerned by the free world’s failure to stand up to North Korea.
“Talk, declarations and soft sanctions do not stop rogue regimes from endangering world peace. This test is a warning sign and a message to the world to wake up.”
Mr. Barak also expressed skepticism about the United States’ ability to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power.
“The chance of the dialogue between the United States and Iran producing an end to the Iranian effort to advance towards the attainment of a military nuclear capability is very low,” said Mr. Barak. “The Americans understand that the chance is very low, just that they think that there is a logic to this dialogue and yet, if that doesn’t happen, they are going to have to cope with the significance of that further on.”
The Defense minister says he believes the dialogue between the United States and Iran needs to be time limited, but the Obama administration has refrained from setting a firm timetable so far.
Tzahi Hanegbi, chairman of the Israeli Knesset Parliament Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, was more explicit, saying: “The North Koreans’ flaunted nuclear test was registered not only by the seismographs, but mainly by the Iranian regime of ayatollahs. If the United States surrenders unconditionally to the axis of evil, the entire world can expect to face difficult and demanding moments.”
View this story in the Philadelphia Bulletin
View this story at Israel Behind the News
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
The Philadelphia Bulletin: Israel's Security Cabinet Expresses Doubts about Peace
by David Bedein
Begin May Be Man to Watch in New Group
Benjamin Begin, son of late Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, could be the man to watch in Israel’s newly formed security cabinet.
Although he lacks a political portfolio, his importance surpasses other members of the cabinet, which also includes: Defense Minister Ehud Barak, a former Israel prime minister; Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman; Strategic Affairs Minister Bugi Yaalon; and Intelligence Affairs Minister Dan Meridor.
Mr. Begin has a history of opposing, giving concessions to the Palestinians. He resigned from the previous Netanyahu government in January 1997 after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu relinquished Israeli control over Hebron.
He left Likud following the conclusion of the Wye River Memorandums in October 1998, which called for the redeployment of Israeli forces. This effectively ended Mr. Netanyahu’s last government. Mr. Begin also opposed what he saw as former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s corruption and disloyalty from early on.
During a Knesset discussion last Wednesday on Jerusalem Day, Mr. Begin quoted extensively from remarks made by Abbas Zaki, a Palestinian Authority leader, on May 7.
In those comments, Mr. Zaki said: “The Jews view Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) as their historic dream. After they evacuate those lands, they will get out of Jerusalem. If the Jews leave those places, the Zionist idea will begin to collapse. Then they will move forward.”
Mr. Begin used these comments to remind the Israeli public of the Palestinian Liberation Organization’s (PLO) plan of destroying Israel through diplomatic, as well as military means, over the course of several phases.
The other members of the security cabinet share Mr. Begin’s skepticism about the Palestinians.
Mr. Barak has long since lost faith in negotiations with the Palestinians. Mr. Lieberman opposes any form of withdrawal and has often said that the negotiations with the Palestinians have no chance of moving forward.
Mr. Yaalon, who served as the Israeli army chief of staff from 2001-2005, is probably the most severe in his position toward the Palestinians. He has written a recent book, not yet translated into English, where he openly states he does not believe in any peace plan. He writes that peace likely might only be possible three or four generations from now.
The strategic affairs minister believes that the process has to begin from the bottom, step by step, but only on the economic and municipal level, nothing on the national level.
In his book, Mr. Yaalon writes the Palestinian Authority must pass an unlimited number of tests before any progress can be made. They include altering Palestinian school curriculums calling for Israel’s destruction and its existence as a Jewish state.
Mr. Meridor, who was actively involved in the failed negotiations with the Palestinians at Camp David under the aegis of former President Bill Clinton in the summer of 2000, has often expressed how surprised he was with the seriousness of the Palestinian demand for the “right of return” to Arab villages that were lost in 1948, which have since been replaced by Israeli towns, collective farms and woodlands.
View this story in the Philadelphia Bulletin
View this story at Israel Behind the News
Begin May Be Man to Watch in New Group
Benjamin Begin, son of late Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, could be the man to watch in Israel’s newly formed security cabinet.
Although he lacks a political portfolio, his importance surpasses other members of the cabinet, which also includes: Defense Minister Ehud Barak, a former Israel prime minister; Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman; Strategic Affairs Minister Bugi Yaalon; and Intelligence Affairs Minister Dan Meridor.
Mr. Begin has a history of opposing, giving concessions to the Palestinians. He resigned from the previous Netanyahu government in January 1997 after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu relinquished Israeli control over Hebron.
He left Likud following the conclusion of the Wye River Memorandums in October 1998, which called for the redeployment of Israeli forces. This effectively ended Mr. Netanyahu’s last government. Mr. Begin also opposed what he saw as former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s corruption and disloyalty from early on.
During a Knesset discussion last Wednesday on Jerusalem Day, Mr. Begin quoted extensively from remarks made by Abbas Zaki, a Palestinian Authority leader, on May 7.
In those comments, Mr. Zaki said: “The Jews view Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) as their historic dream. After they evacuate those lands, they will get out of Jerusalem. If the Jews leave those places, the Zionist idea will begin to collapse. Then they will move forward.”
Mr. Begin used these comments to remind the Israeli public of the Palestinian Liberation Organization’s (PLO) plan of destroying Israel through diplomatic, as well as military means, over the course of several phases.
The other members of the security cabinet share Mr. Begin’s skepticism about the Palestinians.
Mr. Barak has long since lost faith in negotiations with the Palestinians. Mr. Lieberman opposes any form of withdrawal and has often said that the negotiations with the Palestinians have no chance of moving forward.
Mr. Yaalon, who served as the Israeli army chief of staff from 2001-2005, is probably the most severe in his position toward the Palestinians. He has written a recent book, not yet translated into English, where he openly states he does not believe in any peace plan. He writes that peace likely might only be possible three or four generations from now.
The strategic affairs minister believes that the process has to begin from the bottom, step by step, but only on the economic and municipal level, nothing on the national level.
In his book, Mr. Yaalon writes the Palestinian Authority must pass an unlimited number of tests before any progress can be made. They include altering Palestinian school curriculums calling for Israel’s destruction and its existence as a Jewish state.
Mr. Meridor, who was actively involved in the failed negotiations with the Palestinians at Camp David under the aegis of former President Bill Clinton in the summer of 2000, has often expressed how surprised he was with the seriousness of the Palestinian demand for the “right of return” to Arab villages that were lost in 1948, which have since been replaced by Israeli towns, collective farms and woodlands.
View this story in the Philadelphia Bulletin
View this story at Israel Behind the News
Monday, May 11, 2009
The Philadelphia Bulletin: Behind the Scenes of the Papal Visit
by David Bedein
Arguments behind the scenes have preceded Pope Benedict XVI’s visit to Israel.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu asked to speak at the reception for the Pope at Ben-Gurion Airport, but the Vatican politely refused.
The Vatican argued only heads of state give speeches at such receptions, and the Pope’s counterpart in Israel, the Vatican said, was President Shimon Peres, not Mr. Netanyahu.
Mr. Netanyahu, Vatican officials said, was the counterpart of the Vatican’s prime minister, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone. The Vatican officials also said this was a “religious visit without political aspects.”
At a certain stage, Vatican officials agreed to permit Mr. Netanyahu to speak, but only at the state reception in the President’s residence.
However, since Mr. Netanyahu has to leave immediately after the state reception at Ben-Gurion Airport for his meeting with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, he will not be attending the reception at the President’s residence in Jerusalem.
A likely compromise would allow Mr. Netanyahu to speak at Ben-Gurion Airport alongside Cardinal Bertone.
The two parties disagreed not only about Mr. Netanyahu’s speech, but also about the meeting between the Pope and the prime minister.
According to protocol, the Pope, owing to his diplomatic status, does not need go to the Prime Minister’s Bureau to meet with the Israeli premier.
Instead, the Israeli premier is supposed to come to see him. When the previous Pope visited Israel in 2000 Ehud Barak, who was prime minister at the time, went to meet with Pope John Paul II at the Mount of Beatitudes in Northern Israel.
Mr. Netanyahu believes the appropriate place to meet the Pope, if not in his office, is at the Prime Minister’s Residence, but the Vatican refused to follow his wishes.
Now, talks are being held in an attempt to change the venue of the meeting away from Nazareth, where it was originally planned, to Capernaum.
A number of problems cropped up with respect to the festive celebration being planned for the Pope by Tourism Minister Stas Misezhnikov and Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat in the Tower of David in the Old City.
According to the plan, Mr. Misezhnikov, who is the cabinet minister responsible for the trip, and Mayor Barkat are supposed to speak at the event and to welcome the members of the Vatican.
But Vatican officials have demanded that Mr. Barkat not be permitted to speak at
the event because the Vatican does not recognize Israel’s sovereignty over the Old City of Jerusalem.
Israel was forthcoming with the Vatican on this issue and removed symbols of the State of Israel and the Jerusalem municipality from the invitations. But Israel staunchly refused the Vatican’s demand that Mayor Barkat not be permitted to speak at the event.
Mr. Misezhnikov informed the Vatican representatives he invitations had already been sent, and they explicitly said Mr. Barkat would speak.
See this story in the Philadelphia Bulletin
See this story at Israel Behind the News
Arguments behind the scenes have preceded Pope Benedict XVI’s visit to Israel.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu asked to speak at the reception for the Pope at Ben-Gurion Airport, but the Vatican politely refused.
The Vatican argued only heads of state give speeches at such receptions, and the Pope’s counterpart in Israel, the Vatican said, was President Shimon Peres, not Mr. Netanyahu.
Mr. Netanyahu, Vatican officials said, was the counterpart of the Vatican’s prime minister, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone. The Vatican officials also said this was a “religious visit without political aspects.”
At a certain stage, Vatican officials agreed to permit Mr. Netanyahu to speak, but only at the state reception in the President’s residence.
However, since Mr. Netanyahu has to leave immediately after the state reception at Ben-Gurion Airport for his meeting with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, he will not be attending the reception at the President’s residence in Jerusalem.
A likely compromise would allow Mr. Netanyahu to speak at Ben-Gurion Airport alongside Cardinal Bertone.
The two parties disagreed not only about Mr. Netanyahu’s speech, but also about the meeting between the Pope and the prime minister.
According to protocol, the Pope, owing to his diplomatic status, does not need go to the Prime Minister’s Bureau to meet with the Israeli premier.
Instead, the Israeli premier is supposed to come to see him. When the previous Pope visited Israel in 2000 Ehud Barak, who was prime minister at the time, went to meet with Pope John Paul II at the Mount of Beatitudes in Northern Israel.
Mr. Netanyahu believes the appropriate place to meet the Pope, if not in his office, is at the Prime Minister’s Residence, but the Vatican refused to follow his wishes.
Now, talks are being held in an attempt to change the venue of the meeting away from Nazareth, where it was originally planned, to Capernaum.
A number of problems cropped up with respect to the festive celebration being planned for the Pope by Tourism Minister Stas Misezhnikov and Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat in the Tower of David in the Old City.
According to the plan, Mr. Misezhnikov, who is the cabinet minister responsible for the trip, and Mayor Barkat are supposed to speak at the event and to welcome the members of the Vatican.
But Vatican officials have demanded that Mr. Barkat not be permitted to speak at
the event because the Vatican does not recognize Israel’s sovereignty over the Old City of Jerusalem.
Israel was forthcoming with the Vatican on this issue and removed symbols of the State of Israel and the Jerusalem municipality from the invitations. But Israel staunchly refused the Vatican’s demand that Mayor Barkat not be permitted to speak at the event.
Mr. Misezhnikov informed the Vatican representatives he invitations had already been sent, and they explicitly said Mr. Barkat would speak.
See this story in the Philadelphia Bulletin
See this story at Israel Behind the News
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
