US Report: Infantry Needed to Fight Hizbullah

From: Middle East News Line

The U.S. Army has commissioned a study that concluded
that conventional ground forces would be required to battle the
Iranian-sponsored Hizbullah.

The Rand Corp. has relayed a study to the U.S. Army that analyzed
Israel's 2006 war with Hizbullah. The report, titled "Military Capabilities
for Hybrid War," concluded that Israel's air combat strategy against
Hizbullah was flawed and that infantry and armor would be required to fight
the Lebanese-based militia, trained by Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard
Corps.

"Finally, heavy forces -- based on tanks and infantry fighting
vehicles -- are key elements of any force that will fight sophisticated
irregular opponents, because they reduce operational risk and minimize
friendly casualties," the report, released on April 9, said.

The report was part of a project by the U.S. Army to assess emerging
insurgency threats based on Israel's wars with Hizbullah and Hamas over the
last four years. Rand said both Israel and the United States were facing a
so-called hybrid opponent, or a force that combined conventional and
guerrilla capabilities.

"Although the U.S. security situation is much different from that of
Israel, similarities do exist," the report said. "Both nations believe they
must prepare for challenges across the range of military operations.
Therefore, the following insights from recent Israeli experience have
relevance for the U.S."

A key finding was that Israel's air combat doctrine has been ineffective
against either Hamas or Hizbullah. The report asserted that air strikes must
be combined with a significant infantry and armor component to minimize the
insurgency use of civilian shields.

"The basics of combined arms fire and maneuver are necessary for
successful operations against sophisticated hybrid opponents who, like
Hizbullah and Hamas, have a modicum of training, organization, and advanced
weapons, particularly if they are operating 'among the people,'" the report,
authored by David Johnson, said. "Additionally, precision, standoff fires
are critical, but not sufficient, to cope with sophisticated hybrid
opponents. Furthermore, responsive and adequate air, artillery, and unmanned
aerial system support are critical components of the combined arms fight
against hybrid opponents."

Rand concluded that the Israel Army had underestimated Hizbullah's
capabilities to combine military maneuvers with sustained rocket fire. The
report cited Israel's long counter-insurgency campaign in the West Bank and
Gaza Strip and the military's assessment that conventional warfare would not
return to the Middle East.

"The U.S. presence in Iraq following OIF [U.S. invasion of Iraq in
2003], coupled with low threats from neighbors except Syria, encouraged a
belief that Israel was beyond the era of a major war and that the primary
role of ground forces was LIC [low-intensity conflict]," the report said.
"Some of the political and military elites in Israel have reached the
conclusion that Israel is beyond the era of wars. It had enough military
might and superiority to deter others from declaring war against her; these
would also be sufficient to send a painful reminder to anyone who seemed to
be undeterred; since Israel did not intend to initiate a war, the conclusion
was that the main challenge facing the land forces would be low intensity
asymmetrical conflicts."

The result was that Israel's military budget had been slashed, main
battle tanks and mechanized infantry became idle and training declined, the
report said. The best army commanders were used for CI operations, and air
force tactical air control capabilities were removed from infantry brigades.
"In Lebanon, the Israelis faced terrain and enemy conditions for which
they were not prepared," the report said. "Hizbullah, although not 10 feet
tall, was trained and organized into small units and armed with
sophisticated weapons, including anti-tank guided missiles, RPGs --
including RPG-29s -- rockets, mortars, mines, IEDs, and MANPADS."

Rand said the Hizbullah and Hamas threat required what the report termed
integrated joint air and ground intelligence, surveillance and
reconnaissance capabilities "similar to those used against conventional
adversaries, but at a reduced scale." The report said the army's command and
control system must also be revised to battle Hizbullah.

Israel's military was said to have renewed its heavy armored force to
confront Hamas and Hizbullah. Rand cited the resumption of production of the
Merkava Mk-4 main battle tank and the launch of the Namer infantry fighting
vehicle, based on the Mk-1. These assets were used in the Hamas war in
December 2008 and January 2009.

"The single most important change in the IDF between the 2006 Second
Lebanon War and the recent operation in Gaza was the clear understanding by
senior Israeli political and military
leaders that ground operations are an essential component of military
operations," the report said. "They no longer believe standoff attack alone,
principally by air, can create success. Thus, from the beginning, it was a
given to Israeli political and military leaders that ground forces would
have to fight in Gaza -- putting troops on the ground was a necessary
precondition to achieving their military and political objectives."

Rand warned that Israel's war with Hamas did not prove that the
military was certain to defeat Hizbullah. The report said Hamas was not as
capable as Hizbullah, and the Gaza Strip was flat while southern Lebanon was
hilly.

"Hizbullah defended its positions," the report said. "Hamas frequently
retreated. Hizbullah had advanced ATGMs and used them to good effect; Hamas
seems not to have had many and used few, if any, relying mainly on small
arms, RPGs, mortars, rockets, IEDs, and mines. Finally, Operation Cast Lead
[Israeli war against Hamas] was a relatively small-scale operation for the
Israeli Army, involving only a handful of brigades, one division, and the
Southern Command."

See more on this at Israel Behind the News

Israel Is Not A Banana Republic - Begin’s Rebuttal Of Reagan, State Dept., on “Punishing” Israel

Statement by Prime Minister Begin on U.S. Measures Against Israel, 20 December 1981.

VOLUME 7: 1981-1982
In an unprecedented move, Mr. Begin summoned the United States ambassador to Israel, and read to him the following statement in response to the punitive measures threatened by the US against Israel.

It was later read to the cabinet and issued to the public.
Text:
Three times during the past six months, the U.S. Government has “punished” Israel.
On June 7 we destroyed the Iraqi nuclear reactor “Osirak” near Baghdad. I don’t want to mention to you today from whom we received the final information that this reactor was going to produce atomic bombs. We had no doubt about that: therefore our action was an act of salvation, an act of national self-defense in the most lofty sense of the concept. We saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of civilians, including tens of thousands of children.

Nonetheless, you announced that you were punishing us - and you left unfilled a signed and sealed contract that included specific dates for the supply of (war) planes.

Not long after, in a defensive act - after a slaughter was committed against our people leaving three dead (including an Auschwitz survivor) and 29 were injured we bombed the PLO headquarters in Beirut.

You have no moral right to preach to us about civilian casualties. We have read the history of World War Two and we know what happened to civilians when you took action against an enemy. We have also read the history of the Vietnam war and your phrase “body-count”. We always make efforts to avoid hitting civilian populations, but sometimes it is unavoidable - as was the case in our bombing of the PLO headquarters.

We sometimes risk the lives of our soldiers to avoid civilian casualties.
Nonetheless, you punished us: you suspended delivery of F-15 planes.
A week ago, at the instance of the Government, the Knesset passed on all three readings by an overwhelming majority of two-thirds, the “Golan Heights Law.”
Now you once again declare that you are punishing Israel.

What kind of expression is this - “punishing Israel”? Are we a vassal state of yours? Are we a banana republic? Are we youths of fourteen who, if they don’t behave properly, are slapped across the fingers?

Let me tell you who this government is composed of. It is composed of people whose lives were spent in resistance, in fighting and in suffering. You will not frighten us with “punishments”. He who threatens us will find us deaf to his threats. We are only prepared to listen to rational arguments.

You have no right to “punish” Israel - and I protest at the very use of this term.
You have announced that you are suspending consultations on the implementation of the memorandum of understanding on strategic cooperation, and that your return to these consultations in the future will depend on progress achieved in the autonomy talks and on the situation in Lebanon.

You want to make Israel a hostage of the memorandum of understanding.
I regard your announcement suspending the consultations on the memorandum of as the abrogation (by you) of the memorandum. No “sword of Damocles” is going to hang over our head. So we duly take note of the fact that you have abrogated the memorandum of understanding.

The people of Israel has lived 3,700 years without a memorandum of understanding with America - and it will continue to live for another 3,700. In our eyes it (i.e., the U.S. suspension) is an abrogation of the memorandum.
We will not agree that you should demand of us to allow the Arabs of East Jerusalem to take part in the autonomy elections - and threaten us that if we don’t consent you will suspend the memorandum.

You have imposed upon us financial punishments - and have (thereby) violated the word of the President. When Secretary Haig was here he read from a written document the words of President Reagan that you would purchase 200 million dollars worth of Israel arms and other equipment. Now you say it will not be so.

This is therefore a violation of the President’s word. Is it customary? Is it proper?
You cancelled an additional 100 million dollars. What did you want to do - to “hit us in our pocket”?
In 1946 there lived in this house a British general by the name of Barker. Today I live here. When we fought him, you called us “terrorists” - and we carried on fighting. After we attacked his headquarters in the requisitioned building of the King David Hotel, Barker said: “This race will only be influenced by being hit in the pocket” - and he ordered his soldiers to stop patronizing Jewish cafes.
To hit us in the pocket - this is the philosophy of Barker. Now I understand why the whole great effort in the Senate to obtain a majority for the arms deal with Saudi Arabia was accompanied by an ugly campaign of anti-Semitism.

First, the slogan was sounded “Begin or Reagan?” - and that meant that whoever opposes the deal is supporting a foreign prime minister and is not loyal to the President of the United States. And thus Senators like Jackson, Kennedy, Packwood and of course Boschwitz are not loyal citizens.

Then the slogan was sounded “We should not let the Jews determine the foreign policy of the United States.” What was the meaning of this slogan? The Greek minority in the U.S. did much to determine the Senate decision to withhold weapons from Turkey after it invaded Cyprus. No one will frighten the great and free Jewish community of the U.S., no one will succeed in cowing them with anti-Semitic propaganda. They will stand by our side. This is the land of their forefathers - and they have a right and a duty to support it.

Some say we must “rescind” the law passed by the Knesset. “To rescind” is a concept from the days of the Inquisition. Our forefathers went to the stake rather than “rescind” their faith.

We are not going to the stake. Thank God. We have enough strength to defend our independence and to defend our rights.

If it were up to me (alone) I would say we should not rescind the law. But as far as I can judge there is in fact no one on earth who can persuade the Knesset to rescind the law which it passed by a two-thirds majority.

Mr. Weinberger - and later Mr. Haig - said that the law adversely affects UN Resolution 242. Whoever says that has either not read the Resolution or has forgotten it, or has not understood it.

The essence of the Resolution is negotiation to determine agreed and recognized borders. Syria has announced that it will not conduct negotiations with us, that it does not and will not recognize us - and thus removed from Resolution 242 its essence. How, therefore, could we adversely affect 242?

As regards the future, please be kind enough to inform the Secretary of, State that the Golan Heights Law will remain valid. There is no force on earth that can bring about its rescission.

As for the contention that we surprised you, the truth is that we did not want to embarrass you. We knew your difficulties. You come to Riyadh and Damascus. It was President Reagan who said that Mr. Begin was right - that had Israel told the U.S. about the law (in advance) the U.S. would have said no. We did not want you to say no - and then go ahead and apply Israeli law to the Golan Heights.
Our intention was not to embarrass you.

As regards Lebanon, I have asked that the Secretary of State be informed that we will not attack, but if we are attacked, we will counterattack.

See this and more at Israel Behind the News

The Philadelphia Bulletin: Israeli Group Sues North Korea over Role in Terror Attack

Jerusalem - An Israeli group has filed suit against North Korea on charges of supporting a major attack against the Jewish state.

Shurat HaDin, an Israeli law center, has filed a suit in a U.S. district court in San Juan, Puerto Rico for the families of the victims of the 1972 attack in Israel. In an attack on Lod Airport, 26 people were killed and 80 others were injured by attackers alleged to have been trained by North Korea. The attack was also attributed to the Japanese Red Army (JRA) and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP).

"This will be the first time North Korea is being held to account in a U.S. court for its support of terrorism over many decades," Shurat HaDin said Tuesday.

Most of the victims in the 1972 shooting were Catholic pilgrims from Puerto Rico who had come to visit the Holy Land for the first time. The court complaint alleged that Pyongyang - North Korea's capital - had trained and financed the three attackers, who used automatic weapons, ammunition and grenades. Two of the three attackers were killed and the third was captured and sentenced to prison in Israel.

"North Korea was behind the attack," Shurat HaDin said. "As the trial will show incontrovertibly, in the months leading up to the massacre, the leaders of the JRA and PFLP met each other and with North Korean officials, who provided funding, intelligence, training, and other material support for the terrorists."

The trial was scheduled to begin on Thursday in the U.S. federal district court in San Juan, Puerto Rico. The plaintiffs have argued that North Korea supported JRA's plan to target Israel as part of its campaign to promote communist revolution.

North Korea, removed from the State Department's list of terrorist sponsors in 2008, has been identified as a leading weapons supplier to Iran and Syria. Israel has asserted that Pyongyang helped build the huge underground network for Hezbollah in southern Lebanon. Shurat HaDin has filed two other lawsuits against North Korea.

"It is widely known that one of the world's most oppressive regimes, North Korea, is also a consistent supporter of terrorism, including providing weaponry, training bases, and funding for Palestinian terrorist organizations," Shurat HaDin said.

Hamas, Hezbollah Continue Partnership

by David Bedein

JERUSALEM - Hamas terror organization representatives in Lebanon, led by Osama Hamdan, Hamas's bureau director in Beirut, met Wednesday with Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah.

Hamas Political Bureau Director Khaled Mashaal has recently revealed that his organization had consulted several times with Hezbollah's leadership.

This meeting carries new significance, since Hezbollah, this week, assumed the role of a full coalition partner in the Lebanese government.

As part of the official coalition agreement, Hezbollah inserted a clause to renew the official state of war that exists between Lebanon and Israel since 1948.

Unlike Jordan and Egypt, which have signed official peace treaties with Israel to end the state of war that had existed since 1948, Lebanon has only signed armistice agreements since the 1948 war. The new government in Lebanon, at the urging of Hezbollah, issued a statement on Thursday that, “The armed struggle with Israel will continue until all conquered land in the hands of Israel is recovered," referring to the entire land mass that composes the current state of Israel.

View the original article in the Philadelphia Bulletin

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

Terrorist murderer whom Israel allowed to attend Bethlehem Fatah conference hopes Fatah returns to terror

Originally published by the Ma'an News Agency

BETHLEHEM (Ma’an Exclusive) - “I have waited 30 years to come back to
Palestine, and I won’t leave. I will wait until I get a Palestinian ID card
so I can bring back my wife and children,” said Khalid Abu Isba, one of two
Palestinian fighters who survived the famous attack on a beach in north of
Tel Aviv on 11 March 1978.

In the city for Fatah’s upcoming convention, Abu Isba was speaking during an
interview at Ma’an’s Bethlehem office.

The operation that made him famous was led by the legendary female fighter
Dalal Al-Mughrabi. Al-Mughrabi’s name is synonymous with the 1978 attack,
which is today a symbol of an earlier era when the Palestinian movement was
led by refugees living in Lebanon and other places of exile, struggling to
retrieve the homeland they lost in 1948.

The Palestinians who carried it out called the attack the “Martyr Kamal
Udwan operation,” after the PLO chief of operations killed in an Israeli
commando raid on Beirut in April 1973. The Israelis called it “Coastal Road
Massacre.”

Palestine, Abu Isba says, is the homeland for which he sacrificed in the
1978 operation that saw him injured and detained. During that operation, 13
Palestinian fighters hijacked an Israeli bus, and fierce battle erupted
between them and Israeli forces. Thirty five Israelis were killed as well as
all the Palestinian fighters except Abu Isba and another named Hussein
Fayyad.

Both were injured and detained by Israeli forces. After spending seven years
in prison, both were released in a prisoner exchange deal in 1985 between
Israel and The Popular front for the Liberation of Palestine- General
Command led then by Ahmad Jibreel.

Abu Isba says he was worried Israel would not allow him to come to Palestine
to partake in sixth Fatah conference in Bethlehem. For reasons that may
never be known, Israeli authorities allowed the former guerilla leader to
cross into the West Bank this weekend.

Yet Abu Isba is returning to a Palestine, and a Fatah, that have changed
dramatically in the three decades since the raid on the coast road. Inside
the occupied territories, his movement has become closely identified with
the Oslo peace accords and its offspring, the hapless bureaucracy of the
Palestinian Authority. A weak Palestinian “sovereignty” has returned to a
few square kilometers of the homeland, but the rest has been annexed,
splintered, and subdivided over the Olso years. Fatah is embroiled in a
bitter power struggle with Hamas. It is a movement also seeking to reconcile
its past as a resistance movement with its present state.

While visiting Ma’an, however, Abu Isba seemed happy to be back in one
corner of Palestine. He says he is happy with the young Palestinian
generation. “For your sake, young people, we sacrificed, and we will
continue to,” he said.

”Bring back the Fatah of the revolution”

Asked about his expectations for the Fatah conference, he said, “After the
conference is finished, Fatah should continue with change, close the ranks,
and restore Fatah’s dignity.”

The veteran fighter said he hoped his movement would return to a program of
popular resistance.

“We hope the conference will bring back the Fatah of the revolution, the
Fatah of Abu Ammar [Yasser Arafat] and the Fatah of sacrifices after waiting
20 years since the fifth conference,” he added.

Abu Isba applauded the decision to increase the number of delegates to the
conference to 2,260 highlighting that more delegates are still needed in
order to cover all the regions where Fatah is active. He pointed out that
Fatah in Jordan and Lebanon need to have more representatives in the
conference. He mentioned that late Palestinian president Yasser Arafat had
increased the number of delegates to the fifth conference 20 years ago.

With regards to Hamas’ refusal to allow Fatah delegates from Gaza to leave
to Bethlehem, Abu Isba said, “Hamas plans to thwart Fatah conference to tell
the world that Fatah is unable to lead the Palestinian people.”

“They [Hamas] try to impose religion by force, thus, the Palestinian people
in the beloved Gaza Strip will rebel. If Hamas was confident about its
strength, and popularity, they would have accepted president Abbas’ call for
elections,” he added.

Commenting on the Israeli military offensive against the Gaza Strip last
winter, he said, “Hamas did not achieve anything in that war. They continued
to slam Egypt for refusing to open the Rafah crossing during the war without
considering that Egypt wanted to avoid displacing the Palestinian people....
Hamas is not ready to stage a coup in the West Bank, and if they stage a
coup, they will then start criticizing Jordan for not opening the Allenby
Bridge,” he added.

He said that Hamas lauds Fatah leader Marwan Barghouthi, who is in prison in
Israel for his actions during the Second Intifada, “But once the man is
released and starts playing a role in PA [Palestinian Authority] politics,
Hamas will have prepared accusations [against him] in advance.”

With regards to Fatah leader Farouq Qaddoumi’s recent accusations that
President Mahmoud Abbas was being involved in an assassination of Yasser
Arafat, he said, “If he [Qaddoumi] had such information, why did he remain
silent for five years? His silence is complicity. There must be
international sides who planned these accusations with Qaddoumi.”

View this article at Israel Behind the News

The Philadelphia Bulletin: Hezbollah Irked by Hariri Connection

by David Bedein

Der Spiegel’s revelation of Hezbollah’s alleged involvement in the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri remains in the media spotlight.

Hezbollah Secretary General Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah has accused Israel of being behind the supposedly false report, but the journalist who wrote the report is standing behind it.

“Every single word is the truth,” said Erich Follath, the journalist who authored the report.

The article was published, probably not coincidently, just two weeks before the Lebanese parliamentary elections, which a Shiite-Christian bloc under Mr. Nasrallah’s leadership is now participating in. The high echelons in the movement fear an attempt to connect them to the assassination could affect the voter’s choice.

Mr. Hariri, who was killed in a major explosion on Feb. 14, 2005, was popular among many sectors in the population, not just among Sunnis.

“This is an exceedingly dangerous article,” admitted Mr. Nasrallah in a speech aired earlier this week. “We regard it as an Israeli accusation.”

He added that the event that set off the Lebanese Civil War in April 1975 was no less severe.

The report in the German magazine detailed the role played by Hezbollah intelligence operatives in the operation and essentially exonerated the prime suspect to date - the Syrian leadership.

Mr. Follath says he based his report on documents from the U.N. tribunal established to investigate the Hariri assassination. He insists the documents are authentic and that he double-checked every fact before publishing his report.

“I am pleased with Hassan Nasrallah’s assault against me,” he told the newspaper Asharq al-Awsat. “Today I am more confident than ever about the article.”

Israel fears Mr. Nasrallah’s bloc will strengthen and score a significant hold over Lebanon. As a result, Israel has expressed its concern over Vice President Joe Biden’s statement the U.S. government plans to give the Lebanese military equipment, including tanks and warplanes.

Media outlets in Lebanon have reported the equipment will be transferred regardless of the election’s outcome in order to strengthen the Lebanese military against hostile forces.

Senior officials in the security establishment said in recent days: “Every weapon making its way to Lebanon will make its way to Hezbollah when the time has come.”

Another Israeli security source said: “Hezbollah is the dominant military force. The American declaration is testimony of its lack of understanding of the events in Lebanon.”

View this story in the Philadelphia Bulletin
View this story at Israel Behind the News

The Philadelphia Bulletin: Obama to Provide Weapons to Lebanon, Morocco

by David Bedein

The United States plans to send an unprecedented array of offensive military systems to Lebanon and to Morocco.

The Obama administration has approved the delivery of missiles, artillery and main battle tanks to the Lebanese Army. This would mark the first offensive systems to Lebanon since the 1980s.

Meanwhile, on May 22, Vice President Joseph Biden visited Beirut and announced the administration was preparing to deliver a range of offensive military platforms to Lebanon.

Since 2006, the United States has relayed $410 million in military aid to Lebanon. Most of the aid has gone for Humvee combat vehicles, light ammunition and training.

Meanwhile, Morocco requested a U.S.-origin G-550 aircraft from Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation.

This marked the second Moroccan request for U.S. aircraft since 2007. The first request by Morocco was for 24 F-16 Block 52+ aircraft in a $2.4 billion deal.

A Pentagon agency said Morocco has requested one Gulfstream G-550 transport aircraft, one spare BR700-710C4-11 GmbH engine, aircraft ferry services, spare and repair parts, as well as training and logistics.

View this story in the Philadelphia Bulletin
View this story at Israel Behind the News

The Philadelphia Bulletin: Report - Gaza As A Strategic Juncture For Insurgent Operations For Iran

by David Bedein

A report published by the Herzlia, Israel-based Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center says Iran regards Gaza as a strategic crossroads for insurgent operations in both Asia and Africa.

It also says Iran regards the Hamas regime in the Gaza Strip as a regional power it can use to challenge Israel and its neighbors.

The report titled “Exposure of a Hezbollah network in Egypt” indicates Iran views the Hamas presence in the Gaza Strip as a convenient staging ground for staging terrorist attacks against Israel and in its fight with pro-Western Arab governments.

The report said the Iranian-sponsored Hezbollah has been helping Hamas’ military buildup in the Gaza Strip, despite Hamas’ refusal to “fully comply with Iranian dictates.”

“Iran considers the establishment of the radical Islamic entity in the Gaza Strip to be an important leverage for waging an armed struggle against Israel along its southern border by providing Palestinian terrorist organizations with rocket capabilities as Iran did with Hezbollah in Lebanon,” the report said. “What is more, the Iranians consider the Hamas-controlled Islamist Gaza Strip to be a regional power which they can use to increase their influence in the Arab and Muslim world, pose a considerable challenge to Abu Mazen [Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas], and export radical Islam to such pro-Western Arab countries as Egypt, using that country’s geographical proximity to the Gaza Strip.”

The report also said Iranian aid to the Gaza Strip was highlighted by the capture of a Hezbollah cell in Egypt in late 2008. Hezbollah reportedly operated Unit 1800, a unit assigned to establish operational terror cells to attack Israel from neighboring Arab states.

“It is also our assessment that those operatives had undergone training in Iran, Syria and Lebanon and had been brought back to the Gaza Strip with the assistance of Hezbollah,” the report said.

Hezbollah’s network in Egypt reportedly facilitated a weapons smuggling route through Sudan, Egypt and the Gaza Strip since at least 2005. The network, which acquired C4 plastic explosives and smuggled trained fighters to the Gaza Strip, was said to have planned attacks on Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula.

“The exposure of the Hezbollah network, which not only provided Gaza Strip terrorist organizations with logistical assistance but was also planning to perpetrate terrorist attacks on Egyptian soil, was a warning sign the Egyptians could not ignore,” the report said.

See this story in the Philadelphia Bulletin
See this story at Israel Behind the News

The Philadelphia Bulletin: Hamas Looks to Offset Dependency on Iran

by David Bedein

The Middle East Newsline has revealed that the Hamas regime in Gaza has sought military assistance from other Islamic countries to offset dependency on Iran.

According to Hamas sources, the Islamist leadership in Gaza City has decided to acquire military training and assistance from countries other than Iran and Syria. They said the Hamas policy was drafted in the wake of the war with Israel because Hamas was virtually entirely dependent on Tehran during the conflict.

“There is no intention to replace Iran, which remains important,” a Hamas source said. “But much of Iranian guidance was not relevant for us in the war.”

The sources said Iranian military tactics taught to Hamas in 2008 were ineffective against Israel. They said the Hamas tactics were based on doctrine adopted by the Iranian-sponsored Hezbollah, located in the mountainous areas of southern Lebanon. The Gaza Strip is a flat area that is much smaller than Lebanon.

Over the last few months, Hamas has maintained contact with several potential sources of military assistance. The sources identified them as Algeria, Morocco, Sudan and Turkey.

The sources said Sudan would provide most of the training for Hamas while serving as a key supplier of weapons. They said Turkey, under the auspices of the ruling Justice and Development Party, has also been quietly training Hamas personnel in security tactics.

“Hamas got 20 academic scholarships for internal security training from Turkey to fight Fatah,” a Hamas military source said.

A Hamas military investigation determined numerous flaws in combat doctrine during the 22-day war with Hamas. The sources said 3,000 Hamas officers were investigated and 50 field commanders were dismissed.

The investigation recommended that Hamas acquire proven combat systems from foreign suppliers rather than seek to produce indigenous weapons, such as the Qassam-class, short-range rocket.

The probe also urged Hamas to focus on the procurement of Russian-origin rather than on U.S. air defense systems, such as the Stinger.

See this story in the Philadelphia Bulletin
See this story at Israel Behind the News

Clinton Visits Israel

Secretary Of State Talks About Gaza Aid, Envoys To Syria

Yesterday, Hillary Rodham Clinton spent a day in Israel for the first time in her role as the Secretary of State.

The first matter of business that Mrs. Clinton addressed upon her Jerusalem arrival was Gaza.

The report that she gave to Israel from Monday’s conference in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt - where 81 kings, presidents, prime ministers, foreign ministers and representatives of aid organizations pledged $5 billion to aid Gaza - topped her agenda. The Israeli government had requested an invitation to the conference; however, organizers were adamant in their response to Jerusalem: “You are not invited.”

Mrs. Clinton opened her remarks in Israel by saying the U.S. would transfer $900 million to the Palestinians: $300 million for rebuilding Gaza and $600 million to be deposited with Palestinian Authority (PA) Prime Minister Salam Fayyad for developing economic projects in the West Bank.

Throughout her one-day visit to Israel, Mrs. Clinton addressed the contentious issue of how the American government and the other 80 donor nations could transfer funds to Gaza without the funds going through Hamas, which maintains a tight totalitarian grip on Gaza.

However, Mrs. Clinton’s spokesman brushed off the query posed by The Bulletin as to how she could prevent American government funds from finding their way into Hamas’ hands in Gaza, because Mr. Fayyad acts in accordance with the Mecca Accord of March 2007. The Mecca Accord, agreed to in Saudi Arabia by the representatives of Hamas and the Palestinian Authority (PA), obligates the PA to pay Hamas salaries in Gaza, including for armed Hamas military units that continue to fire rockets into Israeli communities throughout the Western Negev region.

Hamas has fired 120 times into Israel from Gaza since the Israeli government declared a self-imposed cease-fire on Jan. 18, after 22 days of an Israeli military incursion into Gaza, which Israel launched with the aim of stopping Hamas from firing into Israel.

With $5 billion of pledges in hand, even while Hamas continues attacks on Israel, the Israeli intelligence community believes Hamas will be the main beneficiary of the Sharm el-Sheikh conference.

An Israeli intelligence officials said, “Only Hamas will benefit from Gaza’s rebuilding - and not the people of Gaza. Hamas can further consolidate and strengthen its rule and impose Islamic hegemony on Gaza.”

Mrs. Clinton also announced she plans to dispatch two emissaries to Syria: Mr. Jeffrey Feltman, a former U.S. ambassador to Lebanon and now acting assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs, and Dan Shapiro, head of the Middle East desk of the White House’s National Security Council.

What no one reported, however, is Mr. Shapiro is far from popular in Syria because he was one of the key congressional staffers who authored the bipartisan-backed Syria Accountability Act, which was signed into law in May 2004.

The act’s purpose was to force the American government to act against Syrian support for terrorism, to end Syria’s presence in Lebanon, to top Syria’s development of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and to stem Syrian shipments of military items to anti-U.S. forces in Iraq. By dispatching one of the key players of the Syria Accountability Act to Damascus, Mrs. Clinton conveyed a double message from Jerusalem to Syria: The United States will launch a dialogue with Syria, yet only in the context of the Syria Accountability Act.

View the original article in the Philadelphia Bulletin

The Philadelphia Bulletin: On the Eve of the Pennsylvania Primary, the Philadelphia Bulletin interviews Obama's Middle East Advisors

On the Eve of the Pennsylvania Primary, the Philadelphia Bulletin interviews Obama's Middle East Advisors

by David Bedein

During the week before the Pennsylvania primary, I met with Sen. Barack Obama's middle east advisers in Washington, Howard Guttman and former Californian Congressman Mel Levine, along with another Obama Middle East aide who spoke on condition of anonymity, in my capacity as the Middle East Correspondent of the Philadelphia Bulletin.

These are the questions The Bulletin posed to Mr. Obama's Middle East advisers and the responses that they provided:

1. How would a President Obama relate to the security threat posed by Saudi Arabia? [Declassified security reports confirm that Saudi Arabia continues to fund groups defined by the U.S. government as terrorist organizations, while Saudi Arabia maintains an active state of war against the state of Israel since 1948.]

None of Mr. Obama's advisers could answer this question.

2. Does Mr. Obama support President Bush's policy of arming the Saudis? [The Bush administration offers major arms sales to Saudi Arabia, despite its pro-terror posture]

Neither Guttman nor Levine could tell The Bulletin whether or not Mr. Obama supports the Bush arms sales to Saudi Arabia. They checked with Mr. Obama and could not get an answer.

3. Would a President Obama support the idea that Palestinian refugees should reside in UNRWA refugee camps, under the premise and promise of the "right of return," instead of being provided with decent living conditions?

While each of Mr. Obama's advisers emphasized that the candidate opposed the Palestinian "right of return," none of them could find out what Mr. Obama's position is concerning continuing American government funding for the UNRWA agency, which fuels the right of return.

4. Would a President Obama continue Mr. Bush's policy to arm the Fatah organization, since the armed forces of the Fatah are defined by American law as an illegal terrorist organization?

The Obama advisor who spoke on condition of anonymity answered that Mr. Obama wants to continue the policy of developing Fatah as a moderate entity.

5. Would a President Obama ask for a change in the proposed constitution of the Palestinian Fatah state, which is based on the Islamic sharia law, and not allow for juridical status for any religion other than Islam?

All three Obama advisers promised to check this out with the senator. None of them could provide an answer.

6. Would a President Obama restrain Israel from counterattacking in Gaza to put an end to the daily missile attacks from Gaza, as the Bush administration has done?

Mr. Obama's advisers responded that "Israel has a right to defend itself."

7. Would a President Obama recognize that Palestinian civilian casualties in Gaza are a direct result of their use of human shields?

Mr. Obama's advisers answered that "Sen. Obama regards the operations of terrorist organizations as intolerable."

8. Would a President Obama allow such a policy to continue where the Palestinian Authority (PA) continues to harbor terrorists suspected of murder and refuses to hand them over for trial, as the Clinton and Bush administrations have done?

Mr. Obama's advisers were more emphatic on this point, stating that Mr. Obama's policy would "oppose all attempts to harbor terrorists by the Palestinian Authority."

9. Would a President Obama condition future U.S. assistance on human rights and civil liberties reform in the PA, since the PA operates with no system of civil liberties or human rights?

In another emphatic statement, each of Mr. Obama's advisers stated that a President Obama would insist on the implementation of a policy that would stand up for human rights and civil liberties in the Palestinian Authority.

10. Would a President Obama ignore the plight of Christians who are persecuted in the PA, or would he champion the cause of the Christians to practice their religion freely in the PA, since the U.S. consulate in Jerusalem has refused to render assistance to Christians who are persecuted by the PA?

Mr. Obama's advisers promised an answer to The Bulletin with an answer to this question but did not do so.

11. What would the policy of a President Obama be to Syria in regard to Syria's continuing to host and support a plethora of terror groups?

All three of Obama's advisers indicated that they would review new directives to the Syrian government in this regard.

12. Would a President Obama support an effort to destroy the Syrian source of lethal narcotics in the Bekka Valley, since Syria continues to orchestrate the export of lethal narcotics to the world?

Mr. Obama's advisers could not answer this question.

13. Would a President Obama support an effort to force Israel to withdraw from Golan, since the Golan Heights was used by Syria between 1949 and 1967 to attack Israeli communities in Galilee?

All three of Mr. Obama's advisers answered that "Obama does not believe in pressuring Israel" on any matter related to Syria.

14. Which Middle East road map would a President Obama endorse: the road map of April 30, 2003, or that of May 25, 2003? [The second road map contains the reservations of Israel, which include detailed Israeli directives to disband terror groups as a precondition to continued negotiations.]

Mr. Obama's three advisers referred this policy question to a top adviser to Mr. Obama. However, they would not give an answer to this question to The Bulletin.

15. Would a President Obama continue the Clinton/Bush policy of ignoring the fact that the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) never ratified the Oslo Accord and never canceled the PLO charter? [The Clinton and Bush administrations overlooked the fact that the PLO never ratified the Oslo Accord "declaration of principles," which required the PLO and Fatah to recognize Israel, denounce terror and cancel the PLO/Fatah charter, which calls for Israel's obliteration. It will be recalled that the PLO signed the Oslo Accords on the White House lawn on September 13, 1993, and would not ratify these accords when the PLO executive convened on October 6, 1993, in Tunis and would not cancel the PLO charter when the PNC convened on April 24, 1996.]

Mr. Obama's advisers concurred that a President Obama would insist on a formal PLO ratification of the Oslo Accords and cancellation of the PLO covenant.

16. Would a President Obama issue a directive that any aid to the PA require a cessation of calls to terrorism by the official Arabic language outlets of the PA? [The Clinton and Bush administration consistently ignored the message communicated by the newly constituted PA in the Arabic language, which has communicated a language of war on Israel since the inception of the PA in 1993.]

Mr. Obama's advisers said that Mr. Obama would institute "a policy of no tolerance of incitement."

17. Would a President Obama call for a cancellation of the PA educational curriculum, which inculcates the next generation to continue a war to liberate all of Palestine, which can be seen at www.edume.org?

Mr. Obama's advisers indicated that Mr. Obama would see this as part of a "policy of no tolerance for incitement."

18. Would a President Obama insist on future Israeli withdrawals, since the Gaza withdrawal indicates that Palestinians will use areas under their control to launch missile attacks against Israel?

The Obama adviser who spoke on condition of anonymity answered that the "Gaza and Lebanon precedent should be taken into consideration," considering the fact that Israel is ready for compromise.

"Tension in the North"

Posting: April 2, 2008

"Tension in the North"

A report by a 'top military intelligence officer" to the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee yesterday included a warning that Hezbollah is getting ready for new violence along the border with Israel.

A "change in preparedness" south of the Litani River has been detected, which UNIFIL is unable to prevent. While UNIFIL monitors open areas, it is prohibited from entering southern Lebanese villages and towns without coordination with the Lebanese army, and it is precisely in these areas that Hezbollah is increasing operations, with operatives dressed as civilians. (The ultimate outcome of this situation is painfully easy to predict, as we take on Hezbollah operatives and are condemned for hitting "civilians.")

This report clarifies Defense Minister Barak's motives in touring the northern border yesterday and making a statement that "Israel is the strongest country in the region, and I wouldn't recommend that anyone provoke us. Hezbollah is becoming stronger, but so are we. The IDF is prepared for all eventualities. We watch the pastoral calm, and we know that other things are seething beneath the surface."

~~~~~~~~~~

While, today, al-Quds al-Arabi, in London, has reported that Damascus is summoning its reserves and concentrating its forces along the Lebanese border in anticipation of an Israeli attack on Hezbollah and Syria.

This has been denied by a member of Syrian's National Security Committee, which says Hezbollah is quite capable of taking care of itself.

None the less, Barak is taking it all seriously enough so that he has cancelled a trip out of the country. And Deputy Chief of Staff Maj. Dan Harel said today that "anyone who attempts to attack Israel should bear in mind that the response will be harsh and painful." Both, however, at one and the same time, have indicated that nothing is imminent.

The paper additionally said that Hezbollah is currently refraining from exacting revenge for the murder of Mughniyeh at this time, so as to not give Israel an "excuse" to attack. If this is true, it would be a significant indicator of Israeli deterrence.

~~~~~~~~~~

I offer here two cautionary notes regarding not believing everything you hear (or read):

In an interview published yesterday in Al Aayam, a Palestinian paper, Khaled Mashaal, political head of Hamas in Damascus says that Hamas accepts a state defined by '67 lines. Not spoken, but implied here is that Hamas accepts Israel within the Green Line. His source for this is the Prisoners Document, which was drafted in Israeli prison by Hamas and Fatah prisoners, calling for a Palestinian state on all the territories occupied in 1967, with Jerusalem as its capital.

However (and this is a huge 'however'), the document says nothing about accepting the right of Israel to exist within those '67 lines.

~~~~~~~~~~

The second incident involves WHO (the World Health Organization) of the UN. At a press conference yesterday in Jerusalem, Ambrogio Manenti, the head of WHO in Gaza and the West Bank, said that Israeli policy with regard to bringing Gazans who require medical treatment into Israel was "inhumane."

Manenti's charge is that sick Gazans have to wait so long for security clearance that they die before they can be brought in.

Col. Nir Press, commander of the IDF's Gaza Coordination and Liaison Administration, responded to these charges, saying that they were "one-sided, inaccurate and misleading."

He pointed out that while stringent security checks were necessary because on occasion there are attempts to smuggle suicide bombers into Israel using the ruse of illness, over 90% of those requesting treatment in Israeli hospitals receive clearance. And the other 10% is provided with an opportunity to utilize a shuttle across Israel to go into Jordan for treatment.

To illustrate the problem, Manenti had highlighted five cases of Gazans who had allegedly died waiting for clearance. Press said, however, that all five had clearance to come into Israel and two in fact had received treatment in Israel; the others had been held up by internal factors inside of Gaza and not by lack of clearance.

In 2007, 7,226 permits were granted to sick Palestinians to travel to Israel, an increase of over 50% from 2006 when 4,754 were allowed in. in the first quarter of 2008, 2,000 ill persons from Gaza have already been brought to Israeli hospitals. I recently wrote the story of premature twins of a Palestinian mother from Gaza, in Barzelai hospital in Ashkelon, who were brought into the bomb shelter when a Katyusha was shot near the hospital from Gaza.

~~~~~~~~~~

Yet one other concession that Barak has indicated willingness to consider, at the prodding of Rice, is the granting of permission for the PA to monitor the Gaza side of the Erez and Karni crossings into Israel, if the violence stops. In this, he is would be on a collision course with the IDF, which is adamantly opposed. Two officers have spoken out: OC Southern Command Maj.-Gen. Yoav Galant and Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories Maj.-Gen. Yussef Mishlev.

As one defense official rightly explained it, "How can we let Abbas deploy forces there while Hamas is in control of Gaza?" Indeed, how can we? There is the suggestion that even Barak, who said it would be "considered," knows we cannot.

~~~~~~~~~~

Posting: April 1, 2008

"Surreal"

Even in the irrational environment with which we are coping, this gets a "most surreal" award:

Khaled Mashaal, political head of Hamas in Damascus, has given an interview. He explained that Israel has turned down an offer to restrict the attacks on both sides -- that is, by Israel and by Hamas in Gaza -- to only military targets, leaving civilians out of it.

This is a blatant set up, of course. For we here in Israel truly have military bases that might be targets and areas that are exclusively civilian. We are careful not to merge the two. But Hamas puts its terrorist activities and weapons inside civilian areas on purpose. Thus, if Israel were to commit to never attacking where there are civilians, there would be no opportunity to attack terrorists for fear of accidental injury to civilians. Hamas would have perfect cover and a free ride to do as it wished.

But read further for the surreal part of Mashaal's statement. Implying that with their current weapons Hamas would find it difficult to accurately target just military bases, even if that were its intention, he then said:

"We have primitive weapons. I ask the international community and the Americans to give us more advanced weapons so we can shoot more accurately."

I am not making this up.

Several things need to be clarified with regard to this:

Yes, Kassams are relatively simple home-made rockets. But they are also now in possession of Grad Katyushas and other more sophisticated weapons, and working every day to improve the accuracy even of the Kassam. When they hit places like Sderot, it is not because they aimed for a military base and accidentally hit civilians -- they are aiming directly for that civilian population; the inaccuracy means they can't be sure if they will hit a school, or a house three blocks away.

Mashaal maintains that Hamas has the right and the obligation to keep shooting to combat the "occupation." "This is ordinary behavior" -- as the Americans fought the British during the revolution, and the French fought the Nazis.

~~~~~~~~~~

Mashaal also alluded to the third party negotiations with Israel on the release of Shalit, claiming that Hamas was ready to strike a deal but that Israel is the stumbling block. We refuse, you see, to OK everyone on Hamas's list of 1,000 prisoners it demands be released.

It should be noted that Marwan Barghouti, a Fatah terrorist leader, was on the list.

~~~~~~~~~~

Lastly, Mashaal had words for Abbas: "We invite Mr. Abbas to come for unconditional talks in Gaza. Talks on how to address the reasons for the split, to return Gaza and the West Bank to unity and solve the security problem."

I believe it is only a matter of time until there are overt, public dealings (negotiations and cooperation at least if not a full unity gov't) between Fatah and Hamas. Abbas is currently playing both ends against the middle, avoiding that overt contact so that American largesse continues. But the fact that there is no overt contact doesn't mean that there is nothing going on in back rooms between the two groups.

What I noticed is that the agreement signed in Yemen has totally disappeared from the radar screen. Fatah backed off, saying there were "errors" in the signing, but to the best of my knowledge didn't totally disavow the understanding. And then, nothing further reported.

~~~~~~~~~~

We must return to Rice and Barak and Olmert, for the scenario in which they are actors has not yet played itself out.

After finishing meetings here in Israel, and amidst a flurry of very "optimistic" statements about how well things were going and the possibility that there might be an agreement before Bush comes in May, Rice went off to meet with Abbas.

Even on the plane, as I understand it, she began to question our sincerity in enacting all of the concessions that Barak presented her with. She indicated that the US would be watching us very closely to make sure we did what we have said we would, and quickly. In fact, she has charged General Fraser with monitoring this.

"General Fraser will be following up on the specifics and will be also... making certain that in fact there are 50 [roadblocks] and they are being removed."

A nasty tone, after her expression of being "amazed " at what we offered. But will the US also be closely monitoring PA progress in stopping terrorism? She didn't say so.

~~~~~~~~~~

To provide further evidence of our sincerity, Barak then made another announcement: He is considering allowing PA forces into Hevron and Tulkarm after the 700 already announced are deployed in Jenin. Hevron is the worst of options, as there is a Jewish community there, which is not the case in Jenin or Tulkarm. And that Jewish community recognizes this as a direct threat to their security.

"It would be extremely dangerous," said community spokesperson David Wilder. "The community is already under constant attack." He revealed that shots were recently fired at his apartment, leaving a hole in his son's closet. "Today a rock was thrown into the home of a family that lives next to me... The violence is continuing."

~~~~~~~~~~

Additionally, the announcement was made that we have already removed two roadblocks in the Jericho area and are also removing the Rimonim roadblock near Ramallah. The Yesha council expressed anger at this. The change in the situation, allowing Palestinians more "freedom of movement," means they will be free to come into areas where presently they do not have access, and there is likely to be an increase in weapon smuggling. There is concern, as well, about drive-by shootings.

Yesterday, there was an attempted terrorist attack at a hitchhikers station near the community of Shilo. A Palestinian -- not immediately recognizable as such -- approached two Israelis at the junction. When he suddenly shouted "Alah Akbar" ("God is great" -- the standard cry of terrorists attempting to kill Jews) and pulled out a knife in an attempt to stab them, one of the Israelis -- Erez Bar-On of Ofra -- stepped back, took out his personal gun and shot him. Police later discovered a second knife on the terrorist, a student from Birzeit University, who died.

Bar-On, in interview, expressed great disapproval of the government decision, saying that providing Palestinians with more freedom of movement increases the likelihood of such incidents.

~~~~~~~~~~

You may remember the story of David Landau, who was then, but no longer is, editor of Haaretz: At a dinner with Condoleezza Rice some months ago, he advised Rice to "rape" Israel, meaning forcing us into things we would not want to do.

Yisrael Medad, on his blog site today recounts this:

"I ran into David Landau yesterday at a funeral. I told him that he should watch the way he talks, referring to 'raping Israel' and all that. "He smiled and retorted: 'I meant what I said and I understand Condi Rice has taken my advice.'"

No comment is necessary.

~~~~~~~~~~

When Rice met here with Olmert, he told her (and I'll get to this below) that Israel would continue to build in major existing communities in Judea and Samaria as well as in neighborhoods of Jerusalem beyond the Green Line. In the subsequent press conference with Abbas, Rice lambasted us for this, saying that it was counter productive to "peace." (Note that she didn't lambaste the PA, when making her statement to the press here, for failure to clamp down on terrorism.)

What is happening -- which I've described before -- is that Olmert is caught between demands of Rice and demands of Shas. The only time he really says no to Rice (and it shows he can do so if he wishes to!) is when his coalition is threatened. Shas threatens to leave if building isn't done.

And so there has now been an announcement that 600 units will go up in Pisgat Ze'ev, a northern Jerusalem neighborhood. (I confess that this confuses me a bit, as I am sure I read about this some weeks ago; perhaps it was not finalized until now.) And there is word that Olmert has assured Shas that the freeze on building in the major community of Betar Illit, which is beyond Jerusalem, will be lifted as well, and that 800 units will go up there.

Shas members are patting themselves on the back for these accomplishments, and pointing to them, once again, as a reason to stay in the coalition. In point of fact, more would be accomplished if they left the coalition.

~~~~~~~~~~

It is always to the good when Olmert is put in the position of resisting Rice's demands, and shows willingness to protect our right to build in Jewish areas. Israel's stance is that we have a right to build within eastern Jerusalem and Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria that we are likely to keep in a settlement, and that this is consistent with international understandings.

"It is not true that we are building in violation of our obligations," Olmert said to his Kadima faction at a meeting in the Knesset. "We are not building new settlements, everyone must understand this... "

"We don't hide our views on Jerusalem and major settlement blocs, we are being honest about everything throughout the negotiations," he said.

I would truly like to think this is so. The PA is demanding our return to the '67 lines, and word has come out that our negotiators are getting ready to accede to this -- which would be a horror. If we are truly holding out for Jerusalem and major settlement blocs, there will be no deal, because the PA simply does NOT compromise.

All of this said, and with acknowledgement to Shas for putting Olmert in this position, it must be noted that Shas is taking heat from its haredi (ultra-Orthodox) constituency, which is looking for more housing. The neighborhoods in which Olmert has approved building are thus haredi, and will serve Shas's constituency.

~~~~~~~~~~

As to Rice's enthusiastic prediction that there might be an agreement by May, she has since backed off on this, and Olmert, as well, has made statements discouraging expectations of a quick agreement.

What is being sought is a general outline of what a Palestinian state would be like in terms of borders, control of Jerusalem and resolution of the refugee issue. This is to be called a Declaration of Principles, and it is supposed to be shelved until all pertinent road map commitments are met. As this requires the PA to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure and cease incitement, it means, in theoretical terms, no enactment of the principles, as least for a generation or more, as I said the other day.

But in reality this is an extremely dangerous process -- I believe so and every serious analyst I have read also says so. Once we've established the "principle" of a Palestinian state, the international community (and this very much includes the US), will cut the PA slack -- as the PA is ALWAYS cut slack -- and we will be pressured to give them that state before they've met their obligations. Thus it is fervently to be hoped that no agreement is reached in principle.

It is being said that "real progress" is being made in the negotiations, but no one outside the immediate process really knows what this means. The expectation is that because the PA cannot and will not compromise, that issues of control of eastern Jerusalem (including the Jewish quarter and the Temple mount) and "return" of refugees will present insurmountable obstacles to finalizing an agreement.

Yoel Marcus, writing in Haaretz, suggests that the clearest indication that the negotiations are mostly hot air is the silence from Shas.

~~~~~~~~~~

Yesterday, to the surprise of many, Barak made a comment about leaving the coalition after all. He is, however, definitely full of hot air with regard to the reason he is giving: that Olmert is accountable for failures during the Lebanon war and that this remains unfinished business because the PM hasn't resigned. This is true enough, but if this were Barak's true concern, he would have pulled out right after Winograd was released.

Never-the-less, Barak, in a meeting with bereaved parents of soldiers, declared, "Elections in two or three years are not a possibility."

I would say he's moving according to his own timetable for maneuvering himself into position to be the next prime minister. One might even speculate as to how his dealings with Rice might have been structured to meet his own agenda.

Amir Peretz who is former chair of Labor and former defense minister, attacked Barak at a Labor faction meeting, saying he was out of touch with reality: "You have an obsession with being prime minister, but you have no agenda. What is your economic agenda? What is your social agenda? What is your political agenda?"

Polls, it must be noted, have Netanyahu and Likud well ahead of Barak and Labor.

~~~~~~~~~~

It has been revealed by a Japanese newspaper, Asahi Shimbun, that when Olmert was in Japan in February, he told officials that last September the IDF operation into Syria targeted a nuclear facility built with North Korea's help.

~~~~~~~~~~

I do not report on a daily basis regarding the attacks on Israel from Gaza, but please don't imagine that it is quiet. On some days 15 or 20 rockets may be launched. Today two mortars hit in the Ashkelon region, causing light injuries.

~~~~~~~~~~

In a talk at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs yesterday, Professor Robert Wishtrich of Hebrew University stated that the UK is the center of European anti-Semitism. There is historical precedent for this, it didn't evolve in modern times: Since medieval times, Britain has been rife with anti-Semitism.

~~~~~~~~~~

Posting: March 30, 2008

"Deplorable"

Well, it was unlikely that Rice, who is here, would have readily walked away without further concessions from Israel for the sake of the "peace process." Some concessions, of some sort, from our craven, appeasing government. But what has taken place is above and beyond.

After Rice met with Defense Minister Barak and PA Prime Minister Fayyad here in Jerusalem, she actually said she was "amazed" by the gestures being advanced by Israel. I don't wonder at her amazement, as this sort of one-sided, tushy-kissing effort to be nice to an entity that in fact wishes us gone is quite breath-taking. But, rather than being "amazed," I'm just plain shocked. And outraged.

Rice announced that a number of concrete actions will be taken to improve the situation.

~~~~~~~~~~

Take a deep breath before reading this list of Barak's major offers:

[] The establishment of a Palestinian city (or series of neighborhoods) north of the town of al-Bireh, outside of Ramallah, to be paid for by a Jordanian businessman, to alleviate housing shortages in the Ramallah area. It would house tens of thousands of Palestinians.

This strikes me as most offensive of all. After the PA screams bloody murder about building a few hundred units in existing communities, and just one day after Abbas lied about this and said we were doing unprecedented building, we make this offer?

[] Increasing the number of laborers allowed into Israel to 5,000.

[] Taking down one checkpoint and 50 roadblocks, in order to ease the movement of Palestinians between the cities of Jenin, Tulkarm, Kalkilya and Ramallah.

As I remember, these roadblocks went up because easy movement between these cities allowed weapons to be transported.

[] Easing of restrictions on Palestinian public figures.

But just about a week ago a Palestinian official was caught smuggling large numbers of phones from Jordan.

[] Easing security checks for Palestinian businessmen.

Of course, a businessman would never aid a terrorist.

Barak further suggested:

[] Upgrading the infrastructure for aiding the Palestinians waiting at the crossings, the cost of which is estimated at NIS 8.3 million.

[] Transferring 325 cars and logistic equipment from the IDF to the Palestinian security organizations, including generators, blankets and first aid kits.

~~~~~~~~~~

I have on occasion commented that our leaders who take such actions are crazy. But I've been cautioned by some readers to avoid saying that, because truly crazy people are absolved of responsibility for their actions -- and the comment is on the mark.

What I will say, instead, is that this is very sick, but that Barak remains fully responsible for his decisions.

~~~~~~~~~~

You may be wondering what the PA will be offering in all of this. After all, Fayyad and Barak met together to put forward suggests to improve the situation.

Well, it was agreed that the Palestinian security forces must assume "greater responsibility."

I did not note a precise delineation of responsibility for what.

They also agreed to step up efforts to "prevent terror."

Again, that vagueness. Nothing that could be quantified or measured -- the way Barak's promises on taking down 50 roadblocks or allowing 5,000 laborers into Israel can be measured.

I heard tonight, by the way, from a very reliable source that Rice said today that the US would be watching Israel closely to see that these commitments were honored.

But the Palestinians? Hey, they can say they made an effort to prevent terror, they gave it their best.

~~~~~~~~~~

And Fayyad? This particular son of a bitch refused to make a public statement with Olmert and Rice. Take all that's offered, but not be seen to be too close to Israeli leader, who is an enemy of Palestine, after all. The photo op would not have served him in the street, which admires Hamas.

~~~~~~~~~~

And as if this is not bad enough, Barak and Olmert are making gestures to Syria regarding resuming peace negotiations.

From a military perspective this is a disaster. I heard Maj. Gen (res) Yaakov Amidror -- former Commander of the IDF's National Defense College and currently with the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs -- speak on a panel sponsored by Likud Anglo tonight. As Syria's demand for peace is return of the Golan Heights, his assessment was that negotiating peace with Syria might mean we would ultimately find ourselves fighting Iranians in the Galil.

Another panel member, Dan Diker -- Director of the Institute for Contemporary Affairs and a Senior Foreign Policy Analyst at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs -- made this incisive observation: Timing is everything. We have just seen that heads of major Arab countries are snubbing Syria by not participating in the conference in Damascus. And now? Now is the time we pick to undercut that message and confer legitimacy on Syria by reaching out to Assad?

A theme of this panel was the recognition that concessions don't work. Israel, in 1993, had the notion that the more we gave the more the world would respect us. But the reverse has happened, as the world has lost respect for us and has stopped understanding that we have legitimate rights in this land. As we fail to stand up for ourselves, it is the Palestinian narrative that is being internalized internationally.

~~~~~~~~~~

One last comment before closing: I heard it tonight from an American with major contacts (as I've hard it before from an international lawyer here with Washington DC connections): Rice is running the show, and she's doing the work of Saudi Arabia. But Bush's attitude towards Israel is not the same as Rice's. He is being seriously misled: By Rice, whom he trusts, and by the PA leaders, whose lovely words of peace he trusts, and by the Israeli leaders, who tell him how much we're willing to give up.

It may be futile. But it must be attempted at every juncture, calling on every possible political contact, sending every possible message: Bush needs to be provided with the realities.

~~~~~~~~~~

Posting: March 29, 2008

Motzei Shabbat (after Shabbat)

"Regarding Abbas"

An Arab summit is being held in Damascus this weekend, but is being boycotted by several Arab nations: Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon. The refusal to come was meant clearly to send a message of displeasure to Syria for its association with Iran, and its support of Hamas and Hezbollah.

According to an AP report that ran in the Post:

"'There are now two axes - Iran, Syria, Hamas and Hezbollah are on one side and the rest are on the other,' said Wahid Abdel-Meguid of the Cairo-based Al-Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies.

"Arab summits are all about protocol and symbolism, and in that language, the show of disdain from top US-allies Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan could not be more clear.

"In an unprecedented move, they are sending minor officials rather than their heads of state - or even their prime ministers or foreign ministers.

"Even Yemen's President Ali Abdullah Saleh decided Friday not to come, sending his vice president in his place... 'Syria is losing friends, one after the other,' said Mansour Hayal, a Yemeni political analyst."

~~~~~~~~~~

Uh huh... But guess who didn't shun the conference? Our "moderate peace partner," Mahmoud Abbas. Tells us a great deal about which side he's on.

And let me share with you what he said at the conference:

"The coming couple of months are decisive. If we don't reach a solution by the end of this year, it means the whole region will be on the verge of a new era of tension and loss of confidence in peace.

"The last few months have witnessed unprecedented Israeli escalation in settlement expansion in Jerusalem and the West Bank. It has become clear that the Israeli government is imposing on the ground the political solution that it wants.

"Negotiations cannot continue under the Israeli bulldozers swallowing our land and building settlements and under the daily Israeli military operations."

He spoke of Israel "brutally" killing innocent Palestinians in Gaza, and he asked those present to "think seriously of Arab... protection for our people," by which he meant troops.

~~~~~~~~~~

You'll forgive my absolutely undiplomatic and impolitic response. This son of a bitch lies through his teeth. "Unprecedented Israeli escalation in settlement expansion"?

Olmert had -- most regrettably --caved completely and put a freeze on any building in eastern Jerusalem or Judea and Samaria. That freeze was lifted minimally, and only in line with what had been approved well prior to Annapolis, because of Olmert's fear of losing his coalition. I do not believe for a second that Abbas doesn't know this. He is inciting.

~~~~~~~~~~

But this charge allows me to return briefly here to the issue of settlements and why they do not constitute a stumbling block to peace.

First, it must be noted that the underlying assumption here -- which is outrageous -- is that everything outside the Green Line "belongs" to the PA, and is thus area upon which we have no right to build. That I've recently exposed as fallacious in terms of history and international law. Israel's final borders have yet to be negotiated.

What I want to advance here are a few other perspectives, which the world would do well to consider.

-- When Sharon decided to withdraw from Gaza in 2005, he pulled out all of the settlements of Gush Katif. I am not applauding this; I, in fact, deplore what happened. But it did happen, and it provides evidence for the fact that if there is Israeli intent withdrawals are possible.

My own position most strongly is that there should be no withdrawals and we should stand on our rights to the land. But the international community should begin to realize that stopping all construction is not necessary for peace negotiations to continue. Instead of making the "settlements" the whipping boy, let there first be a total elimination of terrorism, and let there be sincere negotiations with genuine desire on the other side for a two-state solution. Then let Israel and her genuine peace partner work out what should be relinquished by Israel and what not. Before that day comes (and we're talking more than a generation from now at a minimum), to demand of Israel that there be no building to accommodate natural growth in existing communities is nonsense. And natural growth in existing communities is all that has been sanctioned.

Then too, there is this thought: Why is it assumed by the international community that the PA has a right to a territory that is Judenrein? They charge us with apartheid, but this demand, which truly reflects apartheid thinking, elicits no reproach. It is a given: They want the land, and so Jews can't live there. Why is it that there would be hell to pay if we tried to move out all Arabs living in Israel, but that the same standard doesn't apply to the PA? Why cannot it be said that those Jews who remain in areas that would be going to the PA would be offered the option of remaining?

I feel driven to clarify again that I am not advocating any of this. I am merely pointing out the double standard that is at work and the unreasonable approach that is being taken with regard to this matter.

-- I will add here that while there is screaming about our building in eastern Jerusalem, Arabs are doing a huge amount of illegal building to which scant attention is paid. Double standard indeed!

~~~~~~~~~~

Let's return to Abbas for just a moment. With everything else, according to Khaled Abu Toameh, reporting in yesterday's Post, Abbas's Fatah is contending with an unprecedented rash of scandals that further weakens it.

"Remarked [a] Fatah representative: 'Fatah has lost much of what's left of its credibility. If we hold a free election in the West Bank tomorrow, it's almost certain that Hamas will win.'"

The scandals include accusations that Ahmed Qurei, who heads the PA negotiating team, deposited $3 million of PLO money in his accounts. Additionally, large shipments of expired medicine that had been illegally smuggled into the West Bank have been confiscated, with "dozens of physicians, pharmacists and officials from the PA's Ministry of Health are currently being interrogated for their alleged role in the medicine scandal, which is believed to have resulted in the death of many patients."

For details on these scandals and others see:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1206632349492&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

~~~~~~~~~~

Posting: March 28, 2008

"Dangerous Stupidity"

The stupidity alluded to here pertains both to US and Israeli policy. And it is with regard to the practice of continuing to arm and train Fatah forces in Judea and Samaria.

There is some very irrational notion that it is necessary to "strengthen" Fatah so it can prevent a Hamas takeover. However, the evidence from the recent past provides absolutely no reason to believe that giving Fatah more weapons and more training is going to turn them into a fighting machine that will keep Hamas at bay and that will help to keep Israel safe from terrorists. In fact, the opposite is glaringly obvious to anyone who wishes to pay attention.

Repeatedly over the years since the PA was established, there have been incidents in which weapons and training provided by the US with Israeli sanction were turned against Israel. The very first time this happened was in 1996 and the severity of such situations increased with the second intifada starting in 2000.

~~~~~~~~~~

But that's just one factor of concern. The other is the vast likelihood that these weapons will end up in Hamas hands. That's precisely what happened in Gaza. Fatah was heavily armed by the US so that it might stand against Hamas. When Hamas routed Fatah, they acquired these weapons, which are now being utilized against Israel, and which will make that eventual major operation in Gaza more difficult than it otherwise would have been. Hamas is now in possession of such Fatah equipment as machine guns, thousands of assault rifles, personnel carriers and night vision goggles.

~~~~~~~~~~

What must be understood here -- what is of MAJOR concern -- is the fact that Fatah was not defeated in Gaza because of Hamas superiority. Fatah had better training, better equipment, and a larger number of troops in the field. What they lacked was the will to fight Hamas.

Consider this information from my report on Fatah from in January:

After the rout, The Observer interviewed Abu Obieda, head of the military wing of Hamas, who said, "I expected it to take one month. That is what we planned for and trained for. But then at the beginning all of the Fatah commanders escaped their compounds in ambulances and left for Egypt. They left their men to die. Who could do that?"

Amir Tahiri, reporting in the NY Post, confirmed this, saying that even the four chief bases, claimed to be impregnable, fell within hours as the defenders fled, leaving their equipment behind.

While according to the Economist, Abbas did not declare a state of emergency until his own Gaza house (very large and elaborate, it should be noted) was being ransacked. Middle level officers complained about a lack of leadership: "We had no orders to fight except in self defense."

~~~~~~~~~~

That was in Gaza. Now in Judea and Samaria, even US generals have begun to complain about the lack of effort on the part of the PA to take on terrorism. This is something I've been writing about for months: the reports that security officers say they aren't given orders to shoot at terrorists, etc.

This pattern persists because Fatah (the PA) has no stomach for this fight. As they see it, Hamas and Fatah are all part of the Palestinian people, and there is at heart no disapproval of Hamas terrorism within the ranks of Fatah. The goals are the same, it is only the methods that vary, like a "good cop, bad cop" routine.

Months ago, the assessment of Israeli intelligence was that Hamas was as strong as Fatah in Judea and Samaria. Since then, Hamas has strengthened further and it is clearly understood that only the IDF stands between the PA and a Hamas takeover.

~~~~~~~~~~

Yet, in spite of this, the US, which saw its policy fail so badly in Gaza, and which is in possession of information regarding Hamas strength in Judea and Samaria, and PA failure to fight terrorism... the US decides to adopt precisely the same policy that backfired in Gaza and to back the same losers all over again. The US is funding weapon supplies and training for the PA.

Where are the brains of Rice and company? Where is Bush in all of this? They are setting themselves up for a situation that is doomed to fail. They are making it possible for Hamas to secure better weapons than they would otherwise have had, and ultimately they -- US officials! -- are going to be responsible for Israeli deaths.

And those who head the Israeli government? They behave like US lackeys, instead of officials of a sovereign state. They give statements about how Israeli security must be their first concern, but they don't act in accord with these statements.

~~~~~~~~~~

Now it is in the news that Defense Minister Barak has expressed to the US concern that Hamas may take over Judea and Samaria, and that Israeli gestures to the US may backfire.

Well, good morning! But why didn't he register this concern BEFORE making the gestures. Why didn't he flatly refuse to make the gestures (which are blatantly said to be gestures to the US) because his first responsibility is to protect Israel?

Yet Israel has signed on to allowing the PA to have armored personnel carriers, night vision goggles and a whole lot more.

All in the interests of peace, you understand.

~~~~~~~~~~

Rice is due here tomorrow night. She is coming to push that moribund "peace process." And we must ask, here too, why she thinks Fatah is a viable peace partner for Israel, given the parameters outlined above.

What is particularly infuriating is that she is being "even handed," criticizing both Israel and the PA for "failures" to live up to their commitments. But what she criticizes Israel for are such things as not taking down "illegal outposts," while with the PA the criticism is not fighting terrorism.

These are not parallel issues. The bottom line is that without an elimination of terrorist infrastructure there will be no peace here. Everything else must be on hold until that is accomplished.

As to the issues of communities established beyond the Green Line being an "obstacle to peace," I will discuss this further in the next posting.