Jerusalem - The Middle East Newsline newsletter has uncovered a U.S. State Department which documents that it has detected Syrian efforts to bypass U.S. sanctions imposed on Damascus over the last decade.
In that report, the department's inspector-general said the U.S. embassy foiled several of these Syrian attempts.
"The United States also was able to thwart several Syrian attempts to evade sanctions, thanks to timely embassy warnings," the report, titled "Report of Inspection," said.
These efforts included the use of Arab and European companies to acquire dual-use items from the United States and other Western countries.
In 2003, Congress imposed sanctions designed to ban dual-use exports to Syria. Since then, the White House has occasionally waived provisions in a move that allowed U.S. companies to develop energy resources in Syria, which appears on the State Department's list of terrorist sponsors.
"Reporting on economic sanctions, and the government of Syria's attempts to circumvent them, was superb," the report by deputy inspector-general Harold Geisel said.
The U.S. State Department said U.S. enforcement of sanctions on Syria has been muddled under the administration of President Barack Obama. The report said U.S. diplomats have failed to receive guidance on whether sanctions should be enforced or waived amid Washington's new policy of reconciliation with Damascus.
"The most immediate issue requiring greater clarity concerns economic sanctions," the report said. "There is no front-channel guidance on the issue."
Over the last six months, the administration has approved U.S. exports to Damascus that appear to violate the 2003 sanctions. They include the transfer of Internet technology as well as the sale of aircraft parts.
The report, dated March 2010, said the State Department's Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs must launch an interagency review of U.S. sanctions on Syria. Such a review must provide the U.S. embassy in Damascus with guidelines on sanctions and potential waivers.
"The inspection team reviewed e-mail and informal traffic regarding sanctions and waiver policy, and found several areas in which the guidance appeared to be contradictory," the report said. "There also was inadequate guidance regarding how embassy officers should advise potential U.S. exporters of sanctions and possible waivers."
View this story in the Philadelphia Bulletin
View this story at Israel Behind the News
Showing posts with label Syria. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Syria. Show all posts
Sunday, May 2, 2010
Sunday, April 4, 2010
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
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
Just Say "No": I Get Personally Invited to Help the Obama Administration Engage--and Thus Strengthen--Terrorists
by Professor Barry Rubin
Friedrich Nietzsche famously said, "That which does not kill me makes me
stronger." A good Middle East equivalent, at least among the anti-democratic
forces, would be: That which does not scare me makes me bolder.
Can things get worse with the Obama Administration's foreign-and especially
Middle East--policy? Yes, it's not inevitable but I have just seen
personally a dangerous example of what could be happening next. In fact, I
never expected that the administration would try to recruit me in this
campaign, as you'll see starting with paragraph seven.
First, a little background. One of the main concerns with the Obama
Administration is that it would go beyond just engaging Syria and Iran,
turning a blind eye to radical anti-American activities throughout the
region.
To cite some examples, it has not supported Iraq in its protests about
Syrian-backed terror, even though the group involved is al-Qaida, with which
the United States is supposedly at war. Nor has it launched serious efforts
to counter Iran's help to terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan or even
Tehran's direct cooperation with al-Qaida. We know about many of these
points because of General David Petraeus's remarks, buried in his
congressional testimony but not trumpeted by the mass media.
Beyond this, though, there has been the possibility of the U.S. government
engaging Hizballah. It is inadequate to describe Hizballah as only a
terrorist movement. But it is accurate to describe it as: a Lebanese Shia
revolutionary Islamist movement that seeks to gain control over Lebanon, is
deeply anti-American, is a loyal client of Iran and Syria, uses large
amounts of terrorism, and is committed to Israel's destruction. Hizballah
engages in Lebanese politics, including elections, as one tactic in trying
to fulfill these goals.
We have seen steps by the current British government toward engaging
Hizballah. And the rationale for doing so is based partly on the fact that
Hizballah is now part of the Lebanese governing coalition. Of course, in
playing a role in that coalition, Hizballah tries to ensure Syria-Iranian
hegemony, threatens the lives of American personnel, and other activities
designed to destroy any U.S. influence in the region.
And let's remember that Hizballah may well have been involved in the murder
of courageous politicians and journalists in Lebanon who opposed
Syria-Iran-Hizballah control over their country. True, direct involvement
hasn't been proven but they are accessories since they have done everything
possible to kill the international investigation into the matter. And the
trail certainly leads back to their Syrian patrons.
Here's where I come in. I have received a letter asking me personally to
help with a research project. I have spoken to well-informed people who tell
me that the statements I am about to quote are accurate. It is highly
possible that the link with the Obama Administration is exaggerated, but
this indeed does come from the White House's favorite think tank.
While not mentioning the names of those involved they are known for
supporting the idea that Hizballah is really quite moderate. The letter says
that this is a project for the Center for American Progress and that the
results "will be presented to senior U.S. policymakers in the
administration."
I am asked to participate by giving my opinions on how the United States can
deal with Hizballah "short of engagement" and "would Israeli leaders see
benefit in the U.S. talking with Hizballah about issues which are of crucial
importance to Israel?"
Answer to first question: Oppose it in every way possible.
Answer to second question: What the [insert obscene words I don't use] do
you think they would say!
The letter continues:
"As you've noted, some like John Brennan [advisor to the president on
terrorism] is already thinking about a more flexible policy towards
Hizballah and it would be extremely useful to get your views on this to
ensure anything decided is done properly."
I read this letter-and that impression is confirmed by those knowledgeable
about this project and those involved-as saying that the Center for American
Progress is going to issue a report calling for U.S. engagement with
Hizballah, and that it has been encouraged to do so by important officials
in the Obama Administration.
The phrase "to ensure anything decided is done properly," I take as a
give-away to the fact that they are going to push for direct dealing with
Hizballah but want to be able to say that they had listened to alternative
views.
They merely, I am told by those who know about this project, intend to talk
to some who disagree for appearances' sake and throw in a sentence or two to
give the report the slightest tinge of balance.
The person heading this project has already endangered the lives of brave
Lebanese. For example, he claimed without foundation that Christians were
planning to launch a war on Hizballah, providing a splendid rationale for
Hizballah to murder opponents on the excuse of doing so in self-defense.
Accepting Hizballah rule is defined as the Christians recognizing they are a
minority and trying to get along with their Muslim neighbors.
In other words, those opposing Hizballah are presented as aggressors while
Hizballah is just the reasonable party that wants to get along. Moreover all
this leaves out the community, about the same size as the Christians and
Shia Muslims, that has been leading the resistance to Syria, Iran, and
Hizballah: the Sunni Muslims.
In short, the person directing the project talks like a virtual agent of
Hizballah and its allies, basically repeating what they tell him.
Aside from the fact that Hizballah is not and will not be moderate there are
two other problems that these silly people don't comprehend.
The first is the signal that such statements send to Arabs and especially
Lebanese. Concluding that the United States is selling them out and jumping
onto the side of the Islamist revolutionaries (an idea that sounds
implausible in Washington but very easily accepted as true in Riyadh,
Beirut, Amman, and Cairo), Arab moderates will be demoralized, rush to
become appeasers, and seek to cut their own deals with what they perceive as
the winning side.
The second is the signal that such statements send to the radicals
themselves. Concluding that the United States fears them and acknowledges
their moral superiority and strategic success, they will be more arrogant
and aggressive.
Friedrich Nietzsche famously said, "That which does not kill me makes me
stronger." A good Middle East equivalent would be: That which does not scare
me makes me bolder.
The last time I was in this situation, it involved a government-funded
report about Islamist movements. What I didn't know is that the word had
been passed to the project director from the government agency that he was
supposed to urge engagement with Islamists. The intention was to keep out
anything critical of the idea. At first, then, I was told to my surprise
that my paper would be responded to by another paper written by a supporter
of engaging Islamists.
When my paper was submitted, however, it was apparently too strong, it was
quickly rejected in an insulting way, and I wasn't paid for my work. The fix
was in and those involved were richly rewarded for saying what was wanted,
though the actual implementation of such a policy would be disastrous for
U.S. interests, as well as for millions of Arabs as well as Israelis.
Friends of mine have had similar experiences recently regarding papers
arguing, for example, that engaging Syria is a great idea and that Damascus
can be made moderate and split away from Iran. This is all nonsense, but
honors and money are to be gained by saying such things.
So I'm not going to help provide a fig leaf for something masquerading as a
serious study but set up to advocate a dreadful policy. It would be the
equivalent of participating in a mid-1930s' project designed to show that
Germany had no more ambitions in Europe, a mid-1940s' project that the USSR
wanted to be friends, or a late 1970s' project that Ayatollah Khomeini was a
moderate and that an Islamist Iran would pose no threats.
It's bad enough to live through an era of dangerous and terrible policy
decisions, it's much worse to be complicit in them.
Optional note: I didn't put in links but you can find extensive materials on
British moves toward engaging Hizballah; Brennan's views; Hizballah threats
against U.S. officials; close connections with Iran and Syria, Iranian and
Syrian involvement in anti-American terrorism; and other such matters in my
previous articles.
Professor Barry Rubin is the Director of Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal.
To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books, go to
http://www.gloria-center.org.
To see this and other related stroies, go to Israel Behind the News
Friedrich Nietzsche famously said, "That which does not kill me makes me
stronger." A good Middle East equivalent, at least among the anti-democratic
forces, would be: That which does not scare me makes me bolder.
Can things get worse with the Obama Administration's foreign-and especially
Middle East--policy? Yes, it's not inevitable but I have just seen
personally a dangerous example of what could be happening next. In fact, I
never expected that the administration would try to recruit me in this
campaign, as you'll see starting with paragraph seven.
First, a little background. One of the main concerns with the Obama
Administration is that it would go beyond just engaging Syria and Iran,
turning a blind eye to radical anti-American activities throughout the
region.
To cite some examples, it has not supported Iraq in its protests about
Syrian-backed terror, even though the group involved is al-Qaida, with which
the United States is supposedly at war. Nor has it launched serious efforts
to counter Iran's help to terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan or even
Tehran's direct cooperation with al-Qaida. We know about many of these
points because of General David Petraeus's remarks, buried in his
congressional testimony but not trumpeted by the mass media.
Beyond this, though, there has been the possibility of the U.S. government
engaging Hizballah. It is inadequate to describe Hizballah as only a
terrorist movement. But it is accurate to describe it as: a Lebanese Shia
revolutionary Islamist movement that seeks to gain control over Lebanon, is
deeply anti-American, is a loyal client of Iran and Syria, uses large
amounts of terrorism, and is committed to Israel's destruction. Hizballah
engages in Lebanese politics, including elections, as one tactic in trying
to fulfill these goals.
We have seen steps by the current British government toward engaging
Hizballah. And the rationale for doing so is based partly on the fact that
Hizballah is now part of the Lebanese governing coalition. Of course, in
playing a role in that coalition, Hizballah tries to ensure Syria-Iranian
hegemony, threatens the lives of American personnel, and other activities
designed to destroy any U.S. influence in the region.
And let's remember that Hizballah may well have been involved in the murder
of courageous politicians and journalists in Lebanon who opposed
Syria-Iran-Hizballah control over their country. True, direct involvement
hasn't been proven but they are accessories since they have done everything
possible to kill the international investigation into the matter. And the
trail certainly leads back to their Syrian patrons.
Here's where I come in. I have received a letter asking me personally to
help with a research project. I have spoken to well-informed people who tell
me that the statements I am about to quote are accurate. It is highly
possible that the link with the Obama Administration is exaggerated, but
this indeed does come from the White House's favorite think tank.
While not mentioning the names of those involved they are known for
supporting the idea that Hizballah is really quite moderate. The letter says
that this is a project for the Center for American Progress and that the
results "will be presented to senior U.S. policymakers in the
administration."
I am asked to participate by giving my opinions on how the United States can
deal with Hizballah "short of engagement" and "would Israeli leaders see
benefit in the U.S. talking with Hizballah about issues which are of crucial
importance to Israel?"
Answer to first question: Oppose it in every way possible.
Answer to second question: What the [insert obscene words I don't use] do
you think they would say!
The letter continues:
"As you've noted, some like John Brennan [advisor to the president on
terrorism] is already thinking about a more flexible policy towards
Hizballah and it would be extremely useful to get your views on this to
ensure anything decided is done properly."
I read this letter-and that impression is confirmed by those knowledgeable
about this project and those involved-as saying that the Center for American
Progress is going to issue a report calling for U.S. engagement with
Hizballah, and that it has been encouraged to do so by important officials
in the Obama Administration.
The phrase "to ensure anything decided is done properly," I take as a
give-away to the fact that they are going to push for direct dealing with
Hizballah but want to be able to say that they had listened to alternative
views.
They merely, I am told by those who know about this project, intend to talk
to some who disagree for appearances' sake and throw in a sentence or two to
give the report the slightest tinge of balance.
The person heading this project has already endangered the lives of brave
Lebanese. For example, he claimed without foundation that Christians were
planning to launch a war on Hizballah, providing a splendid rationale for
Hizballah to murder opponents on the excuse of doing so in self-defense.
Accepting Hizballah rule is defined as the Christians recognizing they are a
minority and trying to get along with their Muslim neighbors.
In other words, those opposing Hizballah are presented as aggressors while
Hizballah is just the reasonable party that wants to get along. Moreover all
this leaves out the community, about the same size as the Christians and
Shia Muslims, that has been leading the resistance to Syria, Iran, and
Hizballah: the Sunni Muslims.
In short, the person directing the project talks like a virtual agent of
Hizballah and its allies, basically repeating what they tell him.
Aside from the fact that Hizballah is not and will not be moderate there are
two other problems that these silly people don't comprehend.
The first is the signal that such statements send to Arabs and especially
Lebanese. Concluding that the United States is selling them out and jumping
onto the side of the Islamist revolutionaries (an idea that sounds
implausible in Washington but very easily accepted as true in Riyadh,
Beirut, Amman, and Cairo), Arab moderates will be demoralized, rush to
become appeasers, and seek to cut their own deals with what they perceive as
the winning side.
The second is the signal that such statements send to the radicals
themselves. Concluding that the United States fears them and acknowledges
their moral superiority and strategic success, they will be more arrogant
and aggressive.
Friedrich Nietzsche famously said, "That which does not kill me makes me
stronger." A good Middle East equivalent would be: That which does not scare
me makes me bolder.
The last time I was in this situation, it involved a government-funded
report about Islamist movements. What I didn't know is that the word had
been passed to the project director from the government agency that he was
supposed to urge engagement with Islamists. The intention was to keep out
anything critical of the idea. At first, then, I was told to my surprise
that my paper would be responded to by another paper written by a supporter
of engaging Islamists.
When my paper was submitted, however, it was apparently too strong, it was
quickly rejected in an insulting way, and I wasn't paid for my work. The fix
was in and those involved were richly rewarded for saying what was wanted,
though the actual implementation of such a policy would be disastrous for
U.S. interests, as well as for millions of Arabs as well as Israelis.
Friends of mine have had similar experiences recently regarding papers
arguing, for example, that engaging Syria is a great idea and that Damascus
can be made moderate and split away from Iran. This is all nonsense, but
honors and money are to be gained by saying such things.
So I'm not going to help provide a fig leaf for something masquerading as a
serious study but set up to advocate a dreadful policy. It would be the
equivalent of participating in a mid-1930s' project designed to show that
Germany had no more ambitions in Europe, a mid-1940s' project that the USSR
wanted to be friends, or a late 1970s' project that Ayatollah Khomeini was a
moderate and that an Islamist Iran would pose no threats.
It's bad enough to live through an era of dangerous and terrible policy
decisions, it's much worse to be complicit in them.
Optional note: I didn't put in links but you can find extensive materials on
British moves toward engaging Hizballah; Brennan's views; Hizballah threats
against U.S. officials; close connections with Iran and Syria, Iranian and
Syrian involvement in anti-American terrorism; and other such matters in my
previous articles.
Professor Barry Rubin is the Director of Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal.
To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books, go to
http://www.gloria-center.org.
To see this and other related stroies, go to Israel Behind the News
Friday, March 5, 2010
The Philadelphia Bulletin: Why Does Syria Want the Golan back from Israel?
by David Bedein
JERUSALEM - The Israeli army conquered the Western slopes of the Golan Heights on the last day of the 1967 war, at the insistence of the resident’s council of Israel’s Upper Galilee region, after Syrian artillery attacks from the Golan had made the lives of the residents of the Galilee impossible. This is because Syria views the Upper Galilee region as belonging to Syria.
Syria has never given up its commitement to conquering the Galilee and annexing it, which provides Israel with a concrete reason why it is not willing to budge from the Golan Heights.
Now there is a new reason why Syria wants the Golan Heights in its hands.
Syria can no longer conceal the massive transfer it is carrying out, after a U.N. report two weeks ago exposed it. The Syrian government uprooted more than 300,000 of its citizens from their dwellings in eastern Syria and moved them to new cities, without any means of survival. The reason: a policy of forced agriculture in the country’s eastern sector, including forced farming of water-hungry crops like cotton and wheat that brought about a total drying up of wells and famine.
According to intelligence analyst Guy Bichor, “Now everyone knows why Syria is so hard-pressed to get its hands on our Sea of Galilee: in order to suck it dry by piping its waters to no-longer-inhabitable areas in the eastern part of the country.”
According to Mr. Bichor, Syria also defers to Turkey in hopes that it will raise the water quotas from the Euphrates. The Syrian plan is to gain control of the Sea of Galilee to solve its water problems.
If Israel were to cede the Golan Heights and its vast water supply to Syria, it is likely Syrian President Bashar Assad would populate the Golan with over one million Syrians.
Concerns remain, however, that Syria would again transform the Golan into a forward base from where it would once again fire missiles on Israel’s Upper Galilee region, since Syria views the Upper Galilee as Syrian territory.
See this story in the Philadelphia Bulletin
See this report at Israel Behind the News
JERUSALEM - The Israeli army conquered the Western slopes of the Golan Heights on the last day of the 1967 war, at the insistence of the resident’s council of Israel’s Upper Galilee region, after Syrian artillery attacks from the Golan had made the lives of the residents of the Galilee impossible. This is because Syria views the Upper Galilee region as belonging to Syria.
Syria has never given up its commitement to conquering the Galilee and annexing it, which provides Israel with a concrete reason why it is not willing to budge from the Golan Heights.
Now there is a new reason why Syria wants the Golan Heights in its hands.
Syria can no longer conceal the massive transfer it is carrying out, after a U.N. report two weeks ago exposed it. The Syrian government uprooted more than 300,000 of its citizens from their dwellings in eastern Syria and moved them to new cities, without any means of survival. The reason: a policy of forced agriculture in the country’s eastern sector, including forced farming of water-hungry crops like cotton and wheat that brought about a total drying up of wells and famine.
According to intelligence analyst Guy Bichor, “Now everyone knows why Syria is so hard-pressed to get its hands on our Sea of Galilee: in order to suck it dry by piping its waters to no-longer-inhabitable areas in the eastern part of the country.”
According to Mr. Bichor, Syria also defers to Turkey in hopes that it will raise the water quotas from the Euphrates. The Syrian plan is to gain control of the Sea of Galilee to solve its water problems.
If Israel were to cede the Golan Heights and its vast water supply to Syria, it is likely Syrian President Bashar Assad would populate the Golan with over one million Syrians.
Concerns remain, however, that Syria would again transform the Golan into a forward base from where it would once again fire missiles on Israel’s Upper Galilee region, since Syria views the Upper Galilee as Syrian territory.
See this story in the Philadelphia Bulletin
See this report at Israel Behind the News
The Philadelphia Bulletin: Persian Purim Summit in Damascus
by David Bedein
JERUSALEM - Purim festivities throughout Israel last week celebrated the defeat of a Persian politician who sought to rally the world to murder every Jew on earth and also to stifle the return of the Jews to Jerusalem 2400 years ago.
Middle East headlines of the past week seemed tailor-made for Purim, as the president of Iran - the modern day Persia - arrived in Damascus to meet with the president of Syria, and the secretary general of Hezbollah met on Thursday in Damascus with today’s Persian politician opening their summit with a declaration that he looked forward to “a Middle East with no more Jews.”
The meeting between Hezbollah Secretary General Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah and Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was one of the rare occasions that Mr. Nasrallah left one of the safe-houses he uses in Lebanon.
Mr. Nasrallah told the media that he began the meeting by outlining a number of scenarios in which Israel might begin an attack on Hezbollah.
He said he believed that the chances of that happening were slim, but noted, “We have to be ready and prepared for any possibility.”
Mr. Nasrallah and Mr. Ahmadinejad were joined by Syrian President Bashar Assad, who invited them to dinner in the palace.
The three leaders said that they discussed the level of Hezbollah’s readiness and military preparations, the ties with the Lebanese army and the level of training being given by the Iranians in Hezbollah training camps.
The Iranian president capitalized on his visit to the Syrian capital to meet with the leaders of the ten Palestinian factions that have offices in Damascus-the “rejectionist front”-first and foremost, Hamas Political Bureau Director Khaled Mashal.
A Hezbollah spokesman announced that Mr. Ahmadinejad gave everyone their own job in the event of a war with Israel: “Syria is ready for any attack by Israel, either large or small. It has a commitment for full Iranian backing and support.”
Abed Albari Atwan, the editor of the London-based Al-Quds Al-Arabi, described the summit meeting as a “war council.” “Not since the great wars against Israel,” he wrote, “has there been a meeting of this magnitude and of this power... This is Assad’s answer to Hillary Clinton’s demand of Syria, on the eve of Ahmadinejad’s visit, to weaken its ties with Iran.
Assad informed her, for all intents and purposes: I’ve given up on the American axis, which is a joke, in my opinion, and hasn’t given me anything. I have no intention of dismantling a 30-year-old strategic alliance with Iran. As far as I’m concerned, Syria can continue to live without an American ambassador in Damascus.”
See this story in the Philadelphia Bulletin
See this report at Israel Behind the News
JERUSALEM - Purim festivities throughout Israel last week celebrated the defeat of a Persian politician who sought to rally the world to murder every Jew on earth and also to stifle the return of the Jews to Jerusalem 2400 years ago.
Middle East headlines of the past week seemed tailor-made for Purim, as the president of Iran - the modern day Persia - arrived in Damascus to meet with the president of Syria, and the secretary general of Hezbollah met on Thursday in Damascus with today’s Persian politician opening their summit with a declaration that he looked forward to “a Middle East with no more Jews.”
The meeting between Hezbollah Secretary General Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah and Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was one of the rare occasions that Mr. Nasrallah left one of the safe-houses he uses in Lebanon.
Mr. Nasrallah told the media that he began the meeting by outlining a number of scenarios in which Israel might begin an attack on Hezbollah.
He said he believed that the chances of that happening were slim, but noted, “We have to be ready and prepared for any possibility.”
Mr. Nasrallah and Mr. Ahmadinejad were joined by Syrian President Bashar Assad, who invited them to dinner in the palace.
The three leaders said that they discussed the level of Hezbollah’s readiness and military preparations, the ties with the Lebanese army and the level of training being given by the Iranians in Hezbollah training camps.
The Iranian president capitalized on his visit to the Syrian capital to meet with the leaders of the ten Palestinian factions that have offices in Damascus-the “rejectionist front”-first and foremost, Hamas Political Bureau Director Khaled Mashal.
A Hezbollah spokesman announced that Mr. Ahmadinejad gave everyone their own job in the event of a war with Israel: “Syria is ready for any attack by Israel, either large or small. It has a commitment for full Iranian backing and support.”
Abed Albari Atwan, the editor of the London-based Al-Quds Al-Arabi, described the summit meeting as a “war council.” “Not since the great wars against Israel,” he wrote, “has there been a meeting of this magnitude and of this power... This is Assad’s answer to Hillary Clinton’s demand of Syria, on the eve of Ahmadinejad’s visit, to weaken its ties with Iran.
Assad informed her, for all intents and purposes: I’ve given up on the American axis, which is a joke, in my opinion, and hasn’t given me anything. I have no intention of dismantling a 30-year-old strategic alliance with Iran. As far as I’m concerned, Syria can continue to live without an American ambassador in Damascus.”
See this story in the Philadelphia Bulletin
See this report at Israel Behind the News
Sunday, January 17, 2010
One Year After His Inauguration : Does President Obama Seek a Weak Israel?
by Allen Z Hertz
United States President Barack Obama’s June 4th Cairo speech to the Muslim World sought the appearance of even-handedness in discussing the long-standing dispute between Israel and its Arab neighbours. But, read with an eye to the moral context, the Cairo speech was arguably profoundly anti-Israel. This bias was camouflaged by a dramatic reference to the Holocaust and by other acknowledgements of Jewish suffering over the centuries. Obama was likely advised that such sentiments would resonate with USA Jews. However, Israelis were too canny to be fooled by the Cairo speech, after which public opinion polls there saw his approval rate drop like a stone.
White House speech writer Ben Rhodes has said that the Cairo speech showed “frankly, just how he [Obama] personally views the conflict.” Rhodes also said that Obama mulled over every line, every word of the speech. This is significant, because with respect to Israel, the Cairo speech was marked by dissimulation and implication that tended to morally condemn the Jewish State, while largely validating the narrative of Arabs and Muslims.
The meaning of “dissimulation” includes speech calculated to cause belief in something which the speaker has not literally said. Is dissimulation dishonest? An answer depends on the context, but honest or not, dissimulation has always been one of the main elements of statecraft. Obama established his credentials as dissimulator no later than the race for the Democratic nomination. Then, his campaign staff publically acknowledged the dissimulation in his earlier promise that “Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.”
In Cairo, key dissimulation lay in the phrase: “America’s strong bonds with Israel are well known. This bond is unbreakable.” These exact words were cynically chosen to elicit belief that Obama was expressing approval for current ties with Israel and promising future support. But, linguistically those two sentences neither said that he approved of those “strong bonds” nor offered a promise for the future. They were merely a bare statement of fact, presumably resting on Israel’s popularity with the USA public and in Congress. By contrast, there was both approval and a promise in the pledge that: “America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own.”
Dissimulation with respect to USA support for Israel was corroborated by a later Cairo passage, where Obama threatened change by saying: “America will align our policies with those who pursue peace.” And, who will be deemed to “pursue peace” must naturally be understood within the moral parameters of “just how he personally views the conflict.” The highly conditional nature of Obama’s support for Israel was again revealed in his September 23rd UN General Assembly speech, where he implied that the USA’s “unwavering commitment” to Israel would have to be paid for by concessions to fulfill “legitimate claims and rights of the Palestinians.”
In Cairo, dissimulation was also salient with regard to Jerusalem, in relation to which Obama implied that Israel has failed to accommodate the needs of Muslims and Christians. The Cairo speech specifically spoke about working for the day when Jerusalem would be “a place for all of the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully together as in the story of Isra.” Here, Obama cynically calculated that non-Muslims would perceive this passage as an anodyne ecumenical reference, while Muslims would understand the Isra story as relating to the Prophet Muhammad’s alleged trip to Jerusalem’s Al-Aqsa mosque. There, the hadith says that Muhammad was validated as God’s final messenger by his prophetic predecessors, including Moses and Jesus. Thus, for Muslims, the Isra story points to their claim to Jerusalem and their belief that Islam is superior to Judaism and Christianity.
For two centuries, the political and legal doctrine of the self-determination of Peoples has been an engine of world history. The Cairo speech significantly referred to the Palestinian People at least five times without offering a hint that Arabs living around the Jordan River did not generally self-identify as a distinct Palestinian People until the mid 20th century. By contrast, the Cairo speech referred only once to the very ancient Jewish People not as proud bearer of rights but in its Diaspora persona as victim. Otherwise, Obama used “Israelis” or words that implied an “Israeli People.” Obama’s terminology thus favoured the Palestinian People and implicitly challenged Israel’s legitimacy by ignoring its key political and legal claim to embody the self-determination of the Jewish People, whose subjective-objective national identity reaches back more than three millennia. This glaring omission was implicitly acknowledged in the General Assembly speech, where Obama included one reference to Israel as “a Jewish state.”
In Cairo, Obama had nothing to say about close to 1400 years of Arab and Muslim discrimination against Jews including periodic maltreatment of Jews around the Jordan River. By contrast, he repeatedly implied that Israel is responsible for Palestinian suffering from 1948 to the present. Thus, he referred to Palestinian refugees, failures in economic and social development, “daily humiliations... that come with occupation” and a so-called “humanitarian crisis” in Gaza. Evidently, how Obama “personally views the conflict” is deeply flawed. For example, would the Middle East have had any Jewish (850,000) or Arab (726,000) refugees had Arabs locally and generally followed the Jews in embracing the 1947 UN General Assembly resolution calling for peaceful creation of two new States, the one Jewish and the other Arab?
Similarly, the Cairo speech falsely implied that Israel has been the obstacle to a two-States solution. Thus, Obama said nothing about Prime Minister Sharon’s unilateral withdrawal from Gaza in 2005. And, he was silent about Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas’s failure to accept far-reaching two-States offers by Prime Ministers Barak and Olmert, in 2000 and 2008 respectively. This goes to the crux of the long-standing dispute. Since the 1937 Peel Report, first Zionists and then Israel governments have repeatedly worked for partition. By contrast, Arabs locally and generally have largely rejected the principle of a Jewish State, i.e. the idea of having there an independent country to embody the self-determination of the Jewish People.
In Cairo, Obama deliberately chose to ground rights in mere suffering. This was curious, because as a lawyer Obama had to know volenti non fit injuria the Common Law principle that the plaintiff cannot recover damages to the extent that he himself has caused the harm. Moreover, plaintiffs are required to take timely steps to mitigate their losses, no matter how caused. But, the Cairo speech never asked to what extent Palestinian suffering might be the result of their own bad choices, including their share of responsibility for starting the 1948 war, which was a self-proclaimed Arab attempt to exterminate Jews living between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.
The Cairo speech repeatedly drew from familiar arguments of Israel’s enemies. First, though there is now no independent State called “Palestine,” the question was begged by present-tense references to Palestine that also appeared in his General Assembly speech. Second, the Cairo speech slandered Israel by seeming to compare the suffering of Palestinians with that of Black people in the USA. Third, this invidious comparison was reinforced by a gratuitous reference to “segregation” which seemed to slyly point to the canard that Israel is an apartheid State. Fourth was an inappropriate nod to White South Africa and other instances where indigenous Peoples offered “resistance” to colonial rule. Fifth was the implication that Palestinian suffering can be equated with the Holocaust, which is a grotesque and wildly inaccurate comparison that is close kin to the calumny that Israel behaves like Nazi Germany. Finally, the Cairo speech misrepresented the murder of six million Jews as the ideological basis for Israel’s creation.
As a lawyer, Obama had to know that Israel validates itself, not by the Holocaust, but by virtue of the political and legal doctrines of aboriginal rights and the self-determination of Peoples. Aboriginal rights are normally minority rights. Thus, the Jewish People claimed its right to its homeland in the same way as do the Inuit and First Nations in Canada. And, the Jewish People invoked its self-determination right exactly as does the Arab People, whose self-determination is already expressed in the 21 countries that explicitly self-identify as Arab.
The Cairo speech pandered to Arab and Muslim prejudice by ignoring the presence since pre-Biblical times of large numbers of Jews in the Middle East, including some who in each and every century lived on their ancestral lands around the Jordan River. There, of all extant Peoples, the Jewish People has the strongest claim to be aboriginal. For this reason, two decades before the Holocaust, the aboriginal rights of the Jewish People were explicitly embedded in international law by declarations, treaties and enactments from 1917 to 1922, when the League of Nations created a “national home for the Jewish People” between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. Within a larger global and Middle Eastern framework, justice was done because simultaneously there was the creation or recognition of several new Arab States that were freed from Turkish rule and placed on the road to eventual independence, as was the “national home for the Jewish People.”
By ignoring the Jewish People’s aboriginal and self-determination rights, the Cairo speech could only point to an end to reciprocal suffering as a rationale for terminating Palestinian violence which was dignified as "resistance." By relying on this slender reed, Obama probably diminished prospects for peace. Thus, the Cairo speech alienated most Israelis and failed to provide Arabs and Muslims with an ideological foundation for a peaceful process to respectfully reconcile the prior rights of the Jewish People with the subsequent rights of the newly-emerged Palestinian People. The latter evidently now has rights to claim self-determination and territory, but these claims do not automatically cancel the Jewish People’s prior rights, which notably include the right of Jews not to be killed by their Arab neighbours.
Though repeated lip service was paid to Israel’s right to exist, the Cairo speech painted a moral picture that seemed to argue the contrary. Saying “threatening Israel with destruction is deeply wrong” was probably calculated to resonate with USA Jews who are grateful for Israel’s survival. By contrast, most Israelis have the commonsense to understand that their country deserves much more than mere survival. They know that Israel urgently needs the rights normally enjoyed by other countries, and that Israel must be judged according to the standards regularly applied to other States in the same or similar circumstances.
Obama’s existential focus was too starkly minimalist to accommodate Israel within the world of States, where each country is driven to advance its own economic and political interests. Given the USA’s touted “strong bonds” with Israel, Obama ought to have said less about a “right to exist” and more about USA help in advancing any number of Israeli aims. The real news here is that Obama perhaps intends to sell Israel short. This recalls national security adviser James Jones’s earlier quip that the new USA administration was not about to “throw Israel under a bus.”
The structure of the Cairo speech implausibly suggested that Iran’s race to develop nuclear weapons is today less “a major source of tension” than “the situation between Israelis, Palestinians and the Arab World.” In discussing this Iranian nuclear threat, Obama seemed to signal that he might be willing to break with a decades-old understanding that the USA would refrain from publically addressing whether or not Israel has nuclear weapons. The implication here was that Obama would perhaps be ready to make Israel’s denuclearization part of a broader deal, embracing Iran and other States in the region.
At Cairo and in the General Assembly, was Obama challenging Israel’s ideological foundations and security interests? An answer can perhaps be found in his special focus on Palestinian suffering. This disturbingly recalls the exaggerated concern for Czechoslovakia’s three million Sudeten Germans that was the moral trigger for the 1938 Munich crisis. Then, myopia on the part of British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain rapidly led to the destruction of interwar Czechoslovakia, which was the only democracy in Eastern Europe.
With Europeans appearing as themselves and Palestinians as Sudeten Germans, does President Obama cast himself as Chamberlain? At Munich, the British Prime Minister earned obloquy by being eager to appease at the expense of “people of whom we know nothing.” While irresponsibly failing to face the question of Hitler’s ultimate aims, Chamberlain recklessly sought safety by catering to German demands. The General Assembly speech announced that Obama is searching for a general Middle East settlement. Is this a context in which he will betray Israel’s vital interests to the advantage of 21st century Hitlers played by Iran's leaders with the help of proxies like Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas?
A careful reading of Obama’s remarks in Cairo and at the General Assembly suggests that Obama may believe that a weaker Israel now suits the interests of the USA. If so, he should tell the American people why, instead of offering a fabric of dissimulation and implication. And, friends of the Jewish State should see Obama’s moral condemnation of Israel as a flashing red light that warns of the possibility of betrayal just as Czechoslovakia was pressured to accept an unsafe peace that was prelude to disaster.
Allen Z. Hertz was formerly senior advisor in the Privy Council Office serving Canada's Prime Minister and the federal cabinet. Earlier he worked in Canada’s Department of Foreign Affairs and taught history and law at universities in New York, Montreal, Toronto, and Hong Kong.
United States President Barack Obama’s June 4th Cairo speech to the Muslim World sought the appearance of even-handedness in discussing the long-standing dispute between Israel and its Arab neighbours. But, read with an eye to the moral context, the Cairo speech was arguably profoundly anti-Israel. This bias was camouflaged by a dramatic reference to the Holocaust and by other acknowledgements of Jewish suffering over the centuries. Obama was likely advised that such sentiments would resonate with USA Jews. However, Israelis were too canny to be fooled by the Cairo speech, after which public opinion polls there saw his approval rate drop like a stone.
White House speech writer Ben Rhodes has said that the Cairo speech showed “frankly, just how he [Obama] personally views the conflict.” Rhodes also said that Obama mulled over every line, every word of the speech. This is significant, because with respect to Israel, the Cairo speech was marked by dissimulation and implication that tended to morally condemn the Jewish State, while largely validating the narrative of Arabs and Muslims.
The meaning of “dissimulation” includes speech calculated to cause belief in something which the speaker has not literally said. Is dissimulation dishonest? An answer depends on the context, but honest or not, dissimulation has always been one of the main elements of statecraft. Obama established his credentials as dissimulator no later than the race for the Democratic nomination. Then, his campaign staff publically acknowledged the dissimulation in his earlier promise that “Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.”
In Cairo, key dissimulation lay in the phrase: “America’s strong bonds with Israel are well known. This bond is unbreakable.” These exact words were cynically chosen to elicit belief that Obama was expressing approval for current ties with Israel and promising future support. But, linguistically those two sentences neither said that he approved of those “strong bonds” nor offered a promise for the future. They were merely a bare statement of fact, presumably resting on Israel’s popularity with the USA public and in Congress. By contrast, there was both approval and a promise in the pledge that: “America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own.”
Dissimulation with respect to USA support for Israel was corroborated by a later Cairo passage, where Obama threatened change by saying: “America will align our policies with those who pursue peace.” And, who will be deemed to “pursue peace” must naturally be understood within the moral parameters of “just how he personally views the conflict.” The highly conditional nature of Obama’s support for Israel was again revealed in his September 23rd UN General Assembly speech, where he implied that the USA’s “unwavering commitment” to Israel would have to be paid for by concessions to fulfill “legitimate claims and rights of the Palestinians.”
In Cairo, dissimulation was also salient with regard to Jerusalem, in relation to which Obama implied that Israel has failed to accommodate the needs of Muslims and Christians. The Cairo speech specifically spoke about working for the day when Jerusalem would be “a place for all of the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully together as in the story of Isra.” Here, Obama cynically calculated that non-Muslims would perceive this passage as an anodyne ecumenical reference, while Muslims would understand the Isra story as relating to the Prophet Muhammad’s alleged trip to Jerusalem’s Al-Aqsa mosque. There, the hadith says that Muhammad was validated as God’s final messenger by his prophetic predecessors, including Moses and Jesus. Thus, for Muslims, the Isra story points to their claim to Jerusalem and their belief that Islam is superior to Judaism and Christianity.
For two centuries, the political and legal doctrine of the self-determination of Peoples has been an engine of world history. The Cairo speech significantly referred to the Palestinian People at least five times without offering a hint that Arabs living around the Jordan River did not generally self-identify as a distinct Palestinian People until the mid 20th century. By contrast, the Cairo speech referred only once to the very ancient Jewish People not as proud bearer of rights but in its Diaspora persona as victim. Otherwise, Obama used “Israelis” or words that implied an “Israeli People.” Obama’s terminology thus favoured the Palestinian People and implicitly challenged Israel’s legitimacy by ignoring its key political and legal claim to embody the self-determination of the Jewish People, whose subjective-objective national identity reaches back more than three millennia. This glaring omission was implicitly acknowledged in the General Assembly speech, where Obama included one reference to Israel as “a Jewish state.”
In Cairo, Obama had nothing to say about close to 1400 years of Arab and Muslim discrimination against Jews including periodic maltreatment of Jews around the Jordan River. By contrast, he repeatedly implied that Israel is responsible for Palestinian suffering from 1948 to the present. Thus, he referred to Palestinian refugees, failures in economic and social development, “daily humiliations... that come with occupation” and a so-called “humanitarian crisis” in Gaza. Evidently, how Obama “personally views the conflict” is deeply flawed. For example, would the Middle East have had any Jewish (850,000) or Arab (726,000) refugees had Arabs locally and generally followed the Jews in embracing the 1947 UN General Assembly resolution calling for peaceful creation of two new States, the one Jewish and the other Arab?
Similarly, the Cairo speech falsely implied that Israel has been the obstacle to a two-States solution. Thus, Obama said nothing about Prime Minister Sharon’s unilateral withdrawal from Gaza in 2005. And, he was silent about Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas’s failure to accept far-reaching two-States offers by Prime Ministers Barak and Olmert, in 2000 and 2008 respectively. This goes to the crux of the long-standing dispute. Since the 1937 Peel Report, first Zionists and then Israel governments have repeatedly worked for partition. By contrast, Arabs locally and generally have largely rejected the principle of a Jewish State, i.e. the idea of having there an independent country to embody the self-determination of the Jewish People.
In Cairo, Obama deliberately chose to ground rights in mere suffering. This was curious, because as a lawyer Obama had to know volenti non fit injuria the Common Law principle that the plaintiff cannot recover damages to the extent that he himself has caused the harm. Moreover, plaintiffs are required to take timely steps to mitigate their losses, no matter how caused. But, the Cairo speech never asked to what extent Palestinian suffering might be the result of their own bad choices, including their share of responsibility for starting the 1948 war, which was a self-proclaimed Arab attempt to exterminate Jews living between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.
The Cairo speech repeatedly drew from familiar arguments of Israel’s enemies. First, though there is now no independent State called “Palestine,” the question was begged by present-tense references to Palestine that also appeared in his General Assembly speech. Second, the Cairo speech slandered Israel by seeming to compare the suffering of Palestinians with that of Black people in the USA. Third, this invidious comparison was reinforced by a gratuitous reference to “segregation” which seemed to slyly point to the canard that Israel is an apartheid State. Fourth was an inappropriate nod to White South Africa and other instances where indigenous Peoples offered “resistance” to colonial rule. Fifth was the implication that Palestinian suffering can be equated with the Holocaust, which is a grotesque and wildly inaccurate comparison that is close kin to the calumny that Israel behaves like Nazi Germany. Finally, the Cairo speech misrepresented the murder of six million Jews as the ideological basis for Israel’s creation.
As a lawyer, Obama had to know that Israel validates itself, not by the Holocaust, but by virtue of the political and legal doctrines of aboriginal rights and the self-determination of Peoples. Aboriginal rights are normally minority rights. Thus, the Jewish People claimed its right to its homeland in the same way as do the Inuit and First Nations in Canada. And, the Jewish People invoked its self-determination right exactly as does the Arab People, whose self-determination is already expressed in the 21 countries that explicitly self-identify as Arab.
The Cairo speech pandered to Arab and Muslim prejudice by ignoring the presence since pre-Biblical times of large numbers of Jews in the Middle East, including some who in each and every century lived on their ancestral lands around the Jordan River. There, of all extant Peoples, the Jewish People has the strongest claim to be aboriginal. For this reason, two decades before the Holocaust, the aboriginal rights of the Jewish People were explicitly embedded in international law by declarations, treaties and enactments from 1917 to 1922, when the League of Nations created a “national home for the Jewish People” between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. Within a larger global and Middle Eastern framework, justice was done because simultaneously there was the creation or recognition of several new Arab States that were freed from Turkish rule and placed on the road to eventual independence, as was the “national home for the Jewish People.”
By ignoring the Jewish People’s aboriginal and self-determination rights, the Cairo speech could only point to an end to reciprocal suffering as a rationale for terminating Palestinian violence which was dignified as "resistance." By relying on this slender reed, Obama probably diminished prospects for peace. Thus, the Cairo speech alienated most Israelis and failed to provide Arabs and Muslims with an ideological foundation for a peaceful process to respectfully reconcile the prior rights of the Jewish People with the subsequent rights of the newly-emerged Palestinian People. The latter evidently now has rights to claim self-determination and territory, but these claims do not automatically cancel the Jewish People’s prior rights, which notably include the right of Jews not to be killed by their Arab neighbours.
Though repeated lip service was paid to Israel’s right to exist, the Cairo speech painted a moral picture that seemed to argue the contrary. Saying “threatening Israel with destruction is deeply wrong” was probably calculated to resonate with USA Jews who are grateful for Israel’s survival. By contrast, most Israelis have the commonsense to understand that their country deserves much more than mere survival. They know that Israel urgently needs the rights normally enjoyed by other countries, and that Israel must be judged according to the standards regularly applied to other States in the same or similar circumstances.
Obama’s existential focus was too starkly minimalist to accommodate Israel within the world of States, where each country is driven to advance its own economic and political interests. Given the USA’s touted “strong bonds” with Israel, Obama ought to have said less about a “right to exist” and more about USA help in advancing any number of Israeli aims. The real news here is that Obama perhaps intends to sell Israel short. This recalls national security adviser James Jones’s earlier quip that the new USA administration was not about to “throw Israel under a bus.”
The structure of the Cairo speech implausibly suggested that Iran’s race to develop nuclear weapons is today less “a major source of tension” than “the situation between Israelis, Palestinians and the Arab World.” In discussing this Iranian nuclear threat, Obama seemed to signal that he might be willing to break with a decades-old understanding that the USA would refrain from publically addressing whether or not Israel has nuclear weapons. The implication here was that Obama would perhaps be ready to make Israel’s denuclearization part of a broader deal, embracing Iran and other States in the region.
At Cairo and in the General Assembly, was Obama challenging Israel’s ideological foundations and security interests? An answer can perhaps be found in his special focus on Palestinian suffering. This disturbingly recalls the exaggerated concern for Czechoslovakia’s three million Sudeten Germans that was the moral trigger for the 1938 Munich crisis. Then, myopia on the part of British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain rapidly led to the destruction of interwar Czechoslovakia, which was the only democracy in Eastern Europe.
With Europeans appearing as themselves and Palestinians as Sudeten Germans, does President Obama cast himself as Chamberlain? At Munich, the British Prime Minister earned obloquy by being eager to appease at the expense of “people of whom we know nothing.” While irresponsibly failing to face the question of Hitler’s ultimate aims, Chamberlain recklessly sought safety by catering to German demands. The General Assembly speech announced that Obama is searching for a general Middle East settlement. Is this a context in which he will betray Israel’s vital interests to the advantage of 21st century Hitlers played by Iran's leaders with the help of proxies like Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas?
A careful reading of Obama’s remarks in Cairo and at the General Assembly suggests that Obama may believe that a weaker Israel now suits the interests of the USA. If so, he should tell the American people why, instead of offering a fabric of dissimulation and implication. And, friends of the Jewish State should see Obama’s moral condemnation of Israel as a flashing red light that warns of the possibility of betrayal just as Czechoslovakia was pressured to accept an unsafe peace that was prelude to disaster.
Allen Z. Hertz was formerly senior advisor in the Privy Council Office serving Canada's Prime Minister and the federal cabinet. Earlier he worked in Canada’s Department of Foreign Affairs and taught history and law at universities in New York, Montreal, Toronto, and Hong Kong.
A Jewish and Democratic One-State Solution
This article originally appeared on the blog a Crazy Nation, and was reprinted in the Jerusalem Post
Jan. 12, 2010
by Joshua Reback, THE JERUSALEM POST
It's difficult to write this without being framed as some sort of fanatic. Either I should fall on the Left that advocates a binational state, or on the Right that can only see things through the lens of "Greater Israel." Both of these labels are presumptuous and have precluded debate about this issue. However, there is a way to reconcile these "extremes" and provide a reason to trend away from the two-state plan.
The Obama administration is trying to torpedo renewed discussion of this idea with a strained attempt to force two-state negotiations, while continuing the Bush administration's policy of building the PA's security apparatus. But an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank in any capacity would contract the country's defensive posture and invite encroachment from Syria, with no guarantees the already extant terrorist groups in the area would not grow and infiltrate a Palestinian state's security forces.
At this point, annexing the West Bank (without the Gaza Strip) would not hinder Jews' clear majority in a unified state. That does not imply that absorbing the territory immediately would resolve a plethora of security, social and religious issues. But to give the vote to everyone in the West Bank would create both a Jewish and democratic state from the Jordan to the Mediterranean, sans Gaza. The question then becomes how the Jewish population intends to preserve that majority.
BUT BEFORE that can be answered, we need to remember why we should be concerned about it in the first place. This is a question that is seldom addressed, and its answers are seldom clarified by commentators. It was cited ad nauseam in the lead-up to the disengagement five years ago, but I am not so sure observers really understood why this issue was so important to Israelis.
Jews would instinctively bring up domestic security concerns. Israelis are especially cognizant of the pogroms in Europe and especially the Arab riots in 1929, 1936-39 and the two intifadas. Annexation evokes fears of anti-Semitic sabotage and civil war or pogroms if the government ever fell into the hands of a hostile Arab majority. This is a concern that no one can simply alleviate. Jewish sovereignty and qualitative ability to defend the Jewish world from attack are among the dozens of conceptual underpinnings of the entire Zionist movement. It is what justified one of the first global, collective gestures of affirmative action in modern history - the creation of an ethnically based country, the Jewish State of Israel.
The moderate approach in Israeli politics regarding a one-state solution would be to both annex the West Bank and push off the idea of official "binationalism." Such a state would have to remain a Jewish state, with a Jewish symbol on its flag - like an Islamic crescent adorns the Turkish or Pakistani banners - and maintain a Jewish majority (not plurality) in its territory.
This brings the whole debate back to the "big blue elephant" in the room - the need to increase Jewish immigration and the natural birth rate of Israeli Jews. These are not policies that Western democracies are expected to implement. But Western states do not exist for the sake of ethnic preservation against global instances of oppression, whether it be in Europe or the Arab world.
These policies are not radical to Israelis, and they are not radical to certain other ethnic states. And given the willingness to discuss population exchange and mass eviction during peace negotiations, they are not all too awkward to the likes of the Western powers, either.
Few Israeli politicians suggest this, because it assumes too many developments. Recently, Likud MK Tzipi Hotovely alluded to it when she fielded the idea of giving citizenship to Palestinians. There seems to be no guarantee that a renewed push for aliya and reversal of yerida would bear fruit, or that Jewish families would decide to have more children.
BUT GLOBAL Jewish leadership has fought against such pessimism. Tens of millions of dollars are already spent every year on all forms of Jewish outreach - religious, cultural and political. Activists the world over urge the end of assimilation and absorption of mixed families into the greater Jewish community. The push is for far bigger and far more Jewish families by leaders and organizations everywhere. The State of Israel, the strongest Jewish organization in the world, should coordinate all of these efforts, stress the importance of the Land of Israel to all streams of Judaism and emphasize the centrality of the state to the modern Jewish world.
It is possible to enhance Israel's Jewish, democratic and defensive characteristics simultaneously. Israel's Jewish character and the preservation of minorities' rights and needs are reconcilable. It is a mixture of idealism and practicality, yet an objective approach, politically satiable and the optimal one to take.
The writer is a graduate of Rutgers University with a BA in Middle Eastern studies. He is currently a student at Yeshivat Hamivtar in Efrat.
Jan. 12, 2010
by Joshua Reback, THE JERUSALEM POST
It's difficult to write this without being framed as some sort of fanatic. Either I should fall on the Left that advocates a binational state, or on the Right that can only see things through the lens of "Greater Israel." Both of these labels are presumptuous and have precluded debate about this issue. However, there is a way to reconcile these "extremes" and provide a reason to trend away from the two-state plan.
The Obama administration is trying to torpedo renewed discussion of this idea with a strained attempt to force two-state negotiations, while continuing the Bush administration's policy of building the PA's security apparatus. But an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank in any capacity would contract the country's defensive posture and invite encroachment from Syria, with no guarantees the already extant terrorist groups in the area would not grow and infiltrate a Palestinian state's security forces.
At this point, annexing the West Bank (without the Gaza Strip) would not hinder Jews' clear majority in a unified state. That does not imply that absorbing the territory immediately would resolve a plethora of security, social and religious issues. But to give the vote to everyone in the West Bank would create both a Jewish and democratic state from the Jordan to the Mediterranean, sans Gaza. The question then becomes how the Jewish population intends to preserve that majority.
BUT BEFORE that can be answered, we need to remember why we should be concerned about it in the first place. This is a question that is seldom addressed, and its answers are seldom clarified by commentators. It was cited ad nauseam in the lead-up to the disengagement five years ago, but I am not so sure observers really understood why this issue was so important to Israelis.
Jews would instinctively bring up domestic security concerns. Israelis are especially cognizant of the pogroms in Europe and especially the Arab riots in 1929, 1936-39 and the two intifadas. Annexation evokes fears of anti-Semitic sabotage and civil war or pogroms if the government ever fell into the hands of a hostile Arab majority. This is a concern that no one can simply alleviate. Jewish sovereignty and qualitative ability to defend the Jewish world from attack are among the dozens of conceptual underpinnings of the entire Zionist movement. It is what justified one of the first global, collective gestures of affirmative action in modern history - the creation of an ethnically based country, the Jewish State of Israel.
The moderate approach in Israeli politics regarding a one-state solution would be to both annex the West Bank and push off the idea of official "binationalism." Such a state would have to remain a Jewish state, with a Jewish symbol on its flag - like an Islamic crescent adorns the Turkish or Pakistani banners - and maintain a Jewish majority (not plurality) in its territory.
This brings the whole debate back to the "big blue elephant" in the room - the need to increase Jewish immigration and the natural birth rate of Israeli Jews. These are not policies that Western democracies are expected to implement. But Western states do not exist for the sake of ethnic preservation against global instances of oppression, whether it be in Europe or the Arab world.
These policies are not radical to Israelis, and they are not radical to certain other ethnic states. And given the willingness to discuss population exchange and mass eviction during peace negotiations, they are not all too awkward to the likes of the Western powers, either.
Few Israeli politicians suggest this, because it assumes too many developments. Recently, Likud MK Tzipi Hotovely alluded to it when she fielded the idea of giving citizenship to Palestinians. There seems to be no guarantee that a renewed push for aliya and reversal of yerida would bear fruit, or that Jewish families would decide to have more children.
BUT GLOBAL Jewish leadership has fought against such pessimism. Tens of millions of dollars are already spent every year on all forms of Jewish outreach - religious, cultural and political. Activists the world over urge the end of assimilation and absorption of mixed families into the greater Jewish community. The push is for far bigger and far more Jewish families by leaders and organizations everywhere. The State of Israel, the strongest Jewish organization in the world, should coordinate all of these efforts, stress the importance of the Land of Israel to all streams of Judaism and emphasize the centrality of the state to the modern Jewish world.
It is possible to enhance Israel's Jewish, democratic and defensive characteristics simultaneously. Israel's Jewish character and the preservation of minorities' rights and needs are reconcilable. It is a mixture of idealism and practicality, yet an objective approach, politically satiable and the optimal one to take.
The writer is a graduate of Rutgers University with a BA in Middle Eastern studies. He is currently a student at Yeshivat Hamivtar in Efrat.
Monday, December 7, 2009
The Philadelphia Bulletin: Israel, Turkey Keep their Military Ties
JERUSALEM - Israel and Turkey have managed to retain military cooperation despite rising political tension, a report by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs said.
The report asserted that the Islamist government of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has kept their military partnership with Israel despite their political crisis this year. Still, the Center, in a report by a leading U.S. analyst, warned that Israeli-Turkish relations were threatened by Ankara’s strategic alliance with Syria.
“Israel’s military relationship with Turkey, including ongoing joint air force training, military exchanges, and arms sales, appears to be secure for the time being,” the report, titled “The Islamist Transformation in Turkish Politics,” said. “Should bilateral political tensions continue, and as Ankara and Damascus enhance strategic ties, inevitably Israeli-Turkish military-to-military relations will suffer.”
Authored by former U.S. Defense Department analyst David Schenker, the report did not detail current Israeli-Turkish military cooperation. Instead, Mr. Schenker pointed to Turkey’s cancellation of Israel’s participation in the NATO-aligned Anatolian Eagle exercise in October 2009.
In the wake of the cancellation, the Turkish government announced plans to conduct a Turkish military exercise with Syria. The report said Ankara’s decision was expected and reflected the policy of the ruling pro-Islamist Justice and Development Party.
The report said Turkey’s key motive for a military alliance with Israel, launched in 1996, was Ankara’s war with the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK). By 1999, Turkey had forced Syria to expel PKK leader Abdullah Ocalan and later arrested him. Since 2002, Syria and Turkey have signed 46 agreements, including a military training pact.
“Turkey no longer needed Israeli assistance to pressure the Syrian government to change its policy of providing safe-haven to the terrorist Kurdish Worker’s Organization,” the report said.
Mr. Schenker, now a senior fellow at the Washington Institute, said Ankara’s embrace of Syria over the last three years reflected the decline of Turkey’s military. He said Mr. Erdogan’s party, which has succeeded in marginalizing the military, has been promoting relations with such countries as Qatar, Sudan and Syria while rejecting pro-Western Egypt, Jordan and Tunisia.
“Today, the Turkish military can do little to impact the policies of the Islamist AKP (Justice and Development Party), which promote solidarity with Islamist, anti-Western regimes while dismissing secular, pro-Western Muslim governments,” the report said.
The report said Turkey began weakening its relationship with Israel as early as 2006. This year, however, Ankara sparked a crisis with Israel during its war with Hamas as the Turkish government improved relations with Syria. This included the first Syrian-Turkish military exercise in April.
“Clearly, 2009 was a watershed year for the Turkey-Syria bilateral relationship and a year of setbacks for Israeli-Turkish ties,” the report said. “While the long-term implications of these developments remain to be seen, the current trajectory is not cause for optimism.”
Mr. Schenker said Turkey’s support for Iran and Syria has raised concern within NATO. He said Ankara’s pro-Iranian policy could harm U.S. interests in the Middle East. “Perhaps more worrisome is the prospect that Ankara may, over time, pursue a closer foreign policy alignment with Iran that would undermine U.S. and Israeli regional interests,” the report said.
View the original article in the Philadelphia Bulletin
The report asserted that the Islamist government of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has kept their military partnership with Israel despite their political crisis this year. Still, the Center, in a report by a leading U.S. analyst, warned that Israeli-Turkish relations were threatened by Ankara’s strategic alliance with Syria.
“Israel’s military relationship with Turkey, including ongoing joint air force training, military exchanges, and arms sales, appears to be secure for the time being,” the report, titled “The Islamist Transformation in Turkish Politics,” said. “Should bilateral political tensions continue, and as Ankara and Damascus enhance strategic ties, inevitably Israeli-Turkish military-to-military relations will suffer.”
Authored by former U.S. Defense Department analyst David Schenker, the report did not detail current Israeli-Turkish military cooperation. Instead, Mr. Schenker pointed to Turkey’s cancellation of Israel’s participation in the NATO-aligned Anatolian Eagle exercise in October 2009.
In the wake of the cancellation, the Turkish government announced plans to conduct a Turkish military exercise with Syria. The report said Ankara’s decision was expected and reflected the policy of the ruling pro-Islamist Justice and Development Party.
The report said Turkey’s key motive for a military alliance with Israel, launched in 1996, was Ankara’s war with the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK). By 1999, Turkey had forced Syria to expel PKK leader Abdullah Ocalan and later arrested him. Since 2002, Syria and Turkey have signed 46 agreements, including a military training pact.
“Turkey no longer needed Israeli assistance to pressure the Syrian government to change its policy of providing safe-haven to the terrorist Kurdish Worker’s Organization,” the report said.
Mr. Schenker, now a senior fellow at the Washington Institute, said Ankara’s embrace of Syria over the last three years reflected the decline of Turkey’s military. He said Mr. Erdogan’s party, which has succeeded in marginalizing the military, has been promoting relations with such countries as Qatar, Sudan and Syria while rejecting pro-Western Egypt, Jordan and Tunisia.
“Today, the Turkish military can do little to impact the policies of the Islamist AKP (Justice and Development Party), which promote solidarity with Islamist, anti-Western regimes while dismissing secular, pro-Western Muslim governments,” the report said.
The report said Turkey began weakening its relationship with Israel as early as 2006. This year, however, Ankara sparked a crisis with Israel during its war with Hamas as the Turkish government improved relations with Syria. This included the first Syrian-Turkish military exercise in April.
“Clearly, 2009 was a watershed year for the Turkey-Syria bilateral relationship and a year of setbacks for Israeli-Turkish ties,” the report said. “While the long-term implications of these developments remain to be seen, the current trajectory is not cause for optimism.”
Mr. Schenker said Turkey’s support for Iran and Syria has raised concern within NATO. He said Ankara’s pro-Iranian policy could harm U.S. interests in the Middle East. “Perhaps more worrisome is the prospect that Ankara may, over time, pursue a closer foreign policy alignment with Iran that would undermine U.S. and Israeli regional interests,” the report said.
View the original article in the Philadelphia Bulletin
The Philadelphia Bulletin: Israel battles with Iran over Pacific Islands
by David Bedein
JERUSALEM - Israel does not intend to give up on the Pacific Ocean islands and let them fall into the hands of Iran, as happened with the Solomon Islands. The support of the Solomon Islands, however, was “bought” by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s country for a grant of only $200,000.
Next month, the presidents of three of the island states that are considered strong supporters of Israel - Micronesia, the Marshall Islands and Nauru, will be coming to Israel for an official visit. They will meet with Israeli President Shimon Peres and, perhaps, also with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and will be paid royal honors.
Israeli officials ascribe great importance to the support of these Pacific islands, mainly because it can be transferred easily from one side to another. A year ago, Iran signed a memorandum with the Solomon Islands stating that it would fund scholarships in the amount of $200,000 for students living there to study medicine in Cuba. The payment was not long in coming: The Solomon Islands voted in the United Nations (U.N.) for adopting the conclusions of the Goldstone Report, which blasted Israel for its counterattack in Gaza last year.
The vote surprised Israel because the Solomon Islands were considered a strong ally.
“This is part of a long-term effort to preserve and nurture relations with countries with which we would like to keep in contact,” explained Michael Ronen, the director-general of the Israeli Foreign Ministry’s Pacific desk. Mr. Ronen, who also serves as the ambassador to these islands, emphasized that Israel does not intend to offer money, as Iran did. “I will defeat the Iranians on my court by offering humanitarian and medical assistance, which Israel has made sure to give these islands throughout the years, without promising money or making my assistance conditional upon political support, as the Iranians have done,” he said.
The Pacific Ocean region has sixteen countries, including Australia and New Zealand. All the rest are tiny countries. Since size does not matter, the votes of 13 of these countries matter in votes that take place in the U.N. Tiny Micronesia’s vote is equal to that of enormous China.
Israel was among the first of the countries outside the Pacific region to recognize the independence of the island nations in the 1980s and formed diplomatic relations with them. Since then, Israel has worked a great deal in those countries, sending them medical equipment, vaccines, medicines and medical specialists. Thus, for example, an Israeli ear, nose and throat specialist has been in Nauru for the past three weeks at the request of the Nauruan government. Equipment worth $130,000 was sent to Samoa as assistance in coping with the damage from the latest tsunami. Israel also assisted the Solomon Islands, despite its vote in favor of the Goldstone Report, and continued to send it medical equipment in order to help it cope with diabetes, which is widespread there. The result of this ongoing assistance has been that in the U.N. votes, these countries have supported Israel or abstained from voting against it.
However, in recent years, countries such as Iran, Syria, Venezuela and Cuba have tried to change this situation by means of money, and Israel is trying to stop this from happening.
“Israel extends its hand to all countries, great and small,” Mr. Ronen said. “In the Pacific region, we have found tiny and far-flung states that know a great deal more about us than we know about them, and that have shown us extraordinary friendship. In the U.N., there is an almost absolute majority against Israel and, therefore, we are making every effort to keep them with us.”
View the original article in the Philadelphia Bulletin
JERUSALEM - Israel does not intend to give up on the Pacific Ocean islands and let them fall into the hands of Iran, as happened with the Solomon Islands. The support of the Solomon Islands, however, was “bought” by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s country for a grant of only $200,000.
Next month, the presidents of three of the island states that are considered strong supporters of Israel - Micronesia, the Marshall Islands and Nauru, will be coming to Israel for an official visit. They will meet with Israeli President Shimon Peres and, perhaps, also with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and will be paid royal honors.
Israeli officials ascribe great importance to the support of these Pacific islands, mainly because it can be transferred easily from one side to another. A year ago, Iran signed a memorandum with the Solomon Islands stating that it would fund scholarships in the amount of $200,000 for students living there to study medicine in Cuba. The payment was not long in coming: The Solomon Islands voted in the United Nations (U.N.) for adopting the conclusions of the Goldstone Report, which blasted Israel for its counterattack in Gaza last year.
The vote surprised Israel because the Solomon Islands were considered a strong ally.
“This is part of a long-term effort to preserve and nurture relations with countries with which we would like to keep in contact,” explained Michael Ronen, the director-general of the Israeli Foreign Ministry’s Pacific desk. Mr. Ronen, who also serves as the ambassador to these islands, emphasized that Israel does not intend to offer money, as Iran did. “I will defeat the Iranians on my court by offering humanitarian and medical assistance, which Israel has made sure to give these islands throughout the years, without promising money or making my assistance conditional upon political support, as the Iranians have done,” he said.
The Pacific Ocean region has sixteen countries, including Australia and New Zealand. All the rest are tiny countries. Since size does not matter, the votes of 13 of these countries matter in votes that take place in the U.N. Tiny Micronesia’s vote is equal to that of enormous China.
Israel was among the first of the countries outside the Pacific region to recognize the independence of the island nations in the 1980s and formed diplomatic relations with them. Since then, Israel has worked a great deal in those countries, sending them medical equipment, vaccines, medicines and medical specialists. Thus, for example, an Israeli ear, nose and throat specialist has been in Nauru for the past three weeks at the request of the Nauruan government. Equipment worth $130,000 was sent to Samoa as assistance in coping with the damage from the latest tsunami. Israel also assisted the Solomon Islands, despite its vote in favor of the Goldstone Report, and continued to send it medical equipment in order to help it cope with diabetes, which is widespread there. The result of this ongoing assistance has been that in the U.N. votes, these countries have supported Israel or abstained from voting against it.
However, in recent years, countries such as Iran, Syria, Venezuela and Cuba have tried to change this situation by means of money, and Israel is trying to stop this from happening.
“Israel extends its hand to all countries, great and small,” Mr. Ronen said. “In the Pacific region, we have found tiny and far-flung states that know a great deal more about us than we know about them, and that have shown us extraordinary friendship. In the U.N., there is an almost absolute majority against Israel and, therefore, we are making every effort to keep them with us.”
View the original article in the Philadelphia Bulletin
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
The Philadelphia Bulletin: Israel Warned To Prepare For Ballistic Missile Threats
by David Bedein
Jerusalem - Israel has been urged to prepare for ballistic missile threats from Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey.
A senior defense executive warned that Israel’s military and Defense Ministry might not have been allowed to prepare its missile defense umbrella to combat possible future threats from Middle East states, which are not directly threatening Israel at this time, due to political constraints.
The executive, who works closely with the Defense Ministry, said the threat could come from Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, which have been developing or procuring medium- and intermediate-range missiles.
“We are not paying attention to what is going on in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey,” Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) vice president Yair Ramati said.
Mr. Ramati, who for years headed IAI’s Arrow missile defense program, cited Turkey’s growing missile and rocket capabilities.
He said Ankara has been acquiring U.S. and Chinese systems as well as developing Turkish weapons.
This included the Chinese-origin 302 mm rocket, with a range of 150 kilometers.
The Israel Defense Ministry has never cited Egypt or Turkey as threats. Egypt has maintained a peace treaty with Israel since 1979, and Turkey was regarded as a strategic ally of the Jewish state from 1996 until 2008. Over the last year, Turkey increased ties with neighboring Iran and Syria.
In a presentation to the International Aerospace Conference and Exhibition-Israel on Nov. 17, Mr. Ramati said Egypt and other Arab states could constitute missile threats by 2020. He said Saudi Arabia, concerned over Iran’s military modernization effort, was expected to replace its Chinese-origin intermediate-range CSSS2 for an advanced modern ballistic missile.
Yet, leading strategists in Israel forget that Saudi Arabia remains in a state of war with Israel. Saudi Arabia is the only neighboring country contiguous to Israel to have never signed a peace treaty or even an armistice with Israel since 1948.
Mr. Ramati stated clearly that Israeli missile defense exercises do not take the Egyptian, Saudi and Turkish capabilities into account.
He suggested that the Defense Ministry and military were under political constraints from the government.
“Are these scenarios politically correct?” Mr. Ramati asked.
View the original article in the Philadelphia Bulletin
Jerusalem - Israel has been urged to prepare for ballistic missile threats from Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey.
A senior defense executive warned that Israel’s military and Defense Ministry might not have been allowed to prepare its missile defense umbrella to combat possible future threats from Middle East states, which are not directly threatening Israel at this time, due to political constraints.
The executive, who works closely with the Defense Ministry, said the threat could come from Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, which have been developing or procuring medium- and intermediate-range missiles.
“We are not paying attention to what is going on in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey,” Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) vice president Yair Ramati said.
Mr. Ramati, who for years headed IAI’s Arrow missile defense program, cited Turkey’s growing missile and rocket capabilities.
He said Ankara has been acquiring U.S. and Chinese systems as well as developing Turkish weapons.
This included the Chinese-origin 302 mm rocket, with a range of 150 kilometers.
The Israel Defense Ministry has never cited Egypt or Turkey as threats. Egypt has maintained a peace treaty with Israel since 1979, and Turkey was regarded as a strategic ally of the Jewish state from 1996 until 2008. Over the last year, Turkey increased ties with neighboring Iran and Syria.
In a presentation to the International Aerospace Conference and Exhibition-Israel on Nov. 17, Mr. Ramati said Egypt and other Arab states could constitute missile threats by 2020. He said Saudi Arabia, concerned over Iran’s military modernization effort, was expected to replace its Chinese-origin intermediate-range CSSS2 for an advanced modern ballistic missile.
Yet, leading strategists in Israel forget that Saudi Arabia remains in a state of war with Israel. Saudi Arabia is the only neighboring country contiguous to Israel to have never signed a peace treaty or even an armistice with Israel since 1948.
Mr. Ramati stated clearly that Israeli missile defense exercises do not take the Egyptian, Saudi and Turkish capabilities into account.
He suggested that the Defense Ministry and military were under political constraints from the government.
“Are these scenarios politically correct?” Mr. Ramati asked.
View the original article in the Philadelphia Bulletin
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
The Philadelphia Bulletin: Israel, United States Joint Military Exercise Considered a Success
by David Bedein
JERUSALEM - The U.S. Army and the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) successfully completed the Juniper Cobra 10 exercise this week.
The exercise was geared to improve cooperation between the two armies and to simulate defensive action against missile attacks on Israel by Syria and Iran.
This is the fifth time this exercise has been held. It was held in Israel, over a three-week period and involved 1,400 troops from four different branches of the U.S. Army. The exercise involved field training in which the two sides practiced cooperation between the American and Israeli troops in a variety of scenarios, a training of command posts, which practiced cooperative air defense and the firing of a live Patriot missile, which occurred yesterday.
Commanders from the U.S. Army and the IDF voiced their satisfaction with the results of the joint exercise, and noted the exercise had allowed the participants to learn from the knowledge and experience possessed by each other's army.
Commander of the Anti-Aircraft Forces Brig. Gen. Doron Gavish said, “We used the active defense system in collaboration with American forces and Israeli forces. The exercise manifested challenging scenarios and the conjoining of the most advanced weapons systems in the world in this field. The exercise was completed successfully. The professional level of the troops and the degree of cooperation between the armies manifested itself in the way in which the troops were put to use.”
The commander of the American task force, John Richardson, said, “We trained together in a challenging scenario. We presented new technologies and means of operation, and we scored tremendous results.”
View the original article in the Philadelphia Bulletin
JERUSALEM - The U.S. Army and the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) successfully completed the Juniper Cobra 10 exercise this week.
The exercise was geared to improve cooperation between the two armies and to simulate defensive action against missile attacks on Israel by Syria and Iran.
This is the fifth time this exercise has been held. It was held in Israel, over a three-week period and involved 1,400 troops from four different branches of the U.S. Army. The exercise involved field training in which the two sides practiced cooperation between the American and Israeli troops in a variety of scenarios, a training of command posts, which practiced cooperative air defense and the firing of a live Patriot missile, which occurred yesterday.
Commanders from the U.S. Army and the IDF voiced their satisfaction with the results of the joint exercise, and noted the exercise had allowed the participants to learn from the knowledge and experience possessed by each other's army.
Commander of the Anti-Aircraft Forces Brig. Gen. Doron Gavish said, “We used the active defense system in collaboration with American forces and Israeli forces. The exercise manifested challenging scenarios and the conjoining of the most advanced weapons systems in the world in this field. The exercise was completed successfully. The professional level of the troops and the degree of cooperation between the armies manifested itself in the way in which the troops were put to use.”
The commander of the American task force, John Richardson, said, “We trained together in a challenging scenario. We presented new technologies and means of operation, and we scored tremendous results.”
View the original article in the Philadelphia Bulletin
Sunday, November 15, 2009
The Philadelphia Bulletin: Israel: Hezbollah Acquired Long-Range Missiles
by David Bedein
JERUSALEM - Israel's military has detected Hezbollah acquisition of missiles and rockets with ranges of up to 325 kilometers. They said the weapons could strike targets in most of Israel.
"Some of them have a range of 300 kilometers (180 miles) and some of them have a range of up to 325 kilometers," Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi said.
In a Nov. 10 briefing to the Israel Knesset Parliamentary Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, Mr. Ashkenazi said Hezbollah has already deployed the long-range rockets in Lebanon. He said a rocket attack from the Beirut area could reach the nuclear reactor in the southern Israeli city of Dimona.
"There is a paradox," Mr. Ashkenazi told the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee said. "On one hand, there is calm. But when you peek over the fence you can see armament and empowerment."
The latest acquisition marked the longest-range missiles and rockets in Hezbollah's arsenal. Until this year, they said, Hezbollah wielded weapons with a range of about 120 miles.
Mr. Ashkenazi did not identify the latest Hezbollah missile. The missile approximated the range of the Soviet-origin Scud B.
Hezbollah has amassed an arsenal of 40,000 missiles and rockets, most of them short-range weapons. They said Iran has increased weapons and other military support to its Lebanese proxy.
"We don't delude ourselves," Mr. Ashkenazi said. "The situation is delicate and Hezbollah is growing stronger all the time. The Iranian challenge is to increase control over the Middle East through training, arms and money provided to all terror organizations."
The Hezbollah acquisition of arms from Iran and Syria represents a violation of UN Resolution 1701, which implemented a ceasefire that put an end to the Second Israel-Lebanon War in August 2006.
View the original article in the Philadelphia Bulletin
JERUSALEM - Israel's military has detected Hezbollah acquisition of missiles and rockets with ranges of up to 325 kilometers. They said the weapons could strike targets in most of Israel.
"Some of them have a range of 300 kilometers (180 miles) and some of them have a range of up to 325 kilometers," Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi said.
In a Nov. 10 briefing to the Israel Knesset Parliamentary Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, Mr. Ashkenazi said Hezbollah has already deployed the long-range rockets in Lebanon. He said a rocket attack from the Beirut area could reach the nuclear reactor in the southern Israeli city of Dimona.
"There is a paradox," Mr. Ashkenazi told the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee said. "On one hand, there is calm. But when you peek over the fence you can see armament and empowerment."
The latest acquisition marked the longest-range missiles and rockets in Hezbollah's arsenal. Until this year, they said, Hezbollah wielded weapons with a range of about 120 miles.
Mr. Ashkenazi did not identify the latest Hezbollah missile. The missile approximated the range of the Soviet-origin Scud B.
Hezbollah has amassed an arsenal of 40,000 missiles and rockets, most of them short-range weapons. They said Iran has increased weapons and other military support to its Lebanese proxy.
"We don't delude ourselves," Mr. Ashkenazi said. "The situation is delicate and Hezbollah is growing stronger all the time. The Iranian challenge is to increase control over the Middle East through training, arms and money provided to all terror organizations."
The Hezbollah acquisition of arms from Iran and Syria represents a violation of UN Resolution 1701, which implemented a ceasefire that put an end to the Second Israel-Lebanon War in August 2006.
View the original article in the Philadelphia Bulletin
Friday, November 6, 2009
The Philadelphia Bulletin: Syria Denies Transporting Weapons, Blames Seized Boat On Piracy
by David Bedein
Jerusalem - Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem disputed Israel's claim that a ship sailing from Syria to Iran was carrying weapons in a press conference held on Thursday in Tehran.
Mr. Muallem, instead, said the ship was carrying goods to Iran.
"The report of the seizure of the Iranian ship carrying weapons to Syria in the vicinity of the Zionist entity is baseless," he argued.
He added that the ship was a victim of piracy.
"There are pirates that take over ships under the pretense of searches and try to halt the passage of commercial vessels," he said.
Iran also denied reports that it had attempted to send weapons to Hezbollah in the ship.
Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki told the Iranian news agency Irana: "The report is incorrect. The ship was making its way from Syria to Iran carrying goods, not weapons."
Mr. Mottaki argued that "Syria and Iran are peace loving nations which are interested in the stability of the region."
View the original article in the Philadelphia Bulletin
Jerusalem - Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem disputed Israel's claim that a ship sailing from Syria to Iran was carrying weapons in a press conference held on Thursday in Tehran.
Mr. Muallem, instead, said the ship was carrying goods to Iran.
"The report of the seizure of the Iranian ship carrying weapons to Syria in the vicinity of the Zionist entity is baseless," he argued.
He added that the ship was a victim of piracy.
"There are pirates that take over ships under the pretense of searches and try to halt the passage of commercial vessels," he said.
Iran also denied reports that it had attempted to send weapons to Hezbollah in the ship.
Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki told the Iranian news agency Irana: "The report is incorrect. The ship was making its way from Syria to Iran carrying goods, not weapons."
Mr. Mottaki argued that "Syria and Iran are peace loving nations which are interested in the stability of the region."
View the original article in the Philadelphia Bulletin
Sunday, September 27, 2009
The Philadelphia Bulletin: Turkey, Syria to Cooperate
by David Bedein
After decades of enmity, Syria and Turkey have launched a strategic cooperation agreement. This month, the two neighbors signed an agreement meant that included cooperation in the defense and military sectors. The accord also saw the removal of restrictions along the border between Syria and Turkey.
“The brotherhood that exists between our people has been lifted to the political level with joint Cabinet meetings to be held between our two governments,” Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said. Officials said the government of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Erdogan regarded Syria as part of Ankara’s “zero problems with neighbors” policy. They said Ankara and Damascus have decided to establish what was termed a high-level strategic cooperation panel.
“Turkey is your second country and the people of Turkey have opened their arms to welcome you without the need for a visa,” Davutoglu said.
At a joint news conference on Sept. 17, Davutoglu and his Syrian counterpart, Walid Mualem, agreed to lift customs on trade between the two countries. They said trucks that shuttle between Syrian and Turkey would be exempt from taxes.
“This is the biggest demonstration of cooperation, solidarity and mutual trust,” Mualem said.
However, Bulent Alireza, a senior researcher at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies commented that “the increasingly close relationship with Damascus, combined with the recent strains in the relationship with Tel Aviv, seems certain to raise additional questions about a possible change of direction in Turkish foreign policy in the Middle East.”
In 2009, Syria and Turkey launched its first military exercise. The exercise took place along the border.
The analysts said the Turkish military has not been enthusiastic over cooperation with Syria. Syria has long been seen by the Turkish military as a haven for the Kurdish Workers Party, which has been conducting a long time insurgency operation against the Turkish government.
Some senior Turkish officials said Syria has drafted plans to offer asylum to Kurdish Workers Party operatives. They said the Syrian offer, praised by neighboring Turkey, would demand that the PKK agents renounce violence and surrender their weapons.
“Our fight against the terrorist organization would be affected a great deal if some of these Syrians quit the organization and climb down the mountain,” Turkish Chief of Staff Gen. Ilker Basbug said.
In a briefing on Sept. 22, Basbug said the PKK contained an estimated 1,500 Syrian fighters, or more than one-third of the total insurgency force. He said Syrian members of the PKK were based in Iraq’s Kandil mountains.
The Syrian offer was announced by President Bashar Assad in mid-September. Assad said Syrian members of PKK could be allowed to return home if they renounce membership in the insurgency group.
“Do not expect that it will be all over soon,” Basbug said. “There are no magical formulas.”
View the original article in the Philadelphia Bulletin
After decades of enmity, Syria and Turkey have launched a strategic cooperation agreement. This month, the two neighbors signed an agreement meant that included cooperation in the defense and military sectors. The accord also saw the removal of restrictions along the border between Syria and Turkey.
“The brotherhood that exists between our people has been lifted to the political level with joint Cabinet meetings to be held between our two governments,” Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said. Officials said the government of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Erdogan regarded Syria as part of Ankara’s “zero problems with neighbors” policy. They said Ankara and Damascus have decided to establish what was termed a high-level strategic cooperation panel.
“Turkey is your second country and the people of Turkey have opened their arms to welcome you without the need for a visa,” Davutoglu said.
At a joint news conference on Sept. 17, Davutoglu and his Syrian counterpart, Walid Mualem, agreed to lift customs on trade between the two countries. They said trucks that shuttle between Syrian and Turkey would be exempt from taxes.
“This is the biggest demonstration of cooperation, solidarity and mutual trust,” Mualem said.
However, Bulent Alireza, a senior researcher at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies commented that “the increasingly close relationship with Damascus, combined with the recent strains in the relationship with Tel Aviv, seems certain to raise additional questions about a possible change of direction in Turkish foreign policy in the Middle East.”
In 2009, Syria and Turkey launched its first military exercise. The exercise took place along the border.
The analysts said the Turkish military has not been enthusiastic over cooperation with Syria. Syria has long been seen by the Turkish military as a haven for the Kurdish Workers Party, which has been conducting a long time insurgency operation against the Turkish government.
Some senior Turkish officials said Syria has drafted plans to offer asylum to Kurdish Workers Party operatives. They said the Syrian offer, praised by neighboring Turkey, would demand that the PKK agents renounce violence and surrender their weapons.
“Our fight against the terrorist organization would be affected a great deal if some of these Syrians quit the organization and climb down the mountain,” Turkish Chief of Staff Gen. Ilker Basbug said.
In a briefing on Sept. 22, Basbug said the PKK contained an estimated 1,500 Syrian fighters, or more than one-third of the total insurgency force. He said Syrian members of the PKK were based in Iraq’s Kandil mountains.
The Syrian offer was announced by President Bashar Assad in mid-September. Assad said Syrian members of PKK could be allowed to return home if they renounce membership in the insurgency group.
“Do not expect that it will be all over soon,” Basbug said. “There are no magical formulas.”
View the original article in the Philadelphia Bulletin
Sunday, September 13, 2009
The Philadelphia Bulletin: Baghdad Cannot Destroy Al-Aqeda
by David Bedein
Jerusalem - A report submitted the week for the U.S. Defense Department has determined that Al Qaida in Iraq would resist any offensive by Baghdad over the next few years.
The report by the Rand Corp. asserted that Iraq, even with U.S. help, would fail to eliminate the Al Qaida (AQI) terror network.
"Eradicating AQI may exceed ISF capabilities, even with U.S. help, but the AQI threat is more likely to grow weaker rather than stronger," the report said.
Titled, "Withdrawing from Iraq: Alternative Schedules, Associated Risks, and Mitigating Strategies," the report provided a bleak picture of Iraq's capability to destroy the Al Qaida terror network. Rand said Al Qaida would remain viable in Iraq despite a decline in financing and recruitment.
"AQI is hampered by a lack of popular support, by restricted movement, and by a dearth of financing," the report said. "It is now largely confined to Mosul, the Tigris River Valley, and Diyala province. One of its principal causes, and a source of recruiting and fund-raising -- the U.S. occupation -- is ending."
The report was released in late July 2009 amid a resurgence of Al Qaida in Iraq's largest province, Anbar. Al Qaida, after a lull of nearly two years, was said to have renewed operations in such Sunni cities as Faluja and Samara.
Rand said AQI has been hampered by the sharp drop in the flow of foreign volunteers to Iraq. As a result, the report said Al Qaida has been increasingly relying on Iraqi women for suicide and other operations.
Syria has been deemed as the way station for at least 90 percent of Al Qaida volunteers to Iraq. The report said Syria has hosted a range of Sunni insurgency groups exiled from Iraq and seeking to destabilize the Baghdad government.
A U.S. combat troop withdrawal was expected to renew the ethnic war in Iraq, another report said.
The Institute of National Security Studies asserted that the 130,000 American troops have largely succeeded in preventing civil war in Iraq. In a report by U.S. Air Force Maj. Clint ZumBrunnen, the institute warned that any reconciliation effort by Sunnis, Shi'ites and Kurds must be backed by American force.
"The correlation between fragile stability in Iraq and the presence of U.S. combat forces is difficult to ignore, even if it is true that US forces do not control the country," said the report by Zum Brunnen, a U.S. Air Force scholar.
The report dismissed U.S. claims of a military victory in the insurgency war in Iraq. Instead, ZumBrunnen asserted that the Sunni insurgency in Iraq abated when the United States provided massive financing to Sunni tribes in central and western Iraq.
"Any precipitous withdrawal of US combat power will greatly reduce U.S. leverage in Iraq and risk a return to the sectarian strife of 2006 simply because few of Iraq's serious internal conflicts have been resolved," the report said.
President Obama has pledged to withdraw all combat troops from Iraq by August 2010, leaving an estimated 50,000 advisers and support personnel.
But the report warned that Sunnis and Kurds, the biggest supporters of a U.S. military presence, would harden their positions toward the dominate Shi'ite community once the Americans begin to withdraw. For its part, the Shi'ite community has been split by a power struggle led by the Iranian-backed Mahdi Army, commanded by Moqtada Sadr.
Meanwhile, ZumBrunnen said, the United States has been led into a potential war in northern Iraq regarding the authority and size of the autonomous Kurdish region. The focus of the confrontation has been the oil-rich area of Kirkuk.
"Both sides are now edgier because there is less certainty that the U.S. will intervene to prevent one side or the other from exploiting an advantage," the report said. "And since any grand bargain between Arabs and Kurds mediated by the United Nations will likely require a powerful military force for enforcement, knowledge that U.S. forces will withdraw completely by 2011 lessens the chance for a nonviolent solution to the dispute.
Accordingly, both the [Kurdish] peshmerga and the ISF [Iraqi security forces] continue to prepare for eventual conflict."
The report said the United States must now focus on helping determine control over Iraq's crude oil reserves, deemed the most explosive of ethnic disputes. Since October 2008, no progress has been reported in talks between the government and major ethnic groups.
"This is where the additional role U.S. combat forces fill in Iraq comes into play," the report said. "Not only are these forces the guardians of a tense peace; they are also the instrument of power that lends credibility to other U.S. levers at the negotiating table.
Degrading their capability before any long term agreement exists on an issue so vital to Iraq's future weakens U.S. ability to shepherd all sides into a compromise, and more ominously, invites a return to the sectarianism of 2006 and 2007."
View the original article in the Philadelphia Bulletin
Jerusalem - A report submitted the week for the U.S. Defense Department has determined that Al Qaida in Iraq would resist any offensive by Baghdad over the next few years.
The report by the Rand Corp. asserted that Iraq, even with U.S. help, would fail to eliminate the Al Qaida (AQI) terror network.
"Eradicating AQI may exceed ISF capabilities, even with U.S. help, but the AQI threat is more likely to grow weaker rather than stronger," the report said.
Titled, "Withdrawing from Iraq: Alternative Schedules, Associated Risks, and Mitigating Strategies," the report provided a bleak picture of Iraq's capability to destroy the Al Qaida terror network. Rand said Al Qaida would remain viable in Iraq despite a decline in financing and recruitment.
"AQI is hampered by a lack of popular support, by restricted movement, and by a dearth of financing," the report said. "It is now largely confined to Mosul, the Tigris River Valley, and Diyala province. One of its principal causes, and a source of recruiting and fund-raising -- the U.S. occupation -- is ending."
The report was released in late July 2009 amid a resurgence of Al Qaida in Iraq's largest province, Anbar. Al Qaida, after a lull of nearly two years, was said to have renewed operations in such Sunni cities as Faluja and Samara.
Rand said AQI has been hampered by the sharp drop in the flow of foreign volunteers to Iraq. As a result, the report said Al Qaida has been increasingly relying on Iraqi women for suicide and other operations.
Syria has been deemed as the way station for at least 90 percent of Al Qaida volunteers to Iraq. The report said Syria has hosted a range of Sunni insurgency groups exiled from Iraq and seeking to destabilize the Baghdad government.
A U.S. combat troop withdrawal was expected to renew the ethnic war in Iraq, another report said.
The Institute of National Security Studies asserted that the 130,000 American troops have largely succeeded in preventing civil war in Iraq. In a report by U.S. Air Force Maj. Clint ZumBrunnen, the institute warned that any reconciliation effort by Sunnis, Shi'ites and Kurds must be backed by American force.
"The correlation between fragile stability in Iraq and the presence of U.S. combat forces is difficult to ignore, even if it is true that US forces do not control the country," said the report by Zum Brunnen, a U.S. Air Force scholar.
The report dismissed U.S. claims of a military victory in the insurgency war in Iraq. Instead, ZumBrunnen asserted that the Sunni insurgency in Iraq abated when the United States provided massive financing to Sunni tribes in central and western Iraq.
"Any precipitous withdrawal of US combat power will greatly reduce U.S. leverage in Iraq and risk a return to the sectarian strife of 2006 simply because few of Iraq's serious internal conflicts have been resolved," the report said.
President Obama has pledged to withdraw all combat troops from Iraq by August 2010, leaving an estimated 50,000 advisers and support personnel.
But the report warned that Sunnis and Kurds, the biggest supporters of a U.S. military presence, would harden their positions toward the dominate Shi'ite community once the Americans begin to withdraw. For its part, the Shi'ite community has been split by a power struggle led by the Iranian-backed Mahdi Army, commanded by Moqtada Sadr.
Meanwhile, ZumBrunnen said, the United States has been led into a potential war in northern Iraq regarding the authority and size of the autonomous Kurdish region. The focus of the confrontation has been the oil-rich area of Kirkuk.
"Both sides are now edgier because there is less certainty that the U.S. will intervene to prevent one side or the other from exploiting an advantage," the report said. "And since any grand bargain between Arabs and Kurds mediated by the United Nations will likely require a powerful military force for enforcement, knowledge that U.S. forces will withdraw completely by 2011 lessens the chance for a nonviolent solution to the dispute.
Accordingly, both the [Kurdish] peshmerga and the ISF [Iraqi security forces] continue to prepare for eventual conflict."
The report said the United States must now focus on helping determine control over Iraq's crude oil reserves, deemed the most explosive of ethnic disputes. Since October 2008, no progress has been reported in talks between the government and major ethnic groups.
"This is where the additional role U.S. combat forces fill in Iraq comes into play," the report said. "Not only are these forces the guardians of a tense peace; they are also the instrument of power that lends credibility to other U.S. levers at the negotiating table.
Degrading their capability before any long term agreement exists on an issue so vital to Iraq's future weakens U.S. ability to shepherd all sides into a compromise, and more ominously, invites a return to the sectarianism of 2006 and 2007."
View the original article in the Philadelphia Bulletin
Monday, August 3, 2009
The Philadelphia Bulletin: 1,800-Year-Old Roman Building Discovered in Jerusalem
by David Bedein
Jerusalem - A spacious edifice from the 3rd Century was recently exposed in the excavations the Israel Antiquities Authority that is carrying out a major excavation in the 'City of David', located in the heart of Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem.
“Although we do not have the complete dimensions of the structure, we can cautiously estimate that the building covered an area of approximately 1,000 square meters,” said Dr. Doron Ben-Ami, the excavation director. “In the center of it was a large open courtyard surrounded by columns. Galleries were spread out between the rows of columns and the rooms that flanked the courtyard. The wings of the building rose to a height of two stories and were covered with tile roofs.”
A large quantity of fresco fragments was discovered in the collapsed ruins from which the excavators deduced that some of the walls of the rooms were treated with plaster and decorated with colorful paintings. The painted designs that adorned the plastered walls consisted mostly of geometric and floral motifs. Its architectural richness, plan and particularly the artifacts that were discovered among its ruins bear witness to the unequivocal Roman character of the building. The most outstanding of these finds are a marble figurine in the image of a boxer and a gold earring inlaid with precious stones.
The building was likely shaken by a tremor in the 4th Century, the results of which are clearly apparently in the excavation area: the walls of the rooms caved-in and their stone collapse, which was piled high, covered the walls of the bottom floor, some of which still stand to a considerable height. Architectural elements such as columns and capitals, as well as mosaics and the large amount of fresco fragments that were used in the rooms of the second story were discovered inside the collapsed ruins. The coins that were discovered among the collapse and on the floors indicated the building’s ruins should be dated to circa 360 AD. The structure appears to be archaeological evidence of the an earthquake that struck the Middle East in 363 AD.
“We know of no other buildings from the Roman period that were discovered in Israel which have a similar plan to that of the building from the City of David,” said Dr. Ben-Ami. “The closest contemporary parallels to this structure are located in sites of the second to fourth century that were excavated in Syria. Edifices such as these are 'urban mansions' from the Roman period that were discovered in Antioch, Apamea and Palmyra. If this parallel is correct, then in spite of its size and opulence, it seems that this building was used originally as a private residence.”
The exposure of the Roman building in the City of David is a significant contribution to understanding the extent of the construction in the Roman city in the 3rd to 4th Centuries AD. It constitutes extremely important archaeological evidence regarding the growth of the settlement at the end of the Roman period into the southern precincts of the city, and it shows that the prevailing supposition among scholars that the City of David remained outside the area of Roman settlement is no longer valid.
View this story in the Philadelphia Bulletin
View this story at Israel Behind the News
Jerusalem - A spacious edifice from the 3rd Century was recently exposed in the excavations the Israel Antiquities Authority that is carrying out a major excavation in the 'City of David', located in the heart of Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem.
“Although we do not have the complete dimensions of the structure, we can cautiously estimate that the building covered an area of approximately 1,000 square meters,” said Dr. Doron Ben-Ami, the excavation director. “In the center of it was a large open courtyard surrounded by columns. Galleries were spread out between the rows of columns and the rooms that flanked the courtyard. The wings of the building rose to a height of two stories and were covered with tile roofs.”
A large quantity of fresco fragments was discovered in the collapsed ruins from which the excavators deduced that some of the walls of the rooms were treated with plaster and decorated with colorful paintings. The painted designs that adorned the plastered walls consisted mostly of geometric and floral motifs. Its architectural richness, plan and particularly the artifacts that were discovered among its ruins bear witness to the unequivocal Roman character of the building. The most outstanding of these finds are a marble figurine in the image of a boxer and a gold earring inlaid with precious stones.
The building was likely shaken by a tremor in the 4th Century, the results of which are clearly apparently in the excavation area: the walls of the rooms caved-in and their stone collapse, which was piled high, covered the walls of the bottom floor, some of which still stand to a considerable height. Architectural elements such as columns and capitals, as well as mosaics and the large amount of fresco fragments that were used in the rooms of the second story were discovered inside the collapsed ruins. The coins that were discovered among the collapse and on the floors indicated the building’s ruins should be dated to circa 360 AD. The structure appears to be archaeological evidence of the an earthquake that struck the Middle East in 363 AD.
“We know of no other buildings from the Roman period that were discovered in Israel which have a similar plan to that of the building from the City of David,” said Dr. Ben-Ami. “The closest contemporary parallels to this structure are located in sites of the second to fourth century that were excavated in Syria. Edifices such as these are 'urban mansions' from the Roman period that were discovered in Antioch, Apamea and Palmyra. If this parallel is correct, then in spite of its size and opulence, it seems that this building was used originally as a private residence.”
The exposure of the Roman building in the City of David is a significant contribution to understanding the extent of the construction in the Roman city in the 3rd to 4th Centuries AD. It constitutes extremely important archaeological evidence regarding the growth of the settlement at the end of the Roman period into the southern precincts of the city, and it shows that the prevailing supposition among scholars that the City of David remained outside the area of Roman settlement is no longer valid.
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
Monday, May 18, 2009
The Philadelphia Bulletin: Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Questions Syria's Credibility
by David Bedein
A senior Israeli Foreign Ministry official responded yesterday to a press statement made by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad Saturday, saying “Israel is not a partner for peace,” by calling the Syrian dictator’s credibility into question.
“What interests Assad is not peace, but rather the peace process. Assad knows very well that he will have to pay for peace with normalization and open his country to the West, which could bring about the toppling of his regime,” said Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Daniel Ayalon. “Assad is only interested in the peace process in order to get his country out of its international isolation and to remove the pressure of the international community.”
Peace between Israel and Syria can only be reached, he said, when the Syrians start negotiating without preconditions and stop supporting terrorist groups that seek Israel’s destruction.
“It’s impossible to desire peace and at the same time support and arm Hezbollah, Hamas and the Islamic Jihad,” Mr. Ayalon said.
Mr. Ayalon also addressed today’s meeting between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Barack Obama in Washington. He called the bond between the U.S. and Israel “a natural one” because both nations share the common goal of stopping Iran’s and Pakistan’s nuclear programs.
The Israelis, he said, likely would not act against Iran without coordinating operations with the U.S., and he expressed hope that time hasn’t run out for a diplomatic solution to Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
“Iran is a very weak state in a shaky situation,” Mr. Ayalon said. “They cannot withstand real sanctions; their banks and shipping companies are vulnerable. If the world insists on imposing strict sanctions against them, military action may not be necessary.”
See this story in the Philadelphia Bulletin
See this story at Israel Behind the News
A senior Israeli Foreign Ministry official responded yesterday to a press statement made by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad Saturday, saying “Israel is not a partner for peace,” by calling the Syrian dictator’s credibility into question.
“What interests Assad is not peace, but rather the peace process. Assad knows very well that he will have to pay for peace with normalization and open his country to the West, which could bring about the toppling of his regime,” said Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Daniel Ayalon. “Assad is only interested in the peace process in order to get his country out of its international isolation and to remove the pressure of the international community.”
Peace between Israel and Syria can only be reached, he said, when the Syrians start negotiating without preconditions and stop supporting terrorist groups that seek Israel’s destruction.
“It’s impossible to desire peace and at the same time support and arm Hezbollah, Hamas and the Islamic Jihad,” Mr. Ayalon said.
Mr. Ayalon also addressed today’s meeting between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Barack Obama in Washington. He called the bond between the U.S. and Israel “a natural one” because both nations share the common goal of stopping Iran’s and Pakistan’s nuclear programs.
The Israelis, he said, likely would not act against Iran without coordinating operations with the U.S., and he expressed hope that time hasn’t run out for a diplomatic solution to Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
“Iran is a very weak state in a shaky situation,” Mr. Ayalon said. “They cannot withstand real sanctions; their banks and shipping companies are vulnerable. If the world insists on imposing strict sanctions against them, military action may not be necessary.”
See this story in the Philadelphia Bulletin
See this story at Israel Behind the News
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
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
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
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
The Philadelphia Bulletin: Biological Weapons, Instead of Nuclear Weapons, Keep Syria within Axis of Evil
by David Bedein
Syria has reportedly rebuilt the structure that housed the reactor bombed by Israel last year and has turned the site into a facility for manufacturing chemical and biological weapons.
Official sources stated Syria had significantly expanded its biological and chemical weapons program by doing so.
According to a CBS News report, the discovery of the Syrian program was one of the reasons President Barack Obama decided to renew the sanctions against Syria. An American source said [the U.S.] had received information that had altered the situation in U.S.-Syrian relations. After Sunday night’s report on CBS, it was clear what this information was.
A senior American intelligence source in Washington told the Israeli media Syria had denied having rebuilt the structure and also denied it was part of its biological and chemical weapons program. American satellite imagery, however, showed unequivocally that Syria was lying.
The discovery of the renewed Syrian biological and chemical weapons program adds to a series of differences of opinion that has left the Syrians and Americans in a deadlock.
Syria’s relationship with Iran, arming of Hezbollah and hosting of Hamas and other terror groups greatly troubles the Obama administration.
As a result, Mr. Obama announced a change in his Syria policy after his two envoys returned to Washington on Sunday.
The envoys went to Syria with the new intelligence showing the site that formerly housed the nuclear reactor had been restored and had become a structure housing an expanded chemical and biological weapons program.
Syria, however, denied the existence of the new program at the facility despite being shown the satellite footage, which was the straw that broke the camel’s back.
After Mr. Obama consulted with his advisers, he reached the conclusion that Syria had not done anything to justify removing the sanctions.
“The concerns we had about Syria’s actions have not changed, so renewing the sanctions was the right thing to do,” a senior White House source told the Voice of Israel Radio.
See this story in the Philadelphia Bulletin
See this story at Israel Behind the News
Syria has reportedly rebuilt the structure that housed the reactor bombed by Israel last year and has turned the site into a facility for manufacturing chemical and biological weapons.
Official sources stated Syria had significantly expanded its biological and chemical weapons program by doing so.
According to a CBS News report, the discovery of the Syrian program was one of the reasons President Barack Obama decided to renew the sanctions against Syria. An American source said [the U.S.] had received information that had altered the situation in U.S.-Syrian relations. After Sunday night’s report on CBS, it was clear what this information was.
A senior American intelligence source in Washington told the Israeli media Syria had denied having rebuilt the structure and also denied it was part of its biological and chemical weapons program. American satellite imagery, however, showed unequivocally that Syria was lying.
The discovery of the renewed Syrian biological and chemical weapons program adds to a series of differences of opinion that has left the Syrians and Americans in a deadlock.
Syria’s relationship with Iran, arming of Hezbollah and hosting of Hamas and other terror groups greatly troubles the Obama administration.
As a result, Mr. Obama announced a change in his Syria policy after his two envoys returned to Washington on Sunday.
The envoys went to Syria with the new intelligence showing the site that formerly housed the nuclear reactor had been restored and had become a structure housing an expanded chemical and biological weapons program.
Syria, however, denied the existence of the new program at the facility despite being shown the satellite footage, which was the straw that broke the camel’s back.
After Mr. Obama consulted with his advisers, he reached the conclusion that Syria had not done anything to justify removing the sanctions.
“The concerns we had about Syria’s actions have not changed, so renewing the sanctions was the right thing to do,” a senior White House source told the Voice of Israel Radio.
See this story in the Philadelphia Bulletin
See this story at Israel Behind the News
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
