by
JERUSALEM - Israel is threatening to launch a global campaign against Saudi Arabia, the only Arab nation contiguous to Israel which still remains in full state of war with the Jewish state since 1948.
The campaign will include the use of various means of leverage and lobbies in the United States, Europe and other places around the world, raising the issue of human rights, the status of women and financing terrorism in the U.S. Congress, the European Parliament and other venues, a public relations campaign and even lodging complaints with international courts.
This campaign is being launched in the wake of a conclusion that was drawn by Israeli government officials that Saudi Arabia was the principal force behind the global campaign to delegitimize Israel, especially on college campuses around the world, where Saudi-funded Middle East Studies programs are showing their cumulative effect.
Senior Israeli political officials said this week in closed conversations that the Saudis have financed a large part of the lawsuits that were filed to international courts, the public debates, the conferences, the slander and hounding of Israel in the United States, Europe and elsewhere.
“They’re playing a double game,” said one official. “The Saudis act as if they are part of the moderate camp and are trying to exploit the West for their own needs, when at the same time they have been financing an orchestrated campaign against Israel’s legitimacy, against Israel’s economy and more. That needs to be ended.”
The plan calls for Israel to convey a strenuous message in the next number of days to the United States that will include information about Saudi Arabia’s involvement in the above-cited activities.
Israel will demand that the Americans intervene and use their influence and the leverage that they have over the Saudis to pressure Saudi Arabia.
In tandem, all Israeli representatives overseas will be briefed, as will all the Jewish organizations, the Jewish lobby and Israeli allies in the U.S. Congress and elsewhere so as to begin to “pester” Saudi Arabia, to place on the public agenda its involvement in financing terrorism, the state of human rights in the kingdom, the status of women and numerous other issues.
The possibility of filing lawsuits to either international or foreign courts will also be looked into, among other options.
See this report in the Philadelphia Bulletin
See this report at Israel Behind the News
Showing posts with label saudi arabia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label saudi arabia. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Sunday, May 2, 2010
by David Bedein
Saudi Arabia, the only Arab nation contiguous to Israel which remains in a total state of war with Israel since 1948, has taken a step towards posing a nuclear threat against Jerusalem. This past week, The Tel Aviv based Institute of National Security Studies issued a report which confirms the ata that Riyad has been working to prepare a nuclear infrastructure.
That report can be found at the Institute for National Security Studies
The report, entitled "The Saudi Nuclear Option", authored by a senior intelligence analyst, Yoel Guzansky, asserts that Pakistan will be the most likely developer of a Saudi nuclear option
The report said that a key Saudi option involved the Saudi alliance with Pakistan, which has received billions of dollars from the Gulf Cooperation Council kingdom for strategic programs. In the words of the report...”Should Saudi Arabia find itself in a sensitive security situation, it may well be that it would seek to capitalize on its investment in the Pakistani program."
The report went in to say that “Despite Saudi Arabia’s relative transparency and cooperation with the international community on nuclear issues, there are more than a few doubts as to its credibility, given that in the past it had very close relations with Pakistan," the report said. "More than once the claim has been made that Saudi Arabia was in fact behind the financing of Pakistan's nuclear and missile programs. After the Islamic revolution and throughout the 1980s Pakistan stationed military forces in Saudi Arabia and the two nations cooperated in assisting the Afghani mujahadeen."
The report also stated that Pakistan wields the manpower and technology for the nuclear weapons program for Saudi Arabia.
In the 1980s, Saudi Arabia procured the Chinese-origin CSS-2 surface-to-surface missiles from Pakistan. The CSS-2, although not regarded as accurate, was designed to contain a nuclear warhead.
"Various developments therefore may lead Saudi Arabia to accelerate its timetable, and along with or instead of developing independent nuclear
infrastructures, it is not inconceivable that it would prefer buying turnkey components, enter into a military treaty with Pakistan, and in certain
scenarios, even deploy Pakistani nuclear forces on Saudi soil because of the urgency and its lack of appropriate infrastructures," the report said.
This seminal study has hardly been reported in Israel - because INSS couched Saudi's nuclear option only as a response to a possible Iranian threat against Saudi Arabia.
Yet Saudi Arabia is not in a state of war with Iran.
Saudi Arabia is in a state of war with Israel, expressed in terms of consistent Saudi aid to Palestinian terrorist organizations, and Saudi funding for middle east studies programs on Unversity campuses around the world which prepare the next geneation of intellectuals to carry on the war with Israel and with Zionism.
See more on this story at Israel Behind the News
Saudi Arabia, the only Arab nation contiguous to Israel which remains in a total state of war with Israel since 1948, has taken a step towards posing a nuclear threat against Jerusalem. This past week, The Tel Aviv based Institute of National Security Studies issued a report which confirms the ata that Riyad has been working to prepare a nuclear infrastructure.
That report can be found at the Institute for National Security Studies
The report, entitled "The Saudi Nuclear Option", authored by a senior intelligence analyst, Yoel Guzansky, asserts that Pakistan will be the most likely developer of a Saudi nuclear option
The report said that a key Saudi option involved the Saudi alliance with Pakistan, which has received billions of dollars from the Gulf Cooperation Council kingdom for strategic programs. In the words of the report...”Should Saudi Arabia find itself in a sensitive security situation, it may well be that it would seek to capitalize on its investment in the Pakistani program."
The report went in to say that “Despite Saudi Arabia’s relative transparency and cooperation with the international community on nuclear issues, there are more than a few doubts as to its credibility, given that in the past it had very close relations with Pakistan," the report said. "More than once the claim has been made that Saudi Arabia was in fact behind the financing of Pakistan's nuclear and missile programs. After the Islamic revolution and throughout the 1980s Pakistan stationed military forces in Saudi Arabia and the two nations cooperated in assisting the Afghani mujahadeen."
The report also stated that Pakistan wields the manpower and technology for the nuclear weapons program for Saudi Arabia.
In the 1980s, Saudi Arabia procured the Chinese-origin CSS-2 surface-to-surface missiles from Pakistan. The CSS-2, although not regarded as accurate, was designed to contain a nuclear warhead.
"Various developments therefore may lead Saudi Arabia to accelerate its timetable, and along with or instead of developing independent nuclear
infrastructures, it is not inconceivable that it would prefer buying turnkey components, enter into a military treaty with Pakistan, and in certain
scenarios, even deploy Pakistani nuclear forces on Saudi soil because of the urgency and its lack of appropriate infrastructures," the report said.
This seminal study has hardly been reported in Israel - because INSS couched Saudi's nuclear option only as a response to a possible Iranian threat against Saudi Arabia.
Yet Saudi Arabia is not in a state of war with Iran.
Saudi Arabia is in a state of war with Israel, expressed in terms of consistent Saudi aid to Palestinian terrorist organizations, and Saudi funding for middle east studies programs on Unversity campuses around the world which prepare the next geneation of intellectuals to carry on the war with Israel and with Zionism.
See more on this story at Israel Behind the News
CNSNews.com Iran Drops Bid for Human Rights Council Seat, Eyes Women’s Rights Body Instead
by Anne Bayefsky
Iran has confirmed it will no longer run for a seat on the Geneva-based U.N. Human Rights Council. Instead, it aims to become a member of an international women's rights body.
Iran's bid to win one of four HRC seats earmarked for Asia had drawn strong opposition from rights campaigners already critical of the presence of countries with poor rights records - including China, Cuba and Saudi Arabia - on the 47-member body.
Iran's withdrawal means that the remaining candidates for the four Asia seats - Qatar, Malaysia, Thailand and the Maldives - are all but assured of success when the full 192-member U.N. General Assembly on May 13 elects 14 HRC members.
Iran made the decision to end its candidature after discussions with other members of the U.N.'s Asia group, Tehran's foreign ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast said Sunday.
Hinting at a quid pro quo, he said that Iran would instead be a candidate for an international women's rights body - "and all Asian countries will support our membership."
It was not immediately clear which body he meant. Iran's ILNA news agency quoted Mehmanparast as saying the "Women's Human Rights Council" while IRNA quoted him as saying the "International Commission for Protection of Women's Rights."
There are two main U.N. bodies relating to women's rights. The 23-member Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) holds elections in June for 11 vacancies, but the nomination list closed in March and Iran is not on it. The 45-member Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) will have two Asia seat vacancies early next year, when Pakistan's and Cambodia's terms end.
Whatever the case, the prospect that Iran - with the support of other Asian states - will take a seat on a body charged with promoting the rights of women is certain to stoke controversy.
"Putting fundamentalist Iran in charge of a women's rights commission is like putting a pyromaniac as chief of the fire department," Hillel Neuer, director of the Geneva-based U.N. Watch, said late Sunday. "It's an outrage, and completely unacceptable."
Among the reasons Iranian and other human rights advocates gave for urging governments to block Iran's HRC candidacy was its treatment of women.
In a letter to U.N. member states last week one of Iran's most prominent rights advocates, the exiled Nobel peace prize laureate Shirin Ebadi, urged them to reject the candidacy of a country "which has been violating human rights for years."
Ebadi gave examples of discrimination faced by Iranian women, including the fact that "blood money" - the prescribed amount paid to the heirs of a murder victim - for a woman is half the sum of that for a man.
"The testimony of two women is equivalent to the testimony of one man," she wrote. "A man is permitted to have four wives and divorce any of them without giving any reasons."
Ebadi said that women in Iran who seek equal rights are charged with conspiring to overthrow the Islamic Republic. More than 100 such women currently faced criminal charges.
Another letter sent to U.N. members last week urging them to block Iran's HRC bid came from 12 top Iranian human rights activists, who said women in the country were treated as "second class citizens."
The State Department's most recent international human rights report, released last month, noted that Iranian women face discrimination even in the administration of some of the most controversial shari'a punishments, such as stoning for adultery.
"The law provides that a victim of stoning is allowed to go free if he or she escapes," the report said. "It is much harder for women to escape, as they are buried to their necks, whereas men are buried only to their waists."
'With or without Iran, council lacks credibility'
Iran's withdrawal from next month's HRC election followed behind-the-scenes lobbying by the U.S. and other Western members.
The decision drew widespread praise from human rights advocates and others, and U.S. officials characterized it as a sign the council was moving in the right direction.
Anne Bayefsky, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and editor of Eye on the U.N., disagreed that the development showed the HRC was becoming a serious agency for promoting human rights.
"At the last council session, no resolution on Iran's abysmal human rights record was even presented let alone adopted," she said Sunday. "There has never been any special session of the council on Iran, though the events of last June's election and subsequent crackdown cried out for serious attention."
Bayefsky recalled that when Iran went through the council's "universal periodic review" mechanism earlier this year the process "ended with a round of applause for Iran."
"So the fact that Iran is not a member of the council has not made the slightest difference to the council's total unwillingness to do anything about human rights in Iran."
Noting the presence on the council of "countries with some of the worst human rights situations on the planet" - such as Saudi Arabia, China, Cuba and Russia - Bayefsky said that "adding or subtracting Iranian membership is hardly determinative of the council's credibility."
'What about Libya?'
The last time Tehran stood for a seat on the HRC was 2006, when the council was established to replace the U.N. Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR). Iran was one of 18 countries competing for 13 Asian seats and got the second lowest number of votes, with only Iraq doing worse.
Since that first election, the amount of competition for seats has fallen sharply.
Barring any last minute entries, on May 13 neither Asia nor any of the other geographical groups - Africa, Eastern Europe, Latin America and the Caribbean, and the Western group - will offer any contest. All have "closed slates" - the same number of candidates as there are available seats.
Human rights organizations have argued that a lack of competition has helped violators to get seats.
Neuer of U.N. Watch drew attention Sunday to the likelihood of Libya winning a seat next month.
Although an official U.N. list of candidates does not currently include any African country, diplomats say Libya is one of four African candidates for four available African seats.
"Libya persecutes its two million black African migrants, for which it has been denounced by the U.N. itself," Neuer said. He also cited the torture of a Palestinian doctor and Bulgarian nurses accused of deliberately infecting Libyan children with the HIV virus, and Libya's incarceration of a Swiss businessman after Muammar Gaddafi's son was arrested in 2008 and accused of assaulting personal staff at a Geneva hotel.
Neuer drew a contrast between Western opposition to Iran's HRC bid and Libya's.
"Western states are doing nothing about this because they now buy Libyan oil, and because Gaddafi has for now sworn off terrorism, and is in a kind of post-rogue recovery program," he said.
"Western states who are on the council know that Libya will be elected, and fear the impact this could have on the perceived credibility of the council. "Regrettably, they have more fear about the PR consequences - how the people will view what the foreign policy elites are doing in Geneva - than they do of the actual damage that Libya's presence on the council will cause," Neuer added.
Libya was not only a member of the now defunct UNCHR, but in 2003 it was nominated by the African group to chair that body.
The Bush administration opposed the move and for the first time in the commission's history, the U.S. forced a vote, breaking with the tradition of filling the chairmanship "by acclamation."
Libya won by 33 votes to three (it was a secret ballot, but the three votes were understood to have come from the U.S., Canada and Guatemala). Another 17 UNCHR members - including European Union nations - abstained.
Anne Bayefsky, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and editor of Eye on the U.N., disagreed that the development showed the HRC was becoming a serious agency for promoting human rights.
"At the last council session, no resolution on Iran's abysmal human rights record was even presented let alone adopted," she said Sunday. "There has never been any special session of the council on Iran, though the events of last June's election and subsequent crackdown cried out for serious attention."
Bayefsky recalled that when Iran went through the council's "universal periodic review" mechanism earlier this year the process "ended with a round of applause for Iran."
"So the fact that Iran is not a member of the council has not made the slightest difference to the council's total unwillingness to do anything about human rights in Iran."
Noting the presence on the council of "countries with some of the worst human rights situations on the planet" - such as Saudi Arabia, China, Cuba and Russia - Bayefsky said that "adding or subtracting Iranian membership is hardly determinative of the council's credibility."
See this story at CNSNews
See this story here at Israel Behind the News
Iran has confirmed it will no longer run for a seat on the Geneva-based U.N. Human Rights Council. Instead, it aims to become a member of an international women's rights body.
Iran's bid to win one of four HRC seats earmarked for Asia had drawn strong opposition from rights campaigners already critical of the presence of countries with poor rights records - including China, Cuba and Saudi Arabia - on the 47-member body.
Iran's withdrawal means that the remaining candidates for the four Asia seats - Qatar, Malaysia, Thailand and the Maldives - are all but assured of success when the full 192-member U.N. General Assembly on May 13 elects 14 HRC members.
Iran made the decision to end its candidature after discussions with other members of the U.N.'s Asia group, Tehran's foreign ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast said Sunday.
Hinting at a quid pro quo, he said that Iran would instead be a candidate for an international women's rights body - "and all Asian countries will support our membership."
It was not immediately clear which body he meant. Iran's ILNA news agency quoted Mehmanparast as saying the "Women's Human Rights Council" while IRNA quoted him as saying the "International Commission for Protection of Women's Rights."
There are two main U.N. bodies relating to women's rights. The 23-member Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) holds elections in June for 11 vacancies, but the nomination list closed in March and Iran is not on it. The 45-member Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) will have two Asia seat vacancies early next year, when Pakistan's and Cambodia's terms end.
Whatever the case, the prospect that Iran - with the support of other Asian states - will take a seat on a body charged with promoting the rights of women is certain to stoke controversy.
"Putting fundamentalist Iran in charge of a women's rights commission is like putting a pyromaniac as chief of the fire department," Hillel Neuer, director of the Geneva-based U.N. Watch, said late Sunday. "It's an outrage, and completely unacceptable."
Among the reasons Iranian and other human rights advocates gave for urging governments to block Iran's HRC candidacy was its treatment of women.
In a letter to U.N. member states last week one of Iran's most prominent rights advocates, the exiled Nobel peace prize laureate Shirin Ebadi, urged them to reject the candidacy of a country "which has been violating human rights for years."
Ebadi gave examples of discrimination faced by Iranian women, including the fact that "blood money" - the prescribed amount paid to the heirs of a murder victim - for a woman is half the sum of that for a man.
"The testimony of two women is equivalent to the testimony of one man," she wrote. "A man is permitted to have four wives and divorce any of them without giving any reasons."
Ebadi said that women in Iran who seek equal rights are charged with conspiring to overthrow the Islamic Republic. More than 100 such women currently faced criminal charges.
Another letter sent to U.N. members last week urging them to block Iran's HRC bid came from 12 top Iranian human rights activists, who said women in the country were treated as "second class citizens."
The State Department's most recent international human rights report, released last month, noted that Iranian women face discrimination even in the administration of some of the most controversial shari'a punishments, such as stoning for adultery.
"The law provides that a victim of stoning is allowed to go free if he or she escapes," the report said. "It is much harder for women to escape, as they are buried to their necks, whereas men are buried only to their waists."
'With or without Iran, council lacks credibility'
Iran's withdrawal from next month's HRC election followed behind-the-scenes lobbying by the U.S. and other Western members.
The decision drew widespread praise from human rights advocates and others, and U.S. officials characterized it as a sign the council was moving in the right direction.
Anne Bayefsky, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and editor of Eye on the U.N., disagreed that the development showed the HRC was becoming a serious agency for promoting human rights.
"At the last council session, no resolution on Iran's abysmal human rights record was even presented let alone adopted," she said Sunday. "There has never been any special session of the council on Iran, though the events of last June's election and subsequent crackdown cried out for serious attention."
Bayefsky recalled that when Iran went through the council's "universal periodic review" mechanism earlier this year the process "ended with a round of applause for Iran."
"So the fact that Iran is not a member of the council has not made the slightest difference to the council's total unwillingness to do anything about human rights in Iran."
Noting the presence on the council of "countries with some of the worst human rights situations on the planet" - such as Saudi Arabia, China, Cuba and Russia - Bayefsky said that "adding or subtracting Iranian membership is hardly determinative of the council's credibility."
'What about Libya?'
The last time Tehran stood for a seat on the HRC was 2006, when the council was established to replace the U.N. Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR). Iran was one of 18 countries competing for 13 Asian seats and got the second lowest number of votes, with only Iraq doing worse.
Since that first election, the amount of competition for seats has fallen sharply.
Barring any last minute entries, on May 13 neither Asia nor any of the other geographical groups - Africa, Eastern Europe, Latin America and the Caribbean, and the Western group - will offer any contest. All have "closed slates" - the same number of candidates as there are available seats.
Human rights organizations have argued that a lack of competition has helped violators to get seats.
Neuer of U.N. Watch drew attention Sunday to the likelihood of Libya winning a seat next month.
Although an official U.N. list of candidates does not currently include any African country, diplomats say Libya is one of four African candidates for four available African seats.
"Libya persecutes its two million black African migrants, for which it has been denounced by the U.N. itself," Neuer said. He also cited the torture of a Palestinian doctor and Bulgarian nurses accused of deliberately infecting Libyan children with the HIV virus, and Libya's incarceration of a Swiss businessman after Muammar Gaddafi's son was arrested in 2008 and accused of assaulting personal staff at a Geneva hotel.
Neuer drew a contrast between Western opposition to Iran's HRC bid and Libya's.
"Western states are doing nothing about this because they now buy Libyan oil, and because Gaddafi has for now sworn off terrorism, and is in a kind of post-rogue recovery program," he said.
"Western states who are on the council know that Libya will be elected, and fear the impact this could have on the perceived credibility of the council. "Regrettably, they have more fear about the PR consequences - how the people will view what the foreign policy elites are doing in Geneva - than they do of the actual damage that Libya's presence on the council will cause," Neuer added.
Libya was not only a member of the now defunct UNCHR, but in 2003 it was nominated by the African group to chair that body.
The Bush administration opposed the move and for the first time in the commission's history, the U.S. forced a vote, breaking with the tradition of filling the chairmanship "by acclamation."
Libya won by 33 votes to three (it was a secret ballot, but the three votes were understood to have come from the U.S., Canada and Guatemala). Another 17 UNCHR members - including European Union nations - abstained.
Anne Bayefsky, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and editor of Eye on the U.N., disagreed that the development showed the HRC was becoming a serious agency for promoting human rights.
"At the last council session, no resolution on Iran's abysmal human rights record was even presented let alone adopted," she said Sunday. "There has never been any special session of the council on Iran, though the events of last June's election and subsequent crackdown cried out for serious attention."
Bayefsky recalled that when Iran went through the council's "universal periodic review" mechanism earlier this year the process "ended with a round of applause for Iran."
"So the fact that Iran is not a member of the council has not made the slightest difference to the council's total unwillingness to do anything about human rights in Iran."
Noting the presence on the council of "countries with some of the worst human rights situations on the planet" - such as Saudi Arabia, China, Cuba and Russia - Bayefsky said that "adding or subtracting Iranian membership is hardly determinative of the council's credibility."
See this story at CNSNews
See this story here at Israel Behind the News
Confirmed Israel Intelligence Study: Saudis Will Now Pose a Nuclear Threat - Yet It Goes Virtually Unreported in Israel
Saudi Arabia, the only Arab nation contiguous to Israel which remains in a total state of war with Israel since 1948, has taken a step towards posing a nuclear threat against Jerusalem. This past week, The Tel Aviv based Institute of National Security Studies issued a report which confirms the ata that Riyad has been working to prepare a nuclear infrastructure.
That report can be found at: http://www.inss.org.il/publications.php?cat=21&incat=&read=3973
The report, entitled "The Saudi Nuclear Option", authored by a senior intelligence analyst, Yoel Guzansky, asserts that Pakistan will be the most likely developer of a Saudi nuclear option
The report said that a key Saudi option involved the Saudi alliance with Pakistan, which has received billions of dollars from the Gulf Cooperation Council kingdom for strategic programs. In the words of the report...”Should Saudi Arabia find itself in a sensitive security situation, it may well be that it would seek to capitalize on its investment in the Pakistani program."
The report went in to say that “Despite Saudi Arabia’s relative transparency and cooperation with the international community on nuclear issues, there are more than a few doubts as to its credibility, given that in the past it had very close relations with Pakistan," the report said. "More than once the claim has been made that Saudi Arabia was in fact behind the financing of Pakistan's nuclear and missile programs. After the Islamic revolution and throughout the 1980s Pakistan stationed military forces in Saudi Arabia and the two nations cooperated in assisting the Afghani mujahadeen."
The report also stated that Pakistan wields the manpower and technology for the nuclear weapons program for Saudi Arabia.
In the 1980s, Saudi Arabia procured the Chinese-origin CSS-2 surface-to-surface missiles from Pakistan. The CSS-2, although not regarded as accurate, was designed to contain a nuclear warhead.
"Various developments therefore may lead Saudi Arabia to accelerate its timetable, and along with or instead of developing independent nuclear
infrastructures, it is not inconceivable that it would prefer buying turnkey components, enter into a military treaty with Pakistan, and in certain
scenarios, even deploy Pakistani nuclear forces on Saudi soil because of the urgency and its lack of appropriate infrastructures," the report said.
This seminal study has hardly been reported in Israel - because INSS couched Saudi's nuclear option only as a response to a possible Iranian threat against Saudi Arabia.
Yet Saudi Arabia is not in a state of war with Iran.
Saudi Arabia is in a state of war with Israel, expressed in terms of consistent Saudi aid to Palestinian terrorist organizations, and Saudi funding for middle east studies programs on Unversity campuses around the world which prepare the next geneation of intellectuals to carry on the war with Israel and with Zionism.
View this story at Israel Behind the News
That report can be found at: http://www.inss.org.il/publications.php?cat=21&incat=&read=3973
The report, entitled "The Saudi Nuclear Option", authored by a senior intelligence analyst, Yoel Guzansky, asserts that Pakistan will be the most likely developer of a Saudi nuclear option
The report said that a key Saudi option involved the Saudi alliance with Pakistan, which has received billions of dollars from the Gulf Cooperation Council kingdom for strategic programs. In the words of the report...”Should Saudi Arabia find itself in a sensitive security situation, it may well be that it would seek to capitalize on its investment in the Pakistani program."
The report went in to say that “Despite Saudi Arabia’s relative transparency and cooperation with the international community on nuclear issues, there are more than a few doubts as to its credibility, given that in the past it had very close relations with Pakistan," the report said. "More than once the claim has been made that Saudi Arabia was in fact behind the financing of Pakistan's nuclear and missile programs. After the Islamic revolution and throughout the 1980s Pakistan stationed military forces in Saudi Arabia and the two nations cooperated in assisting the Afghani mujahadeen."
The report also stated that Pakistan wields the manpower and technology for the nuclear weapons program for Saudi Arabia.
In the 1980s, Saudi Arabia procured the Chinese-origin CSS-2 surface-to-surface missiles from Pakistan. The CSS-2, although not regarded as accurate, was designed to contain a nuclear warhead.
"Various developments therefore may lead Saudi Arabia to accelerate its timetable, and along with or instead of developing independent nuclear
infrastructures, it is not inconceivable that it would prefer buying turnkey components, enter into a military treaty with Pakistan, and in certain
scenarios, even deploy Pakistani nuclear forces on Saudi soil because of the urgency and its lack of appropriate infrastructures," the report said.
This seminal study has hardly been reported in Israel - because INSS couched Saudi's nuclear option only as a response to a possible Iranian threat against Saudi Arabia.
Yet Saudi Arabia is not in a state of war with Iran.
Saudi Arabia is in a state of war with Israel, expressed in terms of consistent Saudi aid to Palestinian terrorist organizations, and Saudi funding for middle east studies programs on Unversity campuses around the world which prepare the next geneation of intellectuals to carry on the war with Israel and with Zionism.
View this story at Israel Behind the News
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
Sunday, November 15, 2009
The Philadelphia Bulletin: Saudi Arabia:The Source Of Islamization In US Military
by David Bedein
JERUSALEM - Saudi Arabia has been identified as the source of the growing Islamization in the U.S. military.
Army Pfc. Michael Pearson’s mother, Sheryll Pearson, is comforted by her son, Kristopher Craig, who is also Michael’s brother, at their home in Bolingbrook, Il. on Nov. 6. Pfc. Pearson was shot and killed at Fort Hood Army base in Texas on Nov. 5. (Paul Beaty/Associated Press)
A leading analyst asserted that Saudi Arabia spent millions of dollars in its effort to convert U.S. soldiers to Islam. Dr. Gal Luft, co-director of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security in Washington, said the campaign pioneered by the Saudis began during the 1991 war against Iraq, which involved the deployment of nearly 500,000 U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia.
"Nearly two decades have passed since the Saudi conversion campaign, and most of the converts may no longer be in uniforms," Dr. Luft said.
"But the seeds sown during the Gulf War have germinated, creating scores of radicalized Americans who are a threat to their comrades in uniforms as well as to their civilian communities."
Dr. Luft traced the recent killing of 13 U.S. soldiers by a Muslim officer to a Saudi indoctrination campaign.
Dr. Luft said the Saudi campaign resulted in the spread of Wahabi doctrine, which stresses Islamic war.
"While Muslim soldiers have served in uniforms loyally for decades, it is the rising number of Wahabi-trained and converted Muslims that is a relatively recent phenomenon," Dr. Luft said in a report, "Since Wahabism is one of the most radical and puritan strands of Islam, the penetration of Wahabi thinking into the ranks of the military must be treated with care."
Dr. Luft's report, released on Tuesday, said the spread of Wahabi influence has endangered U.S. soldiers. A recurring prospect has been the turning of Wahabi-indoctrinated soldiers on their colleagues.
Dr. Luft, quoting former U.S. officers, said Saudi military personnel were directed to identify and missionize their American counterparts. He said the Saudi campaign was a "well-orchestrated and generously funded effort sponsored by the Saudi government to convert as many American military members as possible to Islam."
At one point, Saudi commander and now deputy defense minister, Prince Khaled Bin Sultan, bragged that more than 2,000 U.S. troops converted to Islam in 1991. Some of the U.S. officers were said to have been given as much as $30,000 to convert.
"These Muslim troops are now the messengers of Islam in the U.S. forces," Dr. Abu Ameena Bilal Phillips, an Islamic convert who missionizes in the military, was quoted by the report as saying.
The report said the shooting by Maj. Nidal Hasan at Fort Hood, Texas represented an Islamic attack. Dr. Luft quoted Hasan as shouting to fellow
soldiers, "You guys are coming into our countries and you’re going to rape
our women and kill our children."
"It is time to investigate what exactly happened back then in the desert
and assess how serious and deep-rooted the damage is," Dr. Luft's report said.
View the original article in the Philadelphia Bulletin
JERUSALEM - Saudi Arabia has been identified as the source of the growing Islamization in the U.S. military.
Army Pfc. Michael Pearson’s mother, Sheryll Pearson, is comforted by her son, Kristopher Craig, who is also Michael’s brother, at their home in Bolingbrook, Il. on Nov. 6. Pfc. Pearson was shot and killed at Fort Hood Army base in Texas on Nov. 5. (Paul Beaty/Associated Press)
A leading analyst asserted that Saudi Arabia spent millions of dollars in its effort to convert U.S. soldiers to Islam. Dr. Gal Luft, co-director of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security in Washington, said the campaign pioneered by the Saudis began during the 1991 war against Iraq, which involved the deployment of nearly 500,000 U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia.
"Nearly two decades have passed since the Saudi conversion campaign, and most of the converts may no longer be in uniforms," Dr. Luft said.
"But the seeds sown during the Gulf War have germinated, creating scores of radicalized Americans who are a threat to their comrades in uniforms as well as to their civilian communities."
Dr. Luft traced the recent killing of 13 U.S. soldiers by a Muslim officer to a Saudi indoctrination campaign.
Dr. Luft said the Saudi campaign resulted in the spread of Wahabi doctrine, which stresses Islamic war.
"While Muslim soldiers have served in uniforms loyally for decades, it is the rising number of Wahabi-trained and converted Muslims that is a relatively recent phenomenon," Dr. Luft said in a report, "Since Wahabism is one of the most radical and puritan strands of Islam, the penetration of Wahabi thinking into the ranks of the military must be treated with care."
Dr. Luft's report, released on Tuesday, said the spread of Wahabi influence has endangered U.S. soldiers. A recurring prospect has been the turning of Wahabi-indoctrinated soldiers on their colleagues.
Dr. Luft, quoting former U.S. officers, said Saudi military personnel were directed to identify and missionize their American counterparts. He said the Saudi campaign was a "well-orchestrated and generously funded effort sponsored by the Saudi government to convert as many American military members as possible to Islam."
At one point, Saudi commander and now deputy defense minister, Prince Khaled Bin Sultan, bragged that more than 2,000 U.S. troops converted to Islam in 1991. Some of the U.S. officers were said to have been given as much as $30,000 to convert.
"These Muslim troops are now the messengers of Islam in the U.S. forces," Dr. Abu Ameena Bilal Phillips, an Islamic convert who missionizes in the military, was quoted by the report as saying.
The report said the shooting by Maj. Nidal Hasan at Fort Hood, Texas represented an Islamic attack. Dr. Luft quoted Hasan as shouting to fellow
soldiers, "You guys are coming into our countries and you’re going to rape
our women and kill our children."
"It is time to investigate what exactly happened back then in the desert
and assess how serious and deep-rooted the damage is," Dr. Luft's report said.
View the original article in the Philadelphia Bulletin
Saturday, October 10, 2009
The Philadelphia Bulletin: Saudis Examine Major F-15 Purchase From US
by David Bedein
Jerusalem - Saudi Arabia is the only Arab state contiguous to Israel to maintain a full state of war with Israel since 1948 without ever agreeing to any cease fire or peace treaty with the Jewish state. In the context of that war, the Saudi government has been negotiating for a new major order of the F-15 fighter jets from the United States.
Riyad, the capital of Saudi Arabia, has been discussing the procurement of up to 72 advanced F-15 fighters. The Saudi order could include the purchase of Boeing's latest stealth design for the F-15, known as the Silent Eagle.
The U.S. defense Web site “Buzz,” citing industry and defense sources, reported that the U.S. Defense Department would approve any Saudi request for the F-15. The Pentagon's Defense Security Cooperation Agency, which processes requests for major weapons procurement, has not confirmed the Saudi interest.
Boeing has reported interest by Israel and Saudi Arabia of the F-15 Silent Eagle, which remains in the design stage. The Silent Eagle was meant to comprise an F-15E platform modified to reduce its radar signature. The platform would also contain internal conformal fuel tanks.
Saudi Arabia has been operating about 150 F-15s, procured in deals with the United States in the 1970s and 1990s.
In 2008, Riyad received approval for Joint Direct Attack Munitions tail kits for the F-15 fleet.
Riyad has sought to modernize its F-15 fleet as well as bolster defense relations with the United States. The Saudis have also been preparing for the first deliveries of the Eurofighter Typhoon, a multi-role combat fighter, as part of an $8.9 billion deal with BAE Systems, a global defense, security and aerospace company.
View the original article in the Philadelphia Bulletin
Jerusalem - Saudi Arabia is the only Arab state contiguous to Israel to maintain a full state of war with Israel since 1948 without ever agreeing to any cease fire or peace treaty with the Jewish state. In the context of that war, the Saudi government has been negotiating for a new major order of the F-15 fighter jets from the United States.
Riyad, the capital of Saudi Arabia, has been discussing the procurement of up to 72 advanced F-15 fighters. The Saudi order could include the purchase of Boeing's latest stealth design for the F-15, known as the Silent Eagle.
The U.S. defense Web site “Buzz,” citing industry and defense sources, reported that the U.S. Defense Department would approve any Saudi request for the F-15. The Pentagon's Defense Security Cooperation Agency, which processes requests for major weapons procurement, has not confirmed the Saudi interest.
Boeing has reported interest by Israel and Saudi Arabia of the F-15 Silent Eagle, which remains in the design stage. The Silent Eagle was meant to comprise an F-15E platform modified to reduce its radar signature. The platform would also contain internal conformal fuel tanks.
Saudi Arabia has been operating about 150 F-15s, procured in deals with the United States in the 1970s and 1990s.
In 2008, Riyad received approval for Joint Direct Attack Munitions tail kits for the F-15 fleet.
Riyad has sought to modernize its F-15 fleet as well as bolster defense relations with the United States. The Saudis have also been preparing for the first deliveries of the Eurofighter Typhoon, a multi-role combat fighter, as part of an $8.9 billion deal with BAE Systems, a global defense, security and aerospace company.
View the original article in the Philadelphia Bulletin
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
The Philadelphia Bulletin: US Congressional Watchdog: Saudi Arabia: Remain Top Funders Of Al Qaida
by David Bedein
JERUSALEM - The United States has determined that Saudi Arabia continues to be the leading source of funding to Al Qaida.
A report by Congress has concluded that Saudi Arabia has been sending funds to both Al Qaida and Taliban in what has helped finance the war against NATO in Afghanistan.
The report by the Government Accountability Office said the Saudi government did not appear to be involved in the funding.
"It is vital that the U.S. demand more from the Saudi government in
cutting off the money flow to the Islamist extremist network," Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the ranking Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said.
GAO has determined that Riyad has failed to stop the flow of funds from individuals and charities to Al Qaida and Taliban. The report said the Saudi funding continued amid the kingdom's crackdown on Al Qaida and counter-insurgency to neighboring Yemen.
"They are a top source of funding for Al Qaida and associated terror groups, such as the Taliban," GAO said on Sept. 29.
The GAO said Saudis and other Gulf Arabs were the chief source of funding to Taliban. The report said couriers were transporting cash from Saudi Arabia and other Gulf Cooperation Council states to Afghanistan and Pakistan for Taliban.
The report also warned of Saudi Arabia's policy to rehabilitate Al Qaida insurgents. GAO reported a 20 percent recidivism rate of the 4,300 Al Qaida operatives who went through the re-education program.
"Saudi officials acknowledge such cases illustrate the difficulties
associated with assessing which participants should be released," GAO said.
The congressional watchdog recommended that the White House draft performance targets for Saudi Arabia in the war against Al Qaida. Over the last five years, several prominent of Congress have sought to link U.S. arms sales to Riyad to its commitment to block funding to Al Qaida.
This report was issued at exactly the same time that the current US Administration places all of its prestige behind the resumption of middle east peace talks, while ignoring the crucial role played by Saudi Arabia, which acts as the titular leader of the Arab League, remaining at war with Israel and positioning itself asthe major funder of Arab terrorist organizations.
View the original article in the Philadelphia Bulletin
JERUSALEM - The United States has determined that Saudi Arabia continues to be the leading source of funding to Al Qaida.
A report by Congress has concluded that Saudi Arabia has been sending funds to both Al Qaida and Taliban in what has helped finance the war against NATO in Afghanistan.
The report by the Government Accountability Office said the Saudi government did not appear to be involved in the funding.
"It is vital that the U.S. demand more from the Saudi government in
cutting off the money flow to the Islamist extremist network," Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the ranking Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said.
GAO has determined that Riyad has failed to stop the flow of funds from individuals and charities to Al Qaida and Taliban. The report said the Saudi funding continued amid the kingdom's crackdown on Al Qaida and counter-insurgency to neighboring Yemen.
"They are a top source of funding for Al Qaida and associated terror groups, such as the Taliban," GAO said on Sept. 29.
The GAO said Saudis and other Gulf Arabs were the chief source of funding to Taliban. The report said couriers were transporting cash from Saudi Arabia and other Gulf Cooperation Council states to Afghanistan and Pakistan for Taliban.
The report also warned of Saudi Arabia's policy to rehabilitate Al Qaida insurgents. GAO reported a 20 percent recidivism rate of the 4,300 Al Qaida operatives who went through the re-education program.
"Saudi officials acknowledge such cases illustrate the difficulties
associated with assessing which participants should be released," GAO said.
The congressional watchdog recommended that the White House draft performance targets for Saudi Arabia in the war against Al Qaida. Over the last five years, several prominent of Congress have sought to link U.S. arms sales to Riyad to its commitment to block funding to Al Qaida.
This report was issued at exactly the same time that the current US Administration places all of its prestige behind the resumption of middle east peace talks, while ignoring the crucial role played by Saudi Arabia, which acts as the titular leader of the Arab League, remaining at war with Israel and positioning itself asthe major funder of Arab terrorist organizations.
View the original article in the Philadelphia Bulletin
Sunday, September 13, 2009
The Philadelphia Bulletin: Saudis Said to Increase Help to Al Qaeda
by David Bedein
In this photo released by Saudi Press Agency, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, left, meets Prince Muhammad bin Nayef, at the Red Sea city of Jiddah, Saudi Arabia on Aug. 28. A recent report by the institute for Gulf Affairs shows that the Saudi royal family may be increasing its aid to the terrorist organization al-Qaida. (Associated Press)
JERUSALEM - Exactly eight years after al-Qaida terrorists dispatched 18 Saudis to crash American commercial airlines into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the The Institute for Gulf Affairs has published a study that accuses the Saudi royal family of increasing aid to al-Qaida terror
The study asserts that the Saudi royal family has encouraged young Saudis to fight Islamic wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan. “The Saudi government has been contributing to the increase in terrorist activities in the years since 9/11 [Sept. 11, 2001],” the report, titled “The Saudi Terror Problem on the Rise Since September 11,” said. The report, citing open sources, said that up to 60 percent of foreign Islamist fighters in Iraq were Saudi nationals. The percentage was said to reflect Saudi policy to destabilize Iraq, dominated by the Shi'ite community.
“The main reason for the high number of Saudi suicide bombers and terrorists in Iraq is the Saudi official policy that supports instability in Iraq,” the report said. “In addition to Saudi officials, major Saudi clerics are part of the recruitment and funding of the insurgency in Iraq. Wahabi clerics, both working for the government or those with close ties with the Saudi ruling family, play a leading role in sustaining the flow of hundreds of Saudi suicide bombers to Iraq and in sending millions of dollars to support them.”
The report also says that Saudi Arabia has dispatched fighters to Afghanistan and Pakistan in the war against NATO. The report cited support by leading Saudi clerics for Taliban as well as fundraising for the Afghan rebel movement in Saudi Arabia.
“Privately obtained reports by the Gulf Institute confirm that members of the Afghan and Pakistani expatriate community in Saudi Arabia are raising funds for the Taliban inside the kingdom,” the report said. “Meetings frequently take place in the central and western regions of Saudi Arabia on farms outside Riyad and other cities. Al Qaida and Taliban recruitment networks in Saudi Arabia remain intact, as indicated by the arrival of dozens of new Saudi fighters who join the fight in Iraq and Afghanistan.”
“In addition to receiving fresh supplies of Saudi fighters, al-Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan receive millions of dollars in funds from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Qatar,” the report added. “Saudi Arabia has not merely contributed fighters, it has also contributed financing to the Taliban.”
The institute study concludes that Saudi Arabia has failed to crack down on al-Qaida and Taliban recruitment and fundraising networks despite Riyad's alliance with the United States. Washington, which approved more than $10 billion in arms deals with Riyad in 2008, has been the leading weapons supplier to Saudi Arabia.
“The United States also failed to persuade or pressure the Saudi government to deal with the root causes of terrorism and extremism,” the report said. “Instead, the U.S. gave the Saudi ruling family unconditional support, including training hundreds of its security forces by U.S. trainers, and providing state-of-the-art technology, which is used to silence political and democratic opponents.”
View the original article in the Philadelphia Bulletin
In this photo released by Saudi Press Agency, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, left, meets Prince Muhammad bin Nayef, at the Red Sea city of Jiddah, Saudi Arabia on Aug. 28. A recent report by the institute for Gulf Affairs shows that the Saudi royal family may be increasing its aid to the terrorist organization al-Qaida. (Associated Press)
JERUSALEM - Exactly eight years after al-Qaida terrorists dispatched 18 Saudis to crash American commercial airlines into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the The Institute for Gulf Affairs has published a study that accuses the Saudi royal family of increasing aid to al-Qaida terror
The study asserts that the Saudi royal family has encouraged young Saudis to fight Islamic wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan. “The Saudi government has been contributing to the increase in terrorist activities in the years since 9/11 [Sept. 11, 2001],” the report, titled “The Saudi Terror Problem on the Rise Since September 11,” said. The report, citing open sources, said that up to 60 percent of foreign Islamist fighters in Iraq were Saudi nationals. The percentage was said to reflect Saudi policy to destabilize Iraq, dominated by the Shi'ite community.
“The main reason for the high number of Saudi suicide bombers and terrorists in Iraq is the Saudi official policy that supports instability in Iraq,” the report said. “In addition to Saudi officials, major Saudi clerics are part of the recruitment and funding of the insurgency in Iraq. Wahabi clerics, both working for the government or those with close ties with the Saudi ruling family, play a leading role in sustaining the flow of hundreds of Saudi suicide bombers to Iraq and in sending millions of dollars to support them.”
The report also says that Saudi Arabia has dispatched fighters to Afghanistan and Pakistan in the war against NATO. The report cited support by leading Saudi clerics for Taliban as well as fundraising for the Afghan rebel movement in Saudi Arabia.
“Privately obtained reports by the Gulf Institute confirm that members of the Afghan and Pakistani expatriate community in Saudi Arabia are raising funds for the Taliban inside the kingdom,” the report said. “Meetings frequently take place in the central and western regions of Saudi Arabia on farms outside Riyad and other cities. Al Qaida and Taliban recruitment networks in Saudi Arabia remain intact, as indicated by the arrival of dozens of new Saudi fighters who join the fight in Iraq and Afghanistan.”
“In addition to receiving fresh supplies of Saudi fighters, al-Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan receive millions of dollars in funds from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Qatar,” the report added. “Saudi Arabia has not merely contributed fighters, it has also contributed financing to the Taliban.”
The institute study concludes that Saudi Arabia has failed to crack down on al-Qaida and Taliban recruitment and fundraising networks despite Riyad's alliance with the United States. Washington, which approved more than $10 billion in arms deals with Riyad in 2008, has been the leading weapons supplier to Saudi Arabia.
“The United States also failed to persuade or pressure the Saudi government to deal with the root causes of terrorism and extremism,” the report said. “Instead, the U.S. gave the Saudi ruling family unconditional support, including training hundreds of its security forces by U.S. trainers, and providing state-of-the-art technology, which is used to silence political and democratic opponents.”
View the original article in the Philadelphia Bulletin
Monday, August 3, 2009
The Philadelphia Bulletin: Israel Renews Construction Supply Sale to Gaza
by David Bedein
Fourth Anniversary Of Explusions Marked: What Do The Katif Communities Look Like Now
An area where Israel continues to cope with is the world wide campaign against Israel’s restrictions of potentially lethal exports into Gaza.
Since the Hamas terror takeover of Gaza in June 2007, Israel did halt the sale of iron, cement and other building materials into Gaza to prevent the construction of fortifications such as underground bunkers and the use iron to manufacture weapons and rockets
On July 16, a group of Philadelphia Rabbis, led by Rabbi Arthur Waskow of Germantown’s Shalom Center, organized Rabbis from all over the United States to conduct an international day of fasting to protest the Israeli “blockade” of humanitarian and medical supplies into gaza.
Due to such pressure, Israel on Thursday allowed renewed export of 300 tons of cement, steel pipes and construction materials into Gaza, for the first time since its military offensive last January.
Rabbi Waskow would not return phone calls to explain why he spread the false rumor that Israel had blocked humanitarian and medical supplies into Gaza.
Mr. Raed Fattouh, an official in the Palestinian Ministry of National Economy, confirmed in an interview with the Palestinian Ma'an news agency that cement would be shipped through UNRWA, the United Nation's relief agency for Palestinian refugees. The Israeli government also approved the transfer of 25 million dollars in cash into Gaza each month, earmarked to pay the salaries of the Palestinian Authority workers and UNRWA workers-
An Israeli security establishment spokesman stressed that "We will carry out all the necessary examinations to ensure that the cement does not fall into the wrong hands-to Hamas,"
However, since Hamas terrorists won an overwhelming victory in the March 2009 UNRWA workers election, with Hamas winning more than 80% of the vote, UNRWA facilities are solidly in the hands of the Hamas terror personnel. This was the third straigt election which affirms the dominant Hamas role in UNRWA.
Israel Minister of Defense, Ehud Barak, would not respond to a Bulletin query as to how Israel could avoid cement and cash payments from falling into the hands of Hamas, since Hamas personnel dominate UNRWA facilities in Gaza.
Fourth Anniversary Of Explusions Marked
This week, more than 2,000 people took part yesterday in a rally to mark the fourth anniversary of Israel’s expulsion of 21 Jewish communities from the Katif district of Gaza.
The rally, held near the Kissufim border crossing to the east of Gaza was attended by expelled residents from various Katif communities, including hundreds of teenagers and young children.
"I am a refugee in my own land and am trying to rehabilitate myself,"
said Mr. Avi Farhan, who was evicted from Yamit in the Sinai in April 1982 after the Camp David Accord and then from Elei Sinai in northern Gaza in August 2005. "You need to understand that it is going to take seven years of living out of boxes, moving from one rented apartment to another, until we move into our own house."
At this point in time, 8 out of the 23 permanent communities earmarked for the Katif evictees are still under construction.
In 11 of the communities, preliminary infrastructure work has yet to be begun. Unemployment among the evictees is 21%, as opposed to the 5% unemployment rate that existed when the Katif communities were thriving.
What Do The Katif Communities Look Like Now?
Four years after the destruction of the 21 Katif Jewish communities, several Israeli journalists hired Palestinian cameramen to take pictures of the destroyed Jewish communities, to see what Palestinians had done there since taking over the area.
What Israelis want to know is whether overcrowded UNRWA refugee camps had moved into the abandoned Jewish communities of Katif.
Polls show that Israeli and international public opinion supported the eviction of the Jewish communities from Katif in order to enable a better life for thousands of Palestinian families who have been confined to teeming tenements of UNRWA refugee camps since 1948.
However, pictures taken by a Palestinian photographer show that contrary to what Israelis believed would happen, Palestinians have not built a single new house in the
any Katif community, four years after the destruction of these Jewish communities, where public buildings were allowed to remain..
The photographs indicate that the Palestinians completely destroyed anything that was left standing following the evacuation process, including synagogues and buildings that remained standing.
More than 100 photographs were taken in the framework of the project.
"What is sad is that it's very hard to identify the buildings that are documented in the photographs," said one Israeli journalist who had covered Katif for the international media.
Why have Palestinians from overcrowded UNRWA camps not moved into the abandoned Katif communities?
An UNRWA camp committee spokesman explained that, “These were not our homes - we want to move back to the homes that we left after we were expelled in 1948 - from places like Beer Sheva and Ashkelon”
Obama To Achieve Normalization Gestures From Arab World?
After several days of consultations with Israeli government officials, US Presidential Middle East envoy George Mitchell left his Israeli interlocutors with an assurance that President Obama would be able to extract some normalization gestures towards Israel from the Arab world within a month, following White House confirmation that Preisdent Obama had indeed sent letters leaders of Morrocco, Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, asking them for confidence-building measures toward Israel.
However, Saudi Arabia, the kingpin of the Arab League of Nations which has been in a formal, full scale war with Israel since 1948, immediately responded with a full rejection of any gesture of normalization with Israel, so long as Israel does not relinquishsovereignty over Jerusalem, allow recognition of the right of return of Palestinian refugees from 1948, and stop the development of any Jewish community that lies in areas acquired by Israel in 1967.
View this story in the Philadelphia Bulletin
View this story at Israel Behind the News
Fourth Anniversary Of Explusions Marked: What Do The Katif Communities Look Like Now
An area where Israel continues to cope with is the world wide campaign against Israel’s restrictions of potentially lethal exports into Gaza.
Since the Hamas terror takeover of Gaza in June 2007, Israel did halt the sale of iron, cement and other building materials into Gaza to prevent the construction of fortifications such as underground bunkers and the use iron to manufacture weapons and rockets
On July 16, a group of Philadelphia Rabbis, led by Rabbi Arthur Waskow of Germantown’s Shalom Center, organized Rabbis from all over the United States to conduct an international day of fasting to protest the Israeli “blockade” of humanitarian and medical supplies into gaza.
Due to such pressure, Israel on Thursday allowed renewed export of 300 tons of cement, steel pipes and construction materials into Gaza, for the first time since its military offensive last January.
Rabbi Waskow would not return phone calls to explain why he spread the false rumor that Israel had blocked humanitarian and medical supplies into Gaza.
Mr. Raed Fattouh, an official in the Palestinian Ministry of National Economy, confirmed in an interview with the Palestinian Ma'an news agency that cement would be shipped through UNRWA, the United Nation's relief agency for Palestinian refugees. The Israeli government also approved the transfer of 25 million dollars in cash into Gaza each month, earmarked to pay the salaries of the Palestinian Authority workers and UNRWA workers-
An Israeli security establishment spokesman stressed that "We will carry out all the necessary examinations to ensure that the cement does not fall into the wrong hands-to Hamas,"
However, since Hamas terrorists won an overwhelming victory in the March 2009 UNRWA workers election, with Hamas winning more than 80% of the vote, UNRWA facilities are solidly in the hands of the Hamas terror personnel. This was the third straigt election which affirms the dominant Hamas role in UNRWA.
Israel Minister of Defense, Ehud Barak, would not respond to a Bulletin query as to how Israel could avoid cement and cash payments from falling into the hands of Hamas, since Hamas personnel dominate UNRWA facilities in Gaza.
Fourth Anniversary Of Explusions Marked
This week, more than 2,000 people took part yesterday in a rally to mark the fourth anniversary of Israel’s expulsion of 21 Jewish communities from the Katif district of Gaza.
The rally, held near the Kissufim border crossing to the east of Gaza was attended by expelled residents from various Katif communities, including hundreds of teenagers and young children.
"I am a refugee in my own land and am trying to rehabilitate myself,"
said Mr. Avi Farhan, who was evicted from Yamit in the Sinai in April 1982 after the Camp David Accord and then from Elei Sinai in northern Gaza in August 2005. "You need to understand that it is going to take seven years of living out of boxes, moving from one rented apartment to another, until we move into our own house."
At this point in time, 8 out of the 23 permanent communities earmarked for the Katif evictees are still under construction.
In 11 of the communities, preliminary infrastructure work has yet to be begun. Unemployment among the evictees is 21%, as opposed to the 5% unemployment rate that existed when the Katif communities were thriving.
What Do The Katif Communities Look Like Now?
Four years after the destruction of the 21 Katif Jewish communities, several Israeli journalists hired Palestinian cameramen to take pictures of the destroyed Jewish communities, to see what Palestinians had done there since taking over the area.
What Israelis want to know is whether overcrowded UNRWA refugee camps had moved into the abandoned Jewish communities of Katif.
Polls show that Israeli and international public opinion supported the eviction of the Jewish communities from Katif in order to enable a better life for thousands of Palestinian families who have been confined to teeming tenements of UNRWA refugee camps since 1948.
However, pictures taken by a Palestinian photographer show that contrary to what Israelis believed would happen, Palestinians have not built a single new house in the
any Katif community, four years after the destruction of these Jewish communities, where public buildings were allowed to remain..
The photographs indicate that the Palestinians completely destroyed anything that was left standing following the evacuation process, including synagogues and buildings that remained standing.
More than 100 photographs were taken in the framework of the project.
"What is sad is that it's very hard to identify the buildings that are documented in the photographs," said one Israeli journalist who had covered Katif for the international media.
Why have Palestinians from overcrowded UNRWA camps not moved into the abandoned Katif communities?
An UNRWA camp committee spokesman explained that, “These were not our homes - we want to move back to the homes that we left after we were expelled in 1948 - from places like Beer Sheva and Ashkelon”
Obama To Achieve Normalization Gestures From Arab World?
After several days of consultations with Israeli government officials, US Presidential Middle East envoy George Mitchell left his Israeli interlocutors with an assurance that President Obama would be able to extract some normalization gestures towards Israel from the Arab world within a month, following White House confirmation that Preisdent Obama had indeed sent letters leaders of Morrocco, Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, asking them for confidence-building measures toward Israel.
However, Saudi Arabia, the kingpin of the Arab League of Nations which has been in a formal, full scale war with Israel since 1948, immediately responded with a full rejection of any gesture of normalization with Israel, so long as Israel does not relinquishsovereignty over Jerusalem, allow recognition of the right of return of Palestinian refugees from 1948, and stop the development of any Jewish community that lies in areas acquired by Israel in 1967.
View this story in the Philadelphia Bulletin
View this story at Israel Behind the News
Friday, May 29, 2009
The Philadelphia Bulletin: US Crisis Looming with the Saudis?
by David Bedein
The United States has become concerned over what officials describe as a chill in its relations with Saudi Arabia.
The Middle East Newline has confirmed the Saudi regime has been dismayed by President Barack Obama’s decision to seek a reconciliation with Iran, and Saudi leaders have sent a series of warnings saying this would directly harm U.S. allies in the Gulf.
“The Saudis are beginning to back away from us and consider other strategic alliances,” an official said.
President Barack Obama plans to visit Saudi Arabia on Wednesday during his three-day trip to Egypt, Germany and France. Officials said the president added Riyadh to his itinerary amid warnings that Saudi leaders were becoming increasingly frustrated with the U.S. policy of reconciliation with Iran.
The Saudi royal family was not comforted by Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ visit earlier this month, officials said. They said Mr. Gates, despite his promises of additional U.S. weapons and training, was treated coolly by King Abdullah and his aides.
“The president believes it’s an important opportunity to discuss important business, like Middle East peace, but it’s not born out of anything specific,” White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said.
Mr. Gibbs said the president would discuss U.S. policy toward Iran during his visit to Riyadh and particularly its nuclear program. The spokesman said the president would also seek Saudi support for U.S. efforts to establish a Palestinian state in the West Bank.
The surprise Saudi visit stemmed from the cancellation of a summit between Egypt and the United States later this month.
Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, citing the death of his grandson, decided to cancel his trip to Washington in coordination with Saudi King Abdullah.
“There are a few Arab states who are very anxious over our policy toward Iran and have dismissed U.S. promises to compensate by additional weapons and an accelerated Israeli-Palestinian peace process,” the official said.
President Obama was apparently persuaded to visit Riyadh before his scheduled address to the Muslim world in Cairo on Thursday, in order to personally assure King Abdullah said Saudi interests would not be harmed by a U.S. reconciliation with Tehran. Saudi influence in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), as well as the kingdom’s role as the world’s leading supplier of crude oil and weapons importer, would remain stable.
Saudi Oil Industry Again Target Of Al-Qaida Terrorists
Al-Qaida appears to have renewed its campaign against Saudi Arabia’s energy industry.
Al-Qaida has resumed its campaign of tracking and striking Westerners in the Saudi kingdom. They said the focus once again appears to be the Western expatriate community in and around the Eastern Province, which contains the bulk of the Saudi crude oil reserves.
On Tuesday, al-Qaida was believed to have attacked a bus full of Western workers in Jubail. Three British nationals came under gunfire in the nighttime ambush.
“None of the passengers was harmed,” Interior Ministry spokesman Maj. Gen. Mansour al-Turki said.
Maj. Gen. al-Turki said the attackers targeted a bus that contained five foreigners in the industrial region of Jubail. He said the bus contained three British passengers, a Pakistani, a Saudi and a Syrian.
This marked the first attack on foreigners in Saudi Arabia since 2007, when three French expatriates were shot dead during a desert trip. Al-Qaida was also said to have been responsible for the killings.
View this story in the Philadelphia Bulletin
View this story at Israel Behind the News
The United States has become concerned over what officials describe as a chill in its relations with Saudi Arabia.
The Middle East Newline has confirmed the Saudi regime has been dismayed by President Barack Obama’s decision to seek a reconciliation with Iran, and Saudi leaders have sent a series of warnings saying this would directly harm U.S. allies in the Gulf.
“The Saudis are beginning to back away from us and consider other strategic alliances,” an official said.
President Barack Obama plans to visit Saudi Arabia on Wednesday during his three-day trip to Egypt, Germany and France. Officials said the president added Riyadh to his itinerary amid warnings that Saudi leaders were becoming increasingly frustrated with the U.S. policy of reconciliation with Iran.
The Saudi royal family was not comforted by Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ visit earlier this month, officials said. They said Mr. Gates, despite his promises of additional U.S. weapons and training, was treated coolly by King Abdullah and his aides.
“The president believes it’s an important opportunity to discuss important business, like Middle East peace, but it’s not born out of anything specific,” White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said.
Mr. Gibbs said the president would discuss U.S. policy toward Iran during his visit to Riyadh and particularly its nuclear program. The spokesman said the president would also seek Saudi support for U.S. efforts to establish a Palestinian state in the West Bank.
The surprise Saudi visit stemmed from the cancellation of a summit between Egypt and the United States later this month.
Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, citing the death of his grandson, decided to cancel his trip to Washington in coordination with Saudi King Abdullah.
“There are a few Arab states who are very anxious over our policy toward Iran and have dismissed U.S. promises to compensate by additional weapons and an accelerated Israeli-Palestinian peace process,” the official said.
President Obama was apparently persuaded to visit Riyadh before his scheduled address to the Muslim world in Cairo on Thursday, in order to personally assure King Abdullah said Saudi interests would not be harmed by a U.S. reconciliation with Tehran. Saudi influence in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), as well as the kingdom’s role as the world’s leading supplier of crude oil and weapons importer, would remain stable.
Saudi Oil Industry Again Target Of Al-Qaida Terrorists
Al-Qaida appears to have renewed its campaign against Saudi Arabia’s energy industry.
Al-Qaida has resumed its campaign of tracking and striking Westerners in the Saudi kingdom. They said the focus once again appears to be the Western expatriate community in and around the Eastern Province, which contains the bulk of the Saudi crude oil reserves.
On Tuesday, al-Qaida was believed to have attacked a bus full of Western workers in Jubail. Three British nationals came under gunfire in the nighttime ambush.
“None of the passengers was harmed,” Interior Ministry spokesman Maj. Gen. Mansour al-Turki said.
Maj. Gen. al-Turki said the attackers targeted a bus that contained five foreigners in the industrial region of Jubail. He said the bus contained three British passengers, a Pakistani, a Saudi and a Syrian.
This marked the first attack on foreigners in Saudi Arabia since 2007, when three French expatriates were shot dead during a desert trip. Al-Qaida was also said to have been responsible for the killings.
View this story in the Philadelphia Bulletin
View this story at Israel Behind the News
Thursday, May 14, 2009
The Philadelphia Bulletin: Academic Study? Growing Divergence between Jerusalem and Washington?
by David Bedein
A stinging academic report denouncing the Obama administration’s Middle East policies has been released with less than a week remaining before Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s first meeting with President Barack Obama.
The report, authored by Prof. Efraim Inbar, director of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies (BESA) at Bar-Ilan University, near Tel Aviv, particularly criticizes Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Prof. Inbar called Mrs. Clinton’s reported statement that gaining Arab support to prevent Iran from going nuclear “requires Israeli flexibility on the Palestinian issue” worrisome.
He said the U.S. State Department fails to understand the Arab states will cooperate with efforts to stop Iran’s nuclear program regardless of progress on the Palestinian issue.
“We also learned that the White House is trying to make kosher the transfer of funds to a Palestinian government that includes the radical Islamist Hamas,” Prof. Inbar said.
He characterized this as a “strategic folly,” since Hamas is a “a recognized terrorist organization, is an Iranian proxy, with a clear Jihadist agenda.”
He also views this Obama/Clinton approach as a threat to Egypt, since Hamas maintains “strong ties to the Islamic opposition in Egypt that wants to replace the pro-Western Mubarak regime.”
Prof. Inbar concluded his report stating “the chances for progress toward a two-state solution in the Israeli-Palestinian arena, which the U.S. favors, are dismal, since the Jewish and Arab national movements cannot reach a compromise.”
This is particularly true considering the Palestinian refusal to accept the Jewish right to self-determination.
“Misguided American policies, particularly regarding Iran, may have disastrous consequences such as the fall of Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey into Islamist hands,” Prof. Inbar wrote.
Under such a scenario, Israel would remain the only country where an American airplane could land safely in the Middle East.
See this story in the Philadelphia Bulletin
See this story at Israel Behind the News
A stinging academic report denouncing the Obama administration’s Middle East policies has been released with less than a week remaining before Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s first meeting with President Barack Obama.
The report, authored by Prof. Efraim Inbar, director of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies (BESA) at Bar-Ilan University, near Tel Aviv, particularly criticizes Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Prof. Inbar called Mrs. Clinton’s reported statement that gaining Arab support to prevent Iran from going nuclear “requires Israeli flexibility on the Palestinian issue” worrisome.
He said the U.S. State Department fails to understand the Arab states will cooperate with efforts to stop Iran’s nuclear program regardless of progress on the Palestinian issue.
“We also learned that the White House is trying to make kosher the transfer of funds to a Palestinian government that includes the radical Islamist Hamas,” Prof. Inbar said.
He characterized this as a “strategic folly,” since Hamas is a “a recognized terrorist organization, is an Iranian proxy, with a clear Jihadist agenda.”
He also views this Obama/Clinton approach as a threat to Egypt, since Hamas maintains “strong ties to the Islamic opposition in Egypt that wants to replace the pro-Western Mubarak regime.”
Prof. Inbar concluded his report stating “the chances for progress toward a two-state solution in the Israeli-Palestinian arena, which the U.S. favors, are dismal, since the Jewish and Arab national movements cannot reach a compromise.”
This is particularly true considering the Palestinian refusal to accept the Jewish right to self-determination.
“Misguided American policies, particularly regarding Iran, may have disastrous consequences such as the fall of Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey into Islamist hands,” Prof. Inbar wrote.
Under such a scenario, Israel would remain the only country where an American airplane could land safely in the Middle East.
See this story in the Philadelphia Bulletin
See this story at Israel Behind the News
Thursday, May 7, 2009
The Philadelphia Bulletin: Report: Turkey to Break with NATO on Iran
by David Bedein
A report issued by the Washington Institute says Turkey has moved steadily away from its NATO allies and toward Iran, Russia and Syria.
The report, titled “The AKP’s Foreign Policy: The Misnomer of Neo-Ottomanism” and authored by senior researcher Soner Cagaptay, says Turkey’s new foreign policy - led by the ruling Justice and Development Party, or AKP according to its Turkish initials - has come at the expense of Ankara’s relations with Israel, the European Union and the United States.
“Ankara will likely opt out of a NATO consensus on Iran, clash with the United States on how to handle Hamas and Hezbollah, and disagree with the EU and the U.S. on Russia,” the report said.
The report says Turkey has developed friendlier relations with Russia and the Islamic world than with the West. Mr. Cagaptay cited Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Syria as examples of Turkey’s growing ties in the Islamic world.
“The AKP’s foreign policy has a weakness for Arab Islamists and their causes,” the report said. “The policy shows empathy towards Middle East Muslims and Islamists, though the same empathy is missing towards non-Muslims and non-Middle Eastern issues. Business deals play an important role in sustaining the stronger ties that Turkey is developing with Russia, the Persian Gulf states, Sudan and Iran.”
At the same time, Turkey refused to support Georgia during its brief war with Russia in 2008. The report said Turkey has also ignored its Central Asian neighbors, such as Azerbaijan and Georgia, to focus on relations with Russia.
Mr. Cagaptay wrote AKP, most of whose leaders speak Arabic and were educated in Muslim schools, has divided the world in religious blocs - either Christian or Muslim. AKP, which won power in 2002 and dominates parliament, has avoided criticism of Iran’s nuclear program while maintaining ties with Tehran’s proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah.
“It [AKP] is pro-Hamas, pro-Syria, pro-Hezbollah, pro-Qatar, pro-Saudi,” the report said. “The AKP views the world as composed of religious blocs, and this disposition colors its views of the Middle East and the world.”
See this story in the Philadelphia Bulletin
See this story at Israel Behind the News
A report issued by the Washington Institute says Turkey has moved steadily away from its NATO allies and toward Iran, Russia and Syria.
The report, titled “The AKP’s Foreign Policy: The Misnomer of Neo-Ottomanism” and authored by senior researcher Soner Cagaptay, says Turkey’s new foreign policy - led by the ruling Justice and Development Party, or AKP according to its Turkish initials - has come at the expense of Ankara’s relations with Israel, the European Union and the United States.
“Ankara will likely opt out of a NATO consensus on Iran, clash with the United States on how to handle Hamas and Hezbollah, and disagree with the EU and the U.S. on Russia,” the report said.
The report says Turkey has developed friendlier relations with Russia and the Islamic world than with the West. Mr. Cagaptay cited Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Syria as examples of Turkey’s growing ties in the Islamic world.
“The AKP’s foreign policy has a weakness for Arab Islamists and their causes,” the report said. “The policy shows empathy towards Middle East Muslims and Islamists, though the same empathy is missing towards non-Muslims and non-Middle Eastern issues. Business deals play an important role in sustaining the stronger ties that Turkey is developing with Russia, the Persian Gulf states, Sudan and Iran.”
At the same time, Turkey refused to support Georgia during its brief war with Russia in 2008. The report said Turkey has also ignored its Central Asian neighbors, such as Azerbaijan and Georgia, to focus on relations with Russia.
Mr. Cagaptay wrote AKP, most of whose leaders speak Arabic and were educated in Muslim schools, has divided the world in religious blocs - either Christian or Muslim. AKP, which won power in 2002 and dominates parliament, has avoided criticism of Iran’s nuclear program while maintaining ties with Tehran’s proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah.
“It [AKP] is pro-Hamas, pro-Syria, pro-Hezbollah, pro-Qatar, pro-Saudi,” the report said. “The AKP views the world as composed of religious blocs, and this disposition colors its views of the Middle East and the world.”
See this story in the Philadelphia Bulletin
See this story at Israel Behind the News
Monday, April 21, 2008
The Philadelphia Bulletin: 'The Bulletin' Puts The Tough Questions To Obama's Middle East Gurus
by David Bedein
During the week before the Pennsylvania primary, The Bulletin met with Sen. Barack Obama's middle east advisers in Washington, Howard Guttman and former Californian Congressman Mel Levine, along with another Obama Middle East aide who spoke on condition of anonymity.
These are the questions The Bulletin posed to Mr. Obama's Middle East advisers and the responses that they provided:
1. How would a President Obama relate to the security threat posed by Saudi Arabia? [Declassified security reports confirm that Saudi Arabia continues to fund groups defined by the U.S. government as terrorist organizations, while Saudi Arabia maintains an active state of war against the state of Israel since 1948.]
None of Mr. Obama's advisers could answer this question.
2. Does Mr. Obama support President Bush's policy of arming the Saudis? [The Bush administration offers major arms sales to Saudi Arabia, despite its pro-terror posture]
Neither Guttman nor Levine could tell The Bulletin whether or not Mr. Obama supports the Bush arms sales to Saudi Arabia. They checked with Mr. Obama and could not get an answer.
3. Would a President Obama support the idea that Palestinian refugees should reside in UNRWA refugee camps, under the premise and promise of the "right of return," instead of being provided with decent living conditions?
While each of Mr. Obama's advisers emphasized that the candidate opposed the Palestinian "right of return," none of them could find out what Mr. Obama's position is concerning continuing American government funding for the UNRWA agency, which fuels the right of return.
4. Would a President Obama continue Mr. Bush's policy to arm the Fatah organization, since the armed forces of the Fatah are defined by American law as an illegal terrorist organization?
The Obama advisor who spoke on condition of anonymity answered that Mr. Obama wants to continue the policy of developing Fatah as a moderate entity.
5. Would a President Obama ask for a change in the proposed constitution of the Palestinian Fatah state, which is based on the Islamic sharia law, and not allow for juridical status for any religion other than Islam?
All three Obama advisers promised to check this out with the senator. None of them could provide an answer.
6. Would a President Obama restrain Israel from counterattacking in Gaza to put an end to the daily missile attacks from Gaza, as the Bush administration has done?
Mr. Obama's advisers responded that "Israel has a right to defend itself."
7. Would a President Obama recognize that Palestinian civilian casualties in Gaza are a direct result of their use of human shields?
Mr. Obama's advisers answered that "Sen. Obama regards the operations of terrorist organizations as intolerable."
8. Would a President Obama allow such a policy to continue where the Palestinian Authority (PA) continues to harbor terrorists suspected of murder and refuses to hand them over for trial, as the Clinton and Bush administrations have done?
Mr. Obama's advisers were more emphatic on this point, stating that Mr. Obama's policy would "oppose all attempts to harbor terrorists by the Palestinian Authority."
9. Would a President Obama condition future U.S. assistance on human rights and civil liberties reform in the PA, since the PA operates with no system of civil liberties or human rights?
In another emphatic statement, each of Mr. Obama's advisers stated that a President Obama would insist on the implementation of a policy that would stand up for human rights and civil liberties in the Palestinian Authority.
10. Would a President Obama ignore the plight of Christians who are persecuted in the PA, or would he champion the cause of the Christians to practice their religion freely in the PA, since the U.S. consulate in Jerusalem has refused to render assistance to Christians who are persecuted by the PA?
Mr. Obama's advisers promised an answer to The Bulletin with an answer to this question but did not do so.
11. What would the policy of a President Obama be to Syria in regard to Syria's continuing to host and support a plethora of terror groups?
All three of Obama's advisers indicated that they would review new directives to the Syrian government in this regard.
12. Would a President Obama support an effort to destroy the Syrian source of lethal narcotics in the Bekka Valley, since Syria continues to orchestrate the export of lethal narcotics to the world?
Mr. Obama's advisers could not answer this question.
13. Would a President Obama support an effort to force Israel to withdraw from Golan, since the Golan Heights was used by Syria between 1949 and 1967 to attack Israeli communities in Galilee?
All three of Mr. Obama's advisers answered that "Obama does not believe in pressuring Israel" on any matter related to Syria.
14. Which Middle East road map would a President Obama endorse: the road map of April 30, 2003, or that of May 25, 2003? [The second road map contains the reservations of Israel, which include detailed Israeli directives to disband terror groups as a precondition to continued negotiations.]
Mr. Obama's three advisers referred this policy question to a top adviser to Mr. Obama. However, they would not give an answer to this question to The Bulletin.
15. Would a President Obama continue the Clinton/Bush policy of ignoring the fact that the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) never ratified the Oslo Accord and never canceled the PLO charter? [The Clinton and Bush administrations overlooked the fact that the PLO never ratified the Oslo Accord "declaration of principles," which required the PLO and Fatah to recognize Israel, denounce terror and cancel the PLO/Fatah charter, which calls for Israel's obliteration. It will be recalled that the PLO signed the Oslo Accords on the White House lawn on Sept. 13, 1993, and would not ratify these accords when the PLO executive convened on Oct. 6, 1993, in Tunis and would not cancel the PLO charter when the PNC convened on April 24, 1996.]
Mr. Obama's advisers concurred that a President Obama would insist on a formal PLO ratification of the Oslo Accords and cancellation of the PLO covenant.
16. Would a President Obama issue a directive that any aid to the PA require a cessation of calls to terrorism by the official Arabic language outlets of the PA? [The Clinton and Bush administration consistently ignored the message communicated by the newly constituted PA in the Arabic language, which has communicated a language of war on Israel since the inception of the PA in 1993.]
Mr. Obama's advisers said that Mr. Obama would institute "a policy of no tolerance of incitement."
17. Would a President Obama call for a cancellation of the PA educational curriculum, which inculcates the next generation to continue a war to liberate all of Palestine, which can be seen at www.edume.org?
Mr. Obama's advisers indicated that Mr. Obama would see this as part of a "policy of no tolerance for incitement."
18. Would a President Obama insist on future Israeli withdrawals, since the Gaza withdrawal indicates that Palestinians will use areas under their control to launch missile attacks against Israel?
The Obama adviser who spoke on condition of anonymity answered that the "Gaza and Lebanon precedent should be taken into consideration," considering the fact that Israel is ready for compromise.
During the week before the Pennsylvania primary, The Bulletin met with Sen. Barack Obama's middle east advisers in Washington, Howard Guttman and former Californian Congressman Mel Levine, along with another Obama Middle East aide who spoke on condition of anonymity.
These are the questions The Bulletin posed to Mr. Obama's Middle East advisers and the responses that they provided:
1. How would a President Obama relate to the security threat posed by Saudi Arabia? [Declassified security reports confirm that Saudi Arabia continues to fund groups defined by the U.S. government as terrorist organizations, while Saudi Arabia maintains an active state of war against the state of Israel since 1948.]
None of Mr. Obama's advisers could answer this question.
2. Does Mr. Obama support President Bush's policy of arming the Saudis? [The Bush administration offers major arms sales to Saudi Arabia, despite its pro-terror posture]
Neither Guttman nor Levine could tell The Bulletin whether or not Mr. Obama supports the Bush arms sales to Saudi Arabia. They checked with Mr. Obama and could not get an answer.
3. Would a President Obama support the idea that Palestinian refugees should reside in UNRWA refugee camps, under the premise and promise of the "right of return," instead of being provided with decent living conditions?
While each of Mr. Obama's advisers emphasized that the candidate opposed the Palestinian "right of return," none of them could find out what Mr. Obama's position is concerning continuing American government funding for the UNRWA agency, which fuels the right of return.
4. Would a President Obama continue Mr. Bush's policy to arm the Fatah organization, since the armed forces of the Fatah are defined by American law as an illegal terrorist organization?
The Obama advisor who spoke on condition of anonymity answered that Mr. Obama wants to continue the policy of developing Fatah as a moderate entity.
5. Would a President Obama ask for a change in the proposed constitution of the Palestinian Fatah state, which is based on the Islamic sharia law, and not allow for juridical status for any religion other than Islam?
All three Obama advisers promised to check this out with the senator. None of them could provide an answer.
6. Would a President Obama restrain Israel from counterattacking in Gaza to put an end to the daily missile attacks from Gaza, as the Bush administration has done?
Mr. Obama's advisers responded that "Israel has a right to defend itself."
7. Would a President Obama recognize that Palestinian civilian casualties in Gaza are a direct result of their use of human shields?
Mr. Obama's advisers answered that "Sen. Obama regards the operations of terrorist organizations as intolerable."
8. Would a President Obama allow such a policy to continue where the Palestinian Authority (PA) continues to harbor terrorists suspected of murder and refuses to hand them over for trial, as the Clinton and Bush administrations have done?
Mr. Obama's advisers were more emphatic on this point, stating that Mr. Obama's policy would "oppose all attempts to harbor terrorists by the Palestinian Authority."
9. Would a President Obama condition future U.S. assistance on human rights and civil liberties reform in the PA, since the PA operates with no system of civil liberties or human rights?
In another emphatic statement, each of Mr. Obama's advisers stated that a President Obama would insist on the implementation of a policy that would stand up for human rights and civil liberties in the Palestinian Authority.
10. Would a President Obama ignore the plight of Christians who are persecuted in the PA, or would he champion the cause of the Christians to practice their religion freely in the PA, since the U.S. consulate in Jerusalem has refused to render assistance to Christians who are persecuted by the PA?
Mr. Obama's advisers promised an answer to The Bulletin with an answer to this question but did not do so.
11. What would the policy of a President Obama be to Syria in regard to Syria's continuing to host and support a plethora of terror groups?
All three of Obama's advisers indicated that they would review new directives to the Syrian government in this regard.
12. Would a President Obama support an effort to destroy the Syrian source of lethal narcotics in the Bekka Valley, since Syria continues to orchestrate the export of lethal narcotics to the world?
Mr. Obama's advisers could not answer this question.
13. Would a President Obama support an effort to force Israel to withdraw from Golan, since the Golan Heights was used by Syria between 1949 and 1967 to attack Israeli communities in Galilee?
All three of Mr. Obama's advisers answered that "Obama does not believe in pressuring Israel" on any matter related to Syria.
14. Which Middle East road map would a President Obama endorse: the road map of April 30, 2003, or that of May 25, 2003? [The second road map contains the reservations of Israel, which include detailed Israeli directives to disband terror groups as a precondition to continued negotiations.]
Mr. Obama's three advisers referred this policy question to a top adviser to Mr. Obama. However, they would not give an answer to this question to The Bulletin.
15. Would a President Obama continue the Clinton/Bush policy of ignoring the fact that the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) never ratified the Oslo Accord and never canceled the PLO charter? [The Clinton and Bush administrations overlooked the fact that the PLO never ratified the Oslo Accord "declaration of principles," which required the PLO and Fatah to recognize Israel, denounce terror and cancel the PLO/Fatah charter, which calls for Israel's obliteration. It will be recalled that the PLO signed the Oslo Accords on the White House lawn on Sept. 13, 1993, and would not ratify these accords when the PLO executive convened on Oct. 6, 1993, in Tunis and would not cancel the PLO charter when the PNC convened on April 24, 1996.]
Mr. Obama's advisers concurred that a President Obama would insist on a formal PLO ratification of the Oslo Accords and cancellation of the PLO covenant.
16. Would a President Obama issue a directive that any aid to the PA require a cessation of calls to terrorism by the official Arabic language outlets of the PA? [The Clinton and Bush administration consistently ignored the message communicated by the newly constituted PA in the Arabic language, which has communicated a language of war on Israel since the inception of the PA in 1993.]
Mr. Obama's advisers said that Mr. Obama would institute "a policy of no tolerance of incitement."
17. Would a President Obama call for a cancellation of the PA educational curriculum, which inculcates the next generation to continue a war to liberate all of Palestine, which can be seen at www.edume.org?
Mr. Obama's advisers indicated that Mr. Obama would see this as part of a "policy of no tolerance for incitement."
18. Would a President Obama insist on future Israeli withdrawals, since the Gaza withdrawal indicates that Palestinians will use areas under their control to launch missile attacks against Israel?
The Obama adviser who spoke on condition of anonymity answered that the "Gaza and Lebanon precedent should be taken into consideration," considering the fact that Israel is ready for compromise.
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
"Tension in the North"
Posting: April 2, 2008
"Tension in the North"
A report by a 'top military intelligence officer" to the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee yesterday included a warning that Hezbollah is getting ready for new violence along the border with Israel.
A "change in preparedness" south of the Litani River has been detected, which UNIFIL is unable to prevent. While UNIFIL monitors open areas, it is prohibited from entering southern Lebanese villages and towns without coordination with the Lebanese army, and it is precisely in these areas that Hezbollah is increasing operations, with operatives dressed as civilians. (The ultimate outcome of this situation is painfully easy to predict, as we take on Hezbollah operatives and are condemned for hitting "civilians.")
This report clarifies Defense Minister Barak's motives in touring the northern border yesterday and making a statement that "Israel is the strongest country in the region, and I wouldn't recommend that anyone provoke us. Hezbollah is becoming stronger, but so are we. The IDF is prepared for all eventualities. We watch the pastoral calm, and we know that other things are seething beneath the surface."
~~~~~~~~~~
While, today, al-Quds al-Arabi, in London, has reported that Damascus is summoning its reserves and concentrating its forces along the Lebanese border in anticipation of an Israeli attack on Hezbollah and Syria.
This has been denied by a member of Syrian's National Security Committee, which says Hezbollah is quite capable of taking care of itself.
None the less, Barak is taking it all seriously enough so that he has cancelled a trip out of the country. And Deputy Chief of Staff Maj. Dan Harel said today that "anyone who attempts to attack Israel should bear in mind that the response will be harsh and painful." Both, however, at one and the same time, have indicated that nothing is imminent.
The paper additionally said that Hezbollah is currently refraining from exacting revenge for the murder of Mughniyeh at this time, so as to not give Israel an "excuse" to attack. If this is true, it would be a significant indicator of Israeli deterrence.
~~~~~~~~~~
I offer here two cautionary notes regarding not believing everything you hear (or read):
In an interview published yesterday in Al Aayam, a Palestinian paper, Khaled Mashaal, political head of Hamas in Damascus says that Hamas accepts a state defined by '67 lines. Not spoken, but implied here is that Hamas accepts Israel within the Green Line. His source for this is the Prisoners Document, which was drafted in Israeli prison by Hamas and Fatah prisoners, calling for a Palestinian state on all the territories occupied in 1967, with Jerusalem as its capital.
However (and this is a huge 'however'), the document says nothing about accepting the right of Israel to exist within those '67 lines.
~~~~~~~~~~
The second incident involves WHO (the World Health Organization) of the UN. At a press conference yesterday in Jerusalem, Ambrogio Manenti, the head of WHO in Gaza and the West Bank, said that Israeli policy with regard to bringing Gazans who require medical treatment into Israel was "inhumane."
Manenti's charge is that sick Gazans have to wait so long for security clearance that they die before they can be brought in.
Col. Nir Press, commander of the IDF's Gaza Coordination and Liaison Administration, responded to these charges, saying that they were "one-sided, inaccurate and misleading."
He pointed out that while stringent security checks were necessary because on occasion there are attempts to smuggle suicide bombers into Israel using the ruse of illness, over 90% of those requesting treatment in Israeli hospitals receive clearance. And the other 10% is provided with an opportunity to utilize a shuttle across Israel to go into Jordan for treatment.
To illustrate the problem, Manenti had highlighted five cases of Gazans who had allegedly died waiting for clearance. Press said, however, that all five had clearance to come into Israel and two in fact had received treatment in Israel; the others had been held up by internal factors inside of Gaza and not by lack of clearance.
In 2007, 7,226 permits were granted to sick Palestinians to travel to Israel, an increase of over 50% from 2006 when 4,754 were allowed in. in the first quarter of 2008, 2,000 ill persons from Gaza have already been brought to Israeli hospitals. I recently wrote the story of premature twins of a Palestinian mother from Gaza, in Barzelai hospital in Ashkelon, who were brought into the bomb shelter when a Katyusha was shot near the hospital from Gaza.
~~~~~~~~~~
Yet one other concession that Barak has indicated willingness to consider, at the prodding of Rice, is the granting of permission for the PA to monitor the Gaza side of the Erez and Karni crossings into Israel, if the violence stops. In this, he is would be on a collision course with the IDF, which is adamantly opposed. Two officers have spoken out: OC Southern Command Maj.-Gen. Yoav Galant and Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories Maj.-Gen. Yussef Mishlev.
As one defense official rightly explained it, "How can we let Abbas deploy forces there while Hamas is in control of Gaza?" Indeed, how can we? There is the suggestion that even Barak, who said it would be "considered," knows we cannot.
~~~~~~~~~~
Posting: April 1, 2008
"Surreal"
Even in the irrational environment with which we are coping, this gets a "most surreal" award:
Khaled Mashaal, political head of Hamas in Damascus, has given an interview. He explained that Israel has turned down an offer to restrict the attacks on both sides -- that is, by Israel and by Hamas in Gaza -- to only military targets, leaving civilians out of it.
This is a blatant set up, of course. For we here in Israel truly have military bases that might be targets and areas that are exclusively civilian. We are careful not to merge the two. But Hamas puts its terrorist activities and weapons inside civilian areas on purpose. Thus, if Israel were to commit to never attacking where there are civilians, there would be no opportunity to attack terrorists for fear of accidental injury to civilians. Hamas would have perfect cover and a free ride to do as it wished.
But read further for the surreal part of Mashaal's statement. Implying that with their current weapons Hamas would find it difficult to accurately target just military bases, even if that were its intention, he then said:
"We have primitive weapons. I ask the international community and the Americans to give us more advanced weapons so we can shoot more accurately."
I am not making this up.
Several things need to be clarified with regard to this:
Yes, Kassams are relatively simple home-made rockets. But they are also now in possession of Grad Katyushas and other more sophisticated weapons, and working every day to improve the accuracy even of the Kassam. When they hit places like Sderot, it is not because they aimed for a military base and accidentally hit civilians -- they are aiming directly for that civilian population; the inaccuracy means they can't be sure if they will hit a school, or a house three blocks away.
Mashaal maintains that Hamas has the right and the obligation to keep shooting to combat the "occupation." "This is ordinary behavior" -- as the Americans fought the British during the revolution, and the French fought the Nazis.
~~~~~~~~~~
Mashaal also alluded to the third party negotiations with Israel on the release of Shalit, claiming that Hamas was ready to strike a deal but that Israel is the stumbling block. We refuse, you see, to OK everyone on Hamas's list of 1,000 prisoners it demands be released.
It should be noted that Marwan Barghouti, a Fatah terrorist leader, was on the list.
~~~~~~~~~~
Lastly, Mashaal had words for Abbas: "We invite Mr. Abbas to come for unconditional talks in Gaza. Talks on how to address the reasons for the split, to return Gaza and the West Bank to unity and solve the security problem."
I believe it is only a matter of time until there are overt, public dealings (negotiations and cooperation at least if not a full unity gov't) between Fatah and Hamas. Abbas is currently playing both ends against the middle, avoiding that overt contact so that American largesse continues. But the fact that there is no overt contact doesn't mean that there is nothing going on in back rooms between the two groups.
What I noticed is that the agreement signed in Yemen has totally disappeared from the radar screen. Fatah backed off, saying there were "errors" in the signing, but to the best of my knowledge didn't totally disavow the understanding. And then, nothing further reported.
~~~~~~~~~~
We must return to Rice and Barak and Olmert, for the scenario in which they are actors has not yet played itself out.
After finishing meetings here in Israel, and amidst a flurry of very "optimistic" statements about how well things were going and the possibility that there might be an agreement before Bush comes in May, Rice went off to meet with Abbas.
Even on the plane, as I understand it, she began to question our sincerity in enacting all of the concessions that Barak presented her with. She indicated that the US would be watching us very closely to make sure we did what we have said we would, and quickly. In fact, she has charged General Fraser with monitoring this.
"General Fraser will be following up on the specifics and will be also... making certain that in fact there are 50 [roadblocks] and they are being removed."
A nasty tone, after her expression of being "amazed " at what we offered. But will the US also be closely monitoring PA progress in stopping terrorism? She didn't say so.
~~~~~~~~~~
To provide further evidence of our sincerity, Barak then made another announcement: He is considering allowing PA forces into Hevron and Tulkarm after the 700 already announced are deployed in Jenin. Hevron is the worst of options, as there is a Jewish community there, which is not the case in Jenin or Tulkarm. And that Jewish community recognizes this as a direct threat to their security.
"It would be extremely dangerous," said community spokesperson David Wilder. "The community is already under constant attack." He revealed that shots were recently fired at his apartment, leaving a hole in his son's closet. "Today a rock was thrown into the home of a family that lives next to me... The violence is continuing."
~~~~~~~~~~
Additionally, the announcement was made that we have already removed two roadblocks in the Jericho area and are also removing the Rimonim roadblock near Ramallah. The Yesha council expressed anger at this. The change in the situation, allowing Palestinians more "freedom of movement," means they will be free to come into areas where presently they do not have access, and there is likely to be an increase in weapon smuggling. There is concern, as well, about drive-by shootings.
Yesterday, there was an attempted terrorist attack at a hitchhikers station near the community of Shilo. A Palestinian -- not immediately recognizable as such -- approached two Israelis at the junction. When he suddenly shouted "Alah Akbar" ("God is great" -- the standard cry of terrorists attempting to kill Jews) and pulled out a knife in an attempt to stab them, one of the Israelis -- Erez Bar-On of Ofra -- stepped back, took out his personal gun and shot him. Police later discovered a second knife on the terrorist, a student from Birzeit University, who died.
Bar-On, in interview, expressed great disapproval of the government decision, saying that providing Palestinians with more freedom of movement increases the likelihood of such incidents.
~~~~~~~~~~
You may remember the story of David Landau, who was then, but no longer is, editor of Haaretz: At a dinner with Condoleezza Rice some months ago, he advised Rice to "rape" Israel, meaning forcing us into things we would not want to do.
Yisrael Medad, on his blog site today recounts this:
"I ran into David Landau yesterday at a funeral. I told him that he should watch the way he talks, referring to 'raping Israel' and all that. "He smiled and retorted: 'I meant what I said and I understand Condi Rice has taken my advice.'"
No comment is necessary.
~~~~~~~~~~
When Rice met here with Olmert, he told her (and I'll get to this below) that Israel would continue to build in major existing communities in Judea and Samaria as well as in neighborhoods of Jerusalem beyond the Green Line. In the subsequent press conference with Abbas, Rice lambasted us for this, saying that it was counter productive to "peace." (Note that she didn't lambaste the PA, when making her statement to the press here, for failure to clamp down on terrorism.)
What is happening -- which I've described before -- is that Olmert is caught between demands of Rice and demands of Shas. The only time he really says no to Rice (and it shows he can do so if he wishes to!) is when his coalition is threatened. Shas threatens to leave if building isn't done.
And so there has now been an announcement that 600 units will go up in Pisgat Ze'ev, a northern Jerusalem neighborhood. (I confess that this confuses me a bit, as I am sure I read about this some weeks ago; perhaps it was not finalized until now.) And there is word that Olmert has assured Shas that the freeze on building in the major community of Betar Illit, which is beyond Jerusalem, will be lifted as well, and that 800 units will go up there.
Shas members are patting themselves on the back for these accomplishments, and pointing to them, once again, as a reason to stay in the coalition. In point of fact, more would be accomplished if they left the coalition.
~~~~~~~~~~
It is always to the good when Olmert is put in the position of resisting Rice's demands, and shows willingness to protect our right to build in Jewish areas. Israel's stance is that we have a right to build within eastern Jerusalem and Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria that we are likely to keep in a settlement, and that this is consistent with international understandings.
"It is not true that we are building in violation of our obligations," Olmert said to his Kadima faction at a meeting in the Knesset. "We are not building new settlements, everyone must understand this... "
"We don't hide our views on Jerusalem and major settlement blocs, we are being honest about everything throughout the negotiations," he said.
I would truly like to think this is so. The PA is demanding our return to the '67 lines, and word has come out that our negotiators are getting ready to accede to this -- which would be a horror. If we are truly holding out for Jerusalem and major settlement blocs, there will be no deal, because the PA simply does NOT compromise.
All of this said, and with acknowledgement to Shas for putting Olmert in this position, it must be noted that Shas is taking heat from its haredi (ultra-Orthodox) constituency, which is looking for more housing. The neighborhoods in which Olmert has approved building are thus haredi, and will serve Shas's constituency.
~~~~~~~~~~
As to Rice's enthusiastic prediction that there might be an agreement by May, she has since backed off on this, and Olmert, as well, has made statements discouraging expectations of a quick agreement.
What is being sought is a general outline of what a Palestinian state would be like in terms of borders, control of Jerusalem and resolution of the refugee issue. This is to be called a Declaration of Principles, and it is supposed to be shelved until all pertinent road map commitments are met. As this requires the PA to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure and cease incitement, it means, in theoretical terms, no enactment of the principles, as least for a generation or more, as I said the other day.
But in reality this is an extremely dangerous process -- I believe so and every serious analyst I have read also says so. Once we've established the "principle" of a Palestinian state, the international community (and this very much includes the US), will cut the PA slack -- as the PA is ALWAYS cut slack -- and we will be pressured to give them that state before they've met their obligations. Thus it is fervently to be hoped that no agreement is reached in principle.
It is being said that "real progress" is being made in the negotiations, but no one outside the immediate process really knows what this means. The expectation is that because the PA cannot and will not compromise, that issues of control of eastern Jerusalem (including the Jewish quarter and the Temple mount) and "return" of refugees will present insurmountable obstacles to finalizing an agreement.
Yoel Marcus, writing in Haaretz, suggests that the clearest indication that the negotiations are mostly hot air is the silence from Shas.
~~~~~~~~~~
Yesterday, to the surprise of many, Barak made a comment about leaving the coalition after all. He is, however, definitely full of hot air with regard to the reason he is giving: that Olmert is accountable for failures during the Lebanon war and that this remains unfinished business because the PM hasn't resigned. This is true enough, but if this were Barak's true concern, he would have pulled out right after Winograd was released.
Never-the-less, Barak, in a meeting with bereaved parents of soldiers, declared, "Elections in two or three years are not a possibility."
I would say he's moving according to his own timetable for maneuvering himself into position to be the next prime minister. One might even speculate as to how his dealings with Rice might have been structured to meet his own agenda.
Amir Peretz who is former chair of Labor and former defense minister, attacked Barak at a Labor faction meeting, saying he was out of touch with reality: "You have an obsession with being prime minister, but you have no agenda. What is your economic agenda? What is your social agenda? What is your political agenda?"
Polls, it must be noted, have Netanyahu and Likud well ahead of Barak and Labor.
~~~~~~~~~~
It has been revealed by a Japanese newspaper, Asahi Shimbun, that when Olmert was in Japan in February, he told officials that last September the IDF operation into Syria targeted a nuclear facility built with North Korea's help.
~~~~~~~~~~
I do not report on a daily basis regarding the attacks on Israel from Gaza, but please don't imagine that it is quiet. On some days 15 or 20 rockets may be launched. Today two mortars hit in the Ashkelon region, causing light injuries.
~~~~~~~~~~
In a talk at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs yesterday, Professor Robert Wishtrich of Hebrew University stated that the UK is the center of European anti-Semitism. There is historical precedent for this, it didn't evolve in modern times: Since medieval times, Britain has been rife with anti-Semitism.
~~~~~~~~~~
Posting: March 30, 2008
"Deplorable"
Well, it was unlikely that Rice, who is here, would have readily walked away without further concessions from Israel for the sake of the "peace process." Some concessions, of some sort, from our craven, appeasing government. But what has taken place is above and beyond.
After Rice met with Defense Minister Barak and PA Prime Minister Fayyad here in Jerusalem, she actually said she was "amazed" by the gestures being advanced by Israel. I don't wonder at her amazement, as this sort of one-sided, tushy-kissing effort to be nice to an entity that in fact wishes us gone is quite breath-taking. But, rather than being "amazed," I'm just plain shocked. And outraged.
Rice announced that a number of concrete actions will be taken to improve the situation.
~~~~~~~~~~
Take a deep breath before reading this list of Barak's major offers:
[] The establishment of a Palestinian city (or series of neighborhoods) north of the town of al-Bireh, outside of Ramallah, to be paid for by a Jordanian businessman, to alleviate housing shortages in the Ramallah area. It would house tens of thousands of Palestinians.
This strikes me as most offensive of all. After the PA screams bloody murder about building a few hundred units in existing communities, and just one day after Abbas lied about this and said we were doing unprecedented building, we make this offer?
[] Increasing the number of laborers allowed into Israel to 5,000.
[] Taking down one checkpoint and 50 roadblocks, in order to ease the movement of Palestinians between the cities of Jenin, Tulkarm, Kalkilya and Ramallah.
As I remember, these roadblocks went up because easy movement between these cities allowed weapons to be transported.
[] Easing of restrictions on Palestinian public figures.
But just about a week ago a Palestinian official was caught smuggling large numbers of phones from Jordan.
[] Easing security checks for Palestinian businessmen.
Of course, a businessman would never aid a terrorist.
Barak further suggested:
[] Upgrading the infrastructure for aiding the Palestinians waiting at the crossings, the cost of which is estimated at NIS 8.3 million.
[] Transferring 325 cars and logistic equipment from the IDF to the Palestinian security organizations, including generators, blankets and first aid kits.
~~~~~~~~~~
I have on occasion commented that our leaders who take such actions are crazy. But I've been cautioned by some readers to avoid saying that, because truly crazy people are absolved of responsibility for their actions -- and the comment is on the mark.
What I will say, instead, is that this is very sick, but that Barak remains fully responsible for his decisions.
~~~~~~~~~~
You may be wondering what the PA will be offering in all of this. After all, Fayyad and Barak met together to put forward suggests to improve the situation.
Well, it was agreed that the Palestinian security forces must assume "greater responsibility."
I did not note a precise delineation of responsibility for what.
They also agreed to step up efforts to "prevent terror."
Again, that vagueness. Nothing that could be quantified or measured -- the way Barak's promises on taking down 50 roadblocks or allowing 5,000 laborers into Israel can be measured.
I heard tonight, by the way, from a very reliable source that Rice said today that the US would be watching Israel closely to see that these commitments were honored.
But the Palestinians? Hey, they can say they made an effort to prevent terror, they gave it their best.
~~~~~~~~~~
And Fayyad? This particular son of a bitch refused to make a public statement with Olmert and Rice. Take all that's offered, but not be seen to be too close to Israeli leader, who is an enemy of Palestine, after all. The photo op would not have served him in the street, which admires Hamas.
~~~~~~~~~~
And as if this is not bad enough, Barak and Olmert are making gestures to Syria regarding resuming peace negotiations.
From a military perspective this is a disaster. I heard Maj. Gen (res) Yaakov Amidror -- former Commander of the IDF's National Defense College and currently with the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs -- speak on a panel sponsored by Likud Anglo tonight. As Syria's demand for peace is return of the Golan Heights, his assessment was that negotiating peace with Syria might mean we would ultimately find ourselves fighting Iranians in the Galil.
Another panel member, Dan Diker -- Director of the Institute for Contemporary Affairs and a Senior Foreign Policy Analyst at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs -- made this incisive observation: Timing is everything. We have just seen that heads of major Arab countries are snubbing Syria by not participating in the conference in Damascus. And now? Now is the time we pick to undercut that message and confer legitimacy on Syria by reaching out to Assad?
A theme of this panel was the recognition that concessions don't work. Israel, in 1993, had the notion that the more we gave the more the world would respect us. But the reverse has happened, as the world has lost respect for us and has stopped understanding that we have legitimate rights in this land. As we fail to stand up for ourselves, it is the Palestinian narrative that is being internalized internationally.
~~~~~~~~~~
One last comment before closing: I heard it tonight from an American with major contacts (as I've hard it before from an international lawyer here with Washington DC connections): Rice is running the show, and she's doing the work of Saudi Arabia. But Bush's attitude towards Israel is not the same as Rice's. He is being seriously misled: By Rice, whom he trusts, and by the PA leaders, whose lovely words of peace he trusts, and by the Israeli leaders, who tell him how much we're willing to give up.
It may be futile. But it must be attempted at every juncture, calling on every possible political contact, sending every possible message: Bush needs to be provided with the realities.
~~~~~~~~~~
Posting: March 29, 2008
Motzei Shabbat (after Shabbat)
"Regarding Abbas"
An Arab summit is being held in Damascus this weekend, but is being boycotted by several Arab nations: Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon. The refusal to come was meant clearly to send a message of displeasure to Syria for its association with Iran, and its support of Hamas and Hezbollah.
According to an AP report that ran in the Post:
"'There are now two axes - Iran, Syria, Hamas and Hezbollah are on one side and the rest are on the other,' said Wahid Abdel-Meguid of the Cairo-based Al-Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies.
"Arab summits are all about protocol and symbolism, and in that language, the show of disdain from top US-allies Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan could not be more clear.
"In an unprecedented move, they are sending minor officials rather than their heads of state - or even their prime ministers or foreign ministers.
"Even Yemen's President Ali Abdullah Saleh decided Friday not to come, sending his vice president in his place... 'Syria is losing friends, one after the other,' said Mansour Hayal, a Yemeni political analyst."
~~~~~~~~~~
Uh huh... But guess who didn't shun the conference? Our "moderate peace partner," Mahmoud Abbas. Tells us a great deal about which side he's on.
And let me share with you what he said at the conference:
"The coming couple of months are decisive. If we don't reach a solution by the end of this year, it means the whole region will be on the verge of a new era of tension and loss of confidence in peace.
"The last few months have witnessed unprecedented Israeli escalation in settlement expansion in Jerusalem and the West Bank. It has become clear that the Israeli government is imposing on the ground the political solution that it wants.
"Negotiations cannot continue under the Israeli bulldozers swallowing our land and building settlements and under the daily Israeli military operations."
He spoke of Israel "brutally" killing innocent Palestinians in Gaza, and he asked those present to "think seriously of Arab... protection for our people," by which he meant troops.
~~~~~~~~~~
You'll forgive my absolutely undiplomatic and impolitic response. This son of a bitch lies through his teeth. "Unprecedented Israeli escalation in settlement expansion"?
Olmert had -- most regrettably --caved completely and put a freeze on any building in eastern Jerusalem or Judea and Samaria. That freeze was lifted minimally, and only in line with what had been approved well prior to Annapolis, because of Olmert's fear of losing his coalition. I do not believe for a second that Abbas doesn't know this. He is inciting.
~~~~~~~~~~
But this charge allows me to return briefly here to the issue of settlements and why they do not constitute a stumbling block to peace.
First, it must be noted that the underlying assumption here -- which is outrageous -- is that everything outside the Green Line "belongs" to the PA, and is thus area upon which we have no right to build. That I've recently exposed as fallacious in terms of history and international law. Israel's final borders have yet to be negotiated.
What I want to advance here are a few other perspectives, which the world would do well to consider.
-- When Sharon decided to withdraw from Gaza in 2005, he pulled out all of the settlements of Gush Katif. I am not applauding this; I, in fact, deplore what happened. But it did happen, and it provides evidence for the fact that if there is Israeli intent withdrawals are possible.
My own position most strongly is that there should be no withdrawals and we should stand on our rights to the land. But the international community should begin to realize that stopping all construction is not necessary for peace negotiations to continue. Instead of making the "settlements" the whipping boy, let there first be a total elimination of terrorism, and let there be sincere negotiations with genuine desire on the other side for a two-state solution. Then let Israel and her genuine peace partner work out what should be relinquished by Israel and what not. Before that day comes (and we're talking more than a generation from now at a minimum), to demand of Israel that there be no building to accommodate natural growth in existing communities is nonsense. And natural growth in existing communities is all that has been sanctioned.
Then too, there is this thought: Why is it assumed by the international community that the PA has a right to a territory that is Judenrein? They charge us with apartheid, but this demand, which truly reflects apartheid thinking, elicits no reproach. It is a given: They want the land, and so Jews can't live there. Why is it that there would be hell to pay if we tried to move out all Arabs living in Israel, but that the same standard doesn't apply to the PA? Why cannot it be said that those Jews who remain in areas that would be going to the PA would be offered the option of remaining?
I feel driven to clarify again that I am not advocating any of this. I am merely pointing out the double standard that is at work and the unreasonable approach that is being taken with regard to this matter.
-- I will add here that while there is screaming about our building in eastern Jerusalem, Arabs are doing a huge amount of illegal building to which scant attention is paid. Double standard indeed!
~~~~~~~~~~
Let's return to Abbas for just a moment. With everything else, according to Khaled Abu Toameh, reporting in yesterday's Post, Abbas's Fatah is contending with an unprecedented rash of scandals that further weakens it.
"Remarked [a] Fatah representative: 'Fatah has lost much of what's left of its credibility. If we hold a free election in the West Bank tomorrow, it's almost certain that Hamas will win.'"
The scandals include accusations that Ahmed Qurei, who heads the PA negotiating team, deposited $3 million of PLO money in his accounts. Additionally, large shipments of expired medicine that had been illegally smuggled into the West Bank have been confiscated, with "dozens of physicians, pharmacists and officials from the PA's Ministry of Health are currently being interrogated for their alleged role in the medicine scandal, which is believed to have resulted in the death of many patients."
For details on these scandals and others see:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1206632349492&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
~~~~~~~~~~
Posting: March 28, 2008
"Dangerous Stupidity"
The stupidity alluded to here pertains both to US and Israeli policy. And it is with regard to the practice of continuing to arm and train Fatah forces in Judea and Samaria.
There is some very irrational notion that it is necessary to "strengthen" Fatah so it can prevent a Hamas takeover. However, the evidence from the recent past provides absolutely no reason to believe that giving Fatah more weapons and more training is going to turn them into a fighting machine that will keep Hamas at bay and that will help to keep Israel safe from terrorists. In fact, the opposite is glaringly obvious to anyone who wishes to pay attention.
Repeatedly over the years since the PA was established, there have been incidents in which weapons and training provided by the US with Israeli sanction were turned against Israel. The very first time this happened was in 1996 and the severity of such situations increased with the second intifada starting in 2000.
~~~~~~~~~~
But that's just one factor of concern. The other is the vast likelihood that these weapons will end up in Hamas hands. That's precisely what happened in Gaza. Fatah was heavily armed by the US so that it might stand against Hamas. When Hamas routed Fatah, they acquired these weapons, which are now being utilized against Israel, and which will make that eventual major operation in Gaza more difficult than it otherwise would have been. Hamas is now in possession of such Fatah equipment as machine guns, thousands of assault rifles, personnel carriers and night vision goggles.
~~~~~~~~~~
What must be understood here -- what is of MAJOR concern -- is the fact that Fatah was not defeated in Gaza because of Hamas superiority. Fatah had better training, better equipment, and a larger number of troops in the field. What they lacked was the will to fight Hamas.
Consider this information from my report on Fatah from in January:
After the rout, The Observer interviewed Abu Obieda, head of the military wing of Hamas, who said, "I expected it to take one month. That is what we planned for and trained for. But then at the beginning all of the Fatah commanders escaped their compounds in ambulances and left for Egypt. They left their men to die. Who could do that?"
Amir Tahiri, reporting in the NY Post, confirmed this, saying that even the four chief bases, claimed to be impregnable, fell within hours as the defenders fled, leaving their equipment behind.
While according to the Economist, Abbas did not declare a state of emergency until his own Gaza house (very large and elaborate, it should be noted) was being ransacked. Middle level officers complained about a lack of leadership: "We had no orders to fight except in self defense."
~~~~~~~~~~
That was in Gaza. Now in Judea and Samaria, even US generals have begun to complain about the lack of effort on the part of the PA to take on terrorism. This is something I've been writing about for months: the reports that security officers say they aren't given orders to shoot at terrorists, etc.
This pattern persists because Fatah (the PA) has no stomach for this fight. As they see it, Hamas and Fatah are all part of the Palestinian people, and there is at heart no disapproval of Hamas terrorism within the ranks of Fatah. The goals are the same, it is only the methods that vary, like a "good cop, bad cop" routine.
Months ago, the assessment of Israeli intelligence was that Hamas was as strong as Fatah in Judea and Samaria. Since then, Hamas has strengthened further and it is clearly understood that only the IDF stands between the PA and a Hamas takeover.
~~~~~~~~~~
Yet, in spite of this, the US, which saw its policy fail so badly in Gaza, and which is in possession of information regarding Hamas strength in Judea and Samaria, and PA failure to fight terrorism... the US decides to adopt precisely the same policy that backfired in Gaza and to back the same losers all over again. The US is funding weapon supplies and training for the PA.
Where are the brains of Rice and company? Where is Bush in all of this? They are setting themselves up for a situation that is doomed to fail. They are making it possible for Hamas to secure better weapons than they would otherwise have had, and ultimately they -- US officials! -- are going to be responsible for Israeli deaths.
And those who head the Israeli government? They behave like US lackeys, instead of officials of a sovereign state. They give statements about how Israeli security must be their first concern, but they don't act in accord with these statements.
~~~~~~~~~~
Now it is in the news that Defense Minister Barak has expressed to the US concern that Hamas may take over Judea and Samaria, and that Israeli gestures to the US may backfire.
Well, good morning! But why didn't he register this concern BEFORE making the gestures. Why didn't he flatly refuse to make the gestures (which are blatantly said to be gestures to the US) because his first responsibility is to protect Israel?
Yet Israel has signed on to allowing the PA to have armored personnel carriers, night vision goggles and a whole lot more.
All in the interests of peace, you understand.
~~~~~~~~~~
Rice is due here tomorrow night. She is coming to push that moribund "peace process." And we must ask, here too, why she thinks Fatah is a viable peace partner for Israel, given the parameters outlined above.
What is particularly infuriating is that she is being "even handed," criticizing both Israel and the PA for "failures" to live up to their commitments. But what she criticizes Israel for are such things as not taking down "illegal outposts," while with the PA the criticism is not fighting terrorism.
These are not parallel issues. The bottom line is that without an elimination of terrorist infrastructure there will be no peace here. Everything else must be on hold until that is accomplished.
As to the issues of communities established beyond the Green Line being an "obstacle to peace," I will discuss this further in the next posting.
"Tension in the North"
A report by a 'top military intelligence officer" to the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee yesterday included a warning that Hezbollah is getting ready for new violence along the border with Israel.
A "change in preparedness" south of the Litani River has been detected, which UNIFIL is unable to prevent. While UNIFIL monitors open areas, it is prohibited from entering southern Lebanese villages and towns without coordination with the Lebanese army, and it is precisely in these areas that Hezbollah is increasing operations, with operatives dressed as civilians. (The ultimate outcome of this situation is painfully easy to predict, as we take on Hezbollah operatives and are condemned for hitting "civilians.")
This report clarifies Defense Minister Barak's motives in touring the northern border yesterday and making a statement that "Israel is the strongest country in the region, and I wouldn't recommend that anyone provoke us. Hezbollah is becoming stronger, but so are we. The IDF is prepared for all eventualities. We watch the pastoral calm, and we know that other things are seething beneath the surface."
~~~~~~~~~~
While, today, al-Quds al-Arabi, in London, has reported that Damascus is summoning its reserves and concentrating its forces along the Lebanese border in anticipation of an Israeli attack on Hezbollah and Syria.
This has been denied by a member of Syrian's National Security Committee, which says Hezbollah is quite capable of taking care of itself.
None the less, Barak is taking it all seriously enough so that he has cancelled a trip out of the country. And Deputy Chief of Staff Maj. Dan Harel said today that "anyone who attempts to attack Israel should bear in mind that the response will be harsh and painful." Both, however, at one and the same time, have indicated that nothing is imminent.
The paper additionally said that Hezbollah is currently refraining from exacting revenge for the murder of Mughniyeh at this time, so as to not give Israel an "excuse" to attack. If this is true, it would be a significant indicator of Israeli deterrence.
~~~~~~~~~~
I offer here two cautionary notes regarding not believing everything you hear (or read):
In an interview published yesterday in Al Aayam, a Palestinian paper, Khaled Mashaal, political head of Hamas in Damascus says that Hamas accepts a state defined by '67 lines. Not spoken, but implied here is that Hamas accepts Israel within the Green Line. His source for this is the Prisoners Document, which was drafted in Israeli prison by Hamas and Fatah prisoners, calling for a Palestinian state on all the territories occupied in 1967, with Jerusalem as its capital.
However (and this is a huge 'however'), the document says nothing about accepting the right of Israel to exist within those '67 lines.
~~~~~~~~~~
The second incident involves WHO (the World Health Organization) of the UN. At a press conference yesterday in Jerusalem, Ambrogio Manenti, the head of WHO in Gaza and the West Bank, said that Israeli policy with regard to bringing Gazans who require medical treatment into Israel was "inhumane."
Manenti's charge is that sick Gazans have to wait so long for security clearance that they die before they can be brought in.
Col. Nir Press, commander of the IDF's Gaza Coordination and Liaison Administration, responded to these charges, saying that they were "one-sided, inaccurate and misleading."
He pointed out that while stringent security checks were necessary because on occasion there are attempts to smuggle suicide bombers into Israel using the ruse of illness, over 90% of those requesting treatment in Israeli hospitals receive clearance. And the other 10% is provided with an opportunity to utilize a shuttle across Israel to go into Jordan for treatment.
To illustrate the problem, Manenti had highlighted five cases of Gazans who had allegedly died waiting for clearance. Press said, however, that all five had clearance to come into Israel and two in fact had received treatment in Israel; the others had been held up by internal factors inside of Gaza and not by lack of clearance.
In 2007, 7,226 permits were granted to sick Palestinians to travel to Israel, an increase of over 50% from 2006 when 4,754 were allowed in. in the first quarter of 2008, 2,000 ill persons from Gaza have already been brought to Israeli hospitals. I recently wrote the story of premature twins of a Palestinian mother from Gaza, in Barzelai hospital in Ashkelon, who were brought into the bomb shelter when a Katyusha was shot near the hospital from Gaza.
~~~~~~~~~~
Yet one other concession that Barak has indicated willingness to consider, at the prodding of Rice, is the granting of permission for the PA to monitor the Gaza side of the Erez and Karni crossings into Israel, if the violence stops. In this, he is would be on a collision course with the IDF, which is adamantly opposed. Two officers have spoken out: OC Southern Command Maj.-Gen. Yoav Galant and Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories Maj.-Gen. Yussef Mishlev.
As one defense official rightly explained it, "How can we let Abbas deploy forces there while Hamas is in control of Gaza?" Indeed, how can we? There is the suggestion that even Barak, who said it would be "considered," knows we cannot.
~~~~~~~~~~
Posting: April 1, 2008
"Surreal"
Even in the irrational environment with which we are coping, this gets a "most surreal" award:
Khaled Mashaal, political head of Hamas in Damascus, has given an interview. He explained that Israel has turned down an offer to restrict the attacks on both sides -- that is, by Israel and by Hamas in Gaza -- to only military targets, leaving civilians out of it.
This is a blatant set up, of course. For we here in Israel truly have military bases that might be targets and areas that are exclusively civilian. We are careful not to merge the two. But Hamas puts its terrorist activities and weapons inside civilian areas on purpose. Thus, if Israel were to commit to never attacking where there are civilians, there would be no opportunity to attack terrorists for fear of accidental injury to civilians. Hamas would have perfect cover and a free ride to do as it wished.
But read further for the surreal part of Mashaal's statement. Implying that with their current weapons Hamas would find it difficult to accurately target just military bases, even if that were its intention, he then said:
"We have primitive weapons. I ask the international community and the Americans to give us more advanced weapons so we can shoot more accurately."
I am not making this up.
Several things need to be clarified with regard to this:
Yes, Kassams are relatively simple home-made rockets. But they are also now in possession of Grad Katyushas and other more sophisticated weapons, and working every day to improve the accuracy even of the Kassam. When they hit places like Sderot, it is not because they aimed for a military base and accidentally hit civilians -- they are aiming directly for that civilian population; the inaccuracy means they can't be sure if they will hit a school, or a house three blocks away.
Mashaal maintains that Hamas has the right and the obligation to keep shooting to combat the "occupation." "This is ordinary behavior" -- as the Americans fought the British during the revolution, and the French fought the Nazis.
~~~~~~~~~~
Mashaal also alluded to the third party negotiations with Israel on the release of Shalit, claiming that Hamas was ready to strike a deal but that Israel is the stumbling block. We refuse, you see, to OK everyone on Hamas's list of 1,000 prisoners it demands be released.
It should be noted that Marwan Barghouti, a Fatah terrorist leader, was on the list.
~~~~~~~~~~
Lastly, Mashaal had words for Abbas: "We invite Mr. Abbas to come for unconditional talks in Gaza. Talks on how to address the reasons for the split, to return Gaza and the West Bank to unity and solve the security problem."
I believe it is only a matter of time until there are overt, public dealings (negotiations and cooperation at least if not a full unity gov't) between Fatah and Hamas. Abbas is currently playing both ends against the middle, avoiding that overt contact so that American largesse continues. But the fact that there is no overt contact doesn't mean that there is nothing going on in back rooms between the two groups.
What I noticed is that the agreement signed in Yemen has totally disappeared from the radar screen. Fatah backed off, saying there were "errors" in the signing, but to the best of my knowledge didn't totally disavow the understanding. And then, nothing further reported.
~~~~~~~~~~
We must return to Rice and Barak and Olmert, for the scenario in which they are actors has not yet played itself out.
After finishing meetings here in Israel, and amidst a flurry of very "optimistic" statements about how well things were going and the possibility that there might be an agreement before Bush comes in May, Rice went off to meet with Abbas.
Even on the plane, as I understand it, she began to question our sincerity in enacting all of the concessions that Barak presented her with. She indicated that the US would be watching us very closely to make sure we did what we have said we would, and quickly. In fact, she has charged General Fraser with monitoring this.
"General Fraser will be following up on the specifics and will be also... making certain that in fact there are 50 [roadblocks] and they are being removed."
A nasty tone, after her expression of being "amazed " at what we offered. But will the US also be closely monitoring PA progress in stopping terrorism? She didn't say so.
~~~~~~~~~~
To provide further evidence of our sincerity, Barak then made another announcement: He is considering allowing PA forces into Hevron and Tulkarm after the 700 already announced are deployed in Jenin. Hevron is the worst of options, as there is a Jewish community there, which is not the case in Jenin or Tulkarm. And that Jewish community recognizes this as a direct threat to their security.
"It would be extremely dangerous," said community spokesperson David Wilder. "The community is already under constant attack." He revealed that shots were recently fired at his apartment, leaving a hole in his son's closet. "Today a rock was thrown into the home of a family that lives next to me... The violence is continuing."
~~~~~~~~~~
Additionally, the announcement was made that we have already removed two roadblocks in the Jericho area and are also removing the Rimonim roadblock near Ramallah. The Yesha council expressed anger at this. The change in the situation, allowing Palestinians more "freedom of movement," means they will be free to come into areas where presently they do not have access, and there is likely to be an increase in weapon smuggling. There is concern, as well, about drive-by shootings.
Yesterday, there was an attempted terrorist attack at a hitchhikers station near the community of Shilo. A Palestinian -- not immediately recognizable as such -- approached two Israelis at the junction. When he suddenly shouted "Alah Akbar" ("God is great" -- the standard cry of terrorists attempting to kill Jews) and pulled out a knife in an attempt to stab them, one of the Israelis -- Erez Bar-On of Ofra -- stepped back, took out his personal gun and shot him. Police later discovered a second knife on the terrorist, a student from Birzeit University, who died.
Bar-On, in interview, expressed great disapproval of the government decision, saying that providing Palestinians with more freedom of movement increases the likelihood of such incidents.
~~~~~~~~~~
You may remember the story of David Landau, who was then, but no longer is, editor of Haaretz: At a dinner with Condoleezza Rice some months ago, he advised Rice to "rape" Israel, meaning forcing us into things we would not want to do.
Yisrael Medad, on his blog site today recounts this:
"I ran into David Landau yesterday at a funeral. I told him that he should watch the way he talks, referring to 'raping Israel' and all that. "He smiled and retorted: 'I meant what I said and I understand Condi Rice has taken my advice.'"
No comment is necessary.
~~~~~~~~~~
When Rice met here with Olmert, he told her (and I'll get to this below) that Israel would continue to build in major existing communities in Judea and Samaria as well as in neighborhoods of Jerusalem beyond the Green Line. In the subsequent press conference with Abbas, Rice lambasted us for this, saying that it was counter productive to "peace." (Note that she didn't lambaste the PA, when making her statement to the press here, for failure to clamp down on terrorism.)
What is happening -- which I've described before -- is that Olmert is caught between demands of Rice and demands of Shas. The only time he really says no to Rice (and it shows he can do so if he wishes to!) is when his coalition is threatened. Shas threatens to leave if building isn't done.
And so there has now been an announcement that 600 units will go up in Pisgat Ze'ev, a northern Jerusalem neighborhood. (I confess that this confuses me a bit, as I am sure I read about this some weeks ago; perhaps it was not finalized until now.) And there is word that Olmert has assured Shas that the freeze on building in the major community of Betar Illit, which is beyond Jerusalem, will be lifted as well, and that 800 units will go up there.
Shas members are patting themselves on the back for these accomplishments, and pointing to them, once again, as a reason to stay in the coalition. In point of fact, more would be accomplished if they left the coalition.
~~~~~~~~~~
It is always to the good when Olmert is put in the position of resisting Rice's demands, and shows willingness to protect our right to build in Jewish areas. Israel's stance is that we have a right to build within eastern Jerusalem and Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria that we are likely to keep in a settlement, and that this is consistent with international understandings.
"It is not true that we are building in violation of our obligations," Olmert said to his Kadima faction at a meeting in the Knesset. "We are not building new settlements, everyone must understand this... "
"We don't hide our views on Jerusalem and major settlement blocs, we are being honest about everything throughout the negotiations," he said.
I would truly like to think this is so. The PA is demanding our return to the '67 lines, and word has come out that our negotiators are getting ready to accede to this -- which would be a horror. If we are truly holding out for Jerusalem and major settlement blocs, there will be no deal, because the PA simply does NOT compromise.
All of this said, and with acknowledgement to Shas for putting Olmert in this position, it must be noted that Shas is taking heat from its haredi (ultra-Orthodox) constituency, which is looking for more housing. The neighborhoods in which Olmert has approved building are thus haredi, and will serve Shas's constituency.
~~~~~~~~~~
As to Rice's enthusiastic prediction that there might be an agreement by May, she has since backed off on this, and Olmert, as well, has made statements discouraging expectations of a quick agreement.
What is being sought is a general outline of what a Palestinian state would be like in terms of borders, control of Jerusalem and resolution of the refugee issue. This is to be called a Declaration of Principles, and it is supposed to be shelved until all pertinent road map commitments are met. As this requires the PA to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure and cease incitement, it means, in theoretical terms, no enactment of the principles, as least for a generation or more, as I said the other day.
But in reality this is an extremely dangerous process -- I believe so and every serious analyst I have read also says so. Once we've established the "principle" of a Palestinian state, the international community (and this very much includes the US), will cut the PA slack -- as the PA is ALWAYS cut slack -- and we will be pressured to give them that state before they've met their obligations. Thus it is fervently to be hoped that no agreement is reached in principle.
It is being said that "real progress" is being made in the negotiations, but no one outside the immediate process really knows what this means. The expectation is that because the PA cannot and will not compromise, that issues of control of eastern Jerusalem (including the Jewish quarter and the Temple mount) and "return" of refugees will present insurmountable obstacles to finalizing an agreement.
Yoel Marcus, writing in Haaretz, suggests that the clearest indication that the negotiations are mostly hot air is the silence from Shas.
~~~~~~~~~~
Yesterday, to the surprise of many, Barak made a comment about leaving the coalition after all. He is, however, definitely full of hot air with regard to the reason he is giving: that Olmert is accountable for failures during the Lebanon war and that this remains unfinished business because the PM hasn't resigned. This is true enough, but if this were Barak's true concern, he would have pulled out right after Winograd was released.
Never-the-less, Barak, in a meeting with bereaved parents of soldiers, declared, "Elections in two or three years are not a possibility."
I would say he's moving according to his own timetable for maneuvering himself into position to be the next prime minister. One might even speculate as to how his dealings with Rice might have been structured to meet his own agenda.
Amir Peretz who is former chair of Labor and former defense minister, attacked Barak at a Labor faction meeting, saying he was out of touch with reality: "You have an obsession with being prime minister, but you have no agenda. What is your economic agenda? What is your social agenda? What is your political agenda?"
Polls, it must be noted, have Netanyahu and Likud well ahead of Barak and Labor.
~~~~~~~~~~
It has been revealed by a Japanese newspaper, Asahi Shimbun, that when Olmert was in Japan in February, he told officials that last September the IDF operation into Syria targeted a nuclear facility built with North Korea's help.
~~~~~~~~~~
I do not report on a daily basis regarding the attacks on Israel from Gaza, but please don't imagine that it is quiet. On some days 15 or 20 rockets may be launched. Today two mortars hit in the Ashkelon region, causing light injuries.
~~~~~~~~~~
In a talk at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs yesterday, Professor Robert Wishtrich of Hebrew University stated that the UK is the center of European anti-Semitism. There is historical precedent for this, it didn't evolve in modern times: Since medieval times, Britain has been rife with anti-Semitism.
~~~~~~~~~~
Posting: March 30, 2008
"Deplorable"
Well, it was unlikely that Rice, who is here, would have readily walked away without further concessions from Israel for the sake of the "peace process." Some concessions, of some sort, from our craven, appeasing government. But what has taken place is above and beyond.
After Rice met with Defense Minister Barak and PA Prime Minister Fayyad here in Jerusalem, she actually said she was "amazed" by the gestures being advanced by Israel. I don't wonder at her amazement, as this sort of one-sided, tushy-kissing effort to be nice to an entity that in fact wishes us gone is quite breath-taking. But, rather than being "amazed," I'm just plain shocked. And outraged.
Rice announced that a number of concrete actions will be taken to improve the situation.
~~~~~~~~~~
Take a deep breath before reading this list of Barak's major offers:
[] The establishment of a Palestinian city (or series of neighborhoods) north of the town of al-Bireh, outside of Ramallah, to be paid for by a Jordanian businessman, to alleviate housing shortages in the Ramallah area. It would house tens of thousands of Palestinians.
This strikes me as most offensive of all. After the PA screams bloody murder about building a few hundred units in existing communities, and just one day after Abbas lied about this and said we were doing unprecedented building, we make this offer?
[] Increasing the number of laborers allowed into Israel to 5,000.
[] Taking down one checkpoint and 50 roadblocks, in order to ease the movement of Palestinians between the cities of Jenin, Tulkarm, Kalkilya and Ramallah.
As I remember, these roadblocks went up because easy movement between these cities allowed weapons to be transported.
[] Easing of restrictions on Palestinian public figures.
But just about a week ago a Palestinian official was caught smuggling large numbers of phones from Jordan.
[] Easing security checks for Palestinian businessmen.
Of course, a businessman would never aid a terrorist.
Barak further suggested:
[] Upgrading the infrastructure for aiding the Palestinians waiting at the crossings, the cost of which is estimated at NIS 8.3 million.
[] Transferring 325 cars and logistic equipment from the IDF to the Palestinian security organizations, including generators, blankets and first aid kits.
~~~~~~~~~~
I have on occasion commented that our leaders who take such actions are crazy. But I've been cautioned by some readers to avoid saying that, because truly crazy people are absolved of responsibility for their actions -- and the comment is on the mark.
What I will say, instead, is that this is very sick, but that Barak remains fully responsible for his decisions.
~~~~~~~~~~
You may be wondering what the PA will be offering in all of this. After all, Fayyad and Barak met together to put forward suggests to improve the situation.
Well, it was agreed that the Palestinian security forces must assume "greater responsibility."
I did not note a precise delineation of responsibility for what.
They also agreed to step up efforts to "prevent terror."
Again, that vagueness. Nothing that could be quantified or measured -- the way Barak's promises on taking down 50 roadblocks or allowing 5,000 laborers into Israel can be measured.
I heard tonight, by the way, from a very reliable source that Rice said today that the US would be watching Israel closely to see that these commitments were honored.
But the Palestinians? Hey, they can say they made an effort to prevent terror, they gave it their best.
~~~~~~~~~~
And Fayyad? This particular son of a bitch refused to make a public statement with Olmert and Rice. Take all that's offered, but not be seen to be too close to Israeli leader, who is an enemy of Palestine, after all. The photo op would not have served him in the street, which admires Hamas.
~~~~~~~~~~
And as if this is not bad enough, Barak and Olmert are making gestures to Syria regarding resuming peace negotiations.
From a military perspective this is a disaster. I heard Maj. Gen (res) Yaakov Amidror -- former Commander of the IDF's National Defense College and currently with the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs -- speak on a panel sponsored by Likud Anglo tonight. As Syria's demand for peace is return of the Golan Heights, his assessment was that negotiating peace with Syria might mean we would ultimately find ourselves fighting Iranians in the Galil.
Another panel member, Dan Diker -- Director of the Institute for Contemporary Affairs and a Senior Foreign Policy Analyst at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs -- made this incisive observation: Timing is everything. We have just seen that heads of major Arab countries are snubbing Syria by not participating in the conference in Damascus. And now? Now is the time we pick to undercut that message and confer legitimacy on Syria by reaching out to Assad?
A theme of this panel was the recognition that concessions don't work. Israel, in 1993, had the notion that the more we gave the more the world would respect us. But the reverse has happened, as the world has lost respect for us and has stopped understanding that we have legitimate rights in this land. As we fail to stand up for ourselves, it is the Palestinian narrative that is being internalized internationally.
~~~~~~~~~~
One last comment before closing: I heard it tonight from an American with major contacts (as I've hard it before from an international lawyer here with Washington DC connections): Rice is running the show, and she's doing the work of Saudi Arabia. But Bush's attitude towards Israel is not the same as Rice's. He is being seriously misled: By Rice, whom he trusts, and by the PA leaders, whose lovely words of peace he trusts, and by the Israeli leaders, who tell him how much we're willing to give up.
It may be futile. But it must be attempted at every juncture, calling on every possible political contact, sending every possible message: Bush needs to be provided with the realities.
~~~~~~~~~~
Posting: March 29, 2008
Motzei Shabbat (after Shabbat)
"Regarding Abbas"
An Arab summit is being held in Damascus this weekend, but is being boycotted by several Arab nations: Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon. The refusal to come was meant clearly to send a message of displeasure to Syria for its association with Iran, and its support of Hamas and Hezbollah.
According to an AP report that ran in the Post:
"'There are now two axes - Iran, Syria, Hamas and Hezbollah are on one side and the rest are on the other,' said Wahid Abdel-Meguid of the Cairo-based Al-Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies.
"Arab summits are all about protocol and symbolism, and in that language, the show of disdain from top US-allies Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan could not be more clear.
"In an unprecedented move, they are sending minor officials rather than their heads of state - or even their prime ministers or foreign ministers.
"Even Yemen's President Ali Abdullah Saleh decided Friday not to come, sending his vice president in his place... 'Syria is losing friends, one after the other,' said Mansour Hayal, a Yemeni political analyst."
~~~~~~~~~~
Uh huh... But guess who didn't shun the conference? Our "moderate peace partner," Mahmoud Abbas. Tells us a great deal about which side he's on.
And let me share with you what he said at the conference:
"The coming couple of months are decisive. If we don't reach a solution by the end of this year, it means the whole region will be on the verge of a new era of tension and loss of confidence in peace.
"The last few months have witnessed unprecedented Israeli escalation in settlement expansion in Jerusalem and the West Bank. It has become clear that the Israeli government is imposing on the ground the political solution that it wants.
"Negotiations cannot continue under the Israeli bulldozers swallowing our land and building settlements and under the daily Israeli military operations."
He spoke of Israel "brutally" killing innocent Palestinians in Gaza, and he asked those present to "think seriously of Arab... protection for our people," by which he meant troops.
~~~~~~~~~~
You'll forgive my absolutely undiplomatic and impolitic response. This son of a bitch lies through his teeth. "Unprecedented Israeli escalation in settlement expansion"?
Olmert had -- most regrettably --caved completely and put a freeze on any building in eastern Jerusalem or Judea and Samaria. That freeze was lifted minimally, and only in line with what had been approved well prior to Annapolis, because of Olmert's fear of losing his coalition. I do not believe for a second that Abbas doesn't know this. He is inciting.
~~~~~~~~~~
But this charge allows me to return briefly here to the issue of settlements and why they do not constitute a stumbling block to peace.
First, it must be noted that the underlying assumption here -- which is outrageous -- is that everything outside the Green Line "belongs" to the PA, and is thus area upon which we have no right to build. That I've recently exposed as fallacious in terms of history and international law. Israel's final borders have yet to be negotiated.
What I want to advance here are a few other perspectives, which the world would do well to consider.
-- When Sharon decided to withdraw from Gaza in 2005, he pulled out all of the settlements of Gush Katif. I am not applauding this; I, in fact, deplore what happened. But it did happen, and it provides evidence for the fact that if there is Israeli intent withdrawals are possible.
My own position most strongly is that there should be no withdrawals and we should stand on our rights to the land. But the international community should begin to realize that stopping all construction is not necessary for peace negotiations to continue. Instead of making the "settlements" the whipping boy, let there first be a total elimination of terrorism, and let there be sincere negotiations with genuine desire on the other side for a two-state solution. Then let Israel and her genuine peace partner work out what should be relinquished by Israel and what not. Before that day comes (and we're talking more than a generation from now at a minimum), to demand of Israel that there be no building to accommodate natural growth in existing communities is nonsense. And natural growth in existing communities is all that has been sanctioned.
Then too, there is this thought: Why is it assumed by the international community that the PA has a right to a territory that is Judenrein? They charge us with apartheid, but this demand, which truly reflects apartheid thinking, elicits no reproach. It is a given: They want the land, and so Jews can't live there. Why is it that there would be hell to pay if we tried to move out all Arabs living in Israel, but that the same standard doesn't apply to the PA? Why cannot it be said that those Jews who remain in areas that would be going to the PA would be offered the option of remaining?
I feel driven to clarify again that I am not advocating any of this. I am merely pointing out the double standard that is at work and the unreasonable approach that is being taken with regard to this matter.
-- I will add here that while there is screaming about our building in eastern Jerusalem, Arabs are doing a huge amount of illegal building to which scant attention is paid. Double standard indeed!
~~~~~~~~~~
Let's return to Abbas for just a moment. With everything else, according to Khaled Abu Toameh, reporting in yesterday's Post, Abbas's Fatah is contending with an unprecedented rash of scandals that further weakens it.
"Remarked [a] Fatah representative: 'Fatah has lost much of what's left of its credibility. If we hold a free election in the West Bank tomorrow, it's almost certain that Hamas will win.'"
The scandals include accusations that Ahmed Qurei, who heads the PA negotiating team, deposited $3 million of PLO money in his accounts. Additionally, large shipments of expired medicine that had been illegally smuggled into the West Bank have been confiscated, with "dozens of physicians, pharmacists and officials from the PA's Ministry of Health are currently being interrogated for their alleged role in the medicine scandal, which is believed to have resulted in the death of many patients."
For details on these scandals and others see:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1206632349492&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
~~~~~~~~~~
Posting: March 28, 2008
"Dangerous Stupidity"
The stupidity alluded to here pertains both to US and Israeli policy. And it is with regard to the practice of continuing to arm and train Fatah forces in Judea and Samaria.
There is some very irrational notion that it is necessary to "strengthen" Fatah so it can prevent a Hamas takeover. However, the evidence from the recent past provides absolutely no reason to believe that giving Fatah more weapons and more training is going to turn them into a fighting machine that will keep Hamas at bay and that will help to keep Israel safe from terrorists. In fact, the opposite is glaringly obvious to anyone who wishes to pay attention.
Repeatedly over the years since the PA was established, there have been incidents in which weapons and training provided by the US with Israeli sanction were turned against Israel. The very first time this happened was in 1996 and the severity of such situations increased with the second intifada starting in 2000.
~~~~~~~~~~
But that's just one factor of concern. The other is the vast likelihood that these weapons will end up in Hamas hands. That's precisely what happened in Gaza. Fatah was heavily armed by the US so that it might stand against Hamas. When Hamas routed Fatah, they acquired these weapons, which are now being utilized against Israel, and which will make that eventual major operation in Gaza more difficult than it otherwise would have been. Hamas is now in possession of such Fatah equipment as machine guns, thousands of assault rifles, personnel carriers and night vision goggles.
~~~~~~~~~~
What must be understood here -- what is of MAJOR concern -- is the fact that Fatah was not defeated in Gaza because of Hamas superiority. Fatah had better training, better equipment, and a larger number of troops in the field. What they lacked was the will to fight Hamas.
Consider this information from my report on Fatah from in January:
After the rout, The Observer interviewed Abu Obieda, head of the military wing of Hamas, who said, "I expected it to take one month. That is what we planned for and trained for. But then at the beginning all of the Fatah commanders escaped their compounds in ambulances and left for Egypt. They left their men to die. Who could do that?"
Amir Tahiri, reporting in the NY Post, confirmed this, saying that even the four chief bases, claimed to be impregnable, fell within hours as the defenders fled, leaving their equipment behind.
While according to the Economist, Abbas did not declare a state of emergency until his own Gaza house (very large and elaborate, it should be noted) was being ransacked. Middle level officers complained about a lack of leadership: "We had no orders to fight except in self defense."
~~~~~~~~~~
That was in Gaza. Now in Judea and Samaria, even US generals have begun to complain about the lack of effort on the part of the PA to take on terrorism. This is something I've been writing about for months: the reports that security officers say they aren't given orders to shoot at terrorists, etc.
This pattern persists because Fatah (the PA) has no stomach for this fight. As they see it, Hamas and Fatah are all part of the Palestinian people, and there is at heart no disapproval of Hamas terrorism within the ranks of Fatah. The goals are the same, it is only the methods that vary, like a "good cop, bad cop" routine.
Months ago, the assessment of Israeli intelligence was that Hamas was as strong as Fatah in Judea and Samaria. Since then, Hamas has strengthened further and it is clearly understood that only the IDF stands between the PA and a Hamas takeover.
~~~~~~~~~~
Yet, in spite of this, the US, which saw its policy fail so badly in Gaza, and which is in possession of information regarding Hamas strength in Judea and Samaria, and PA failure to fight terrorism... the US decides to adopt precisely the same policy that backfired in Gaza and to back the same losers all over again. The US is funding weapon supplies and training for the PA.
Where are the brains of Rice and company? Where is Bush in all of this? They are setting themselves up for a situation that is doomed to fail. They are making it possible for Hamas to secure better weapons than they would otherwise have had, and ultimately they -- US officials! -- are going to be responsible for Israeli deaths.
And those who head the Israeli government? They behave like US lackeys, instead of officials of a sovereign state. They give statements about how Israeli security must be their first concern, but they don't act in accord with these statements.
~~~~~~~~~~
Now it is in the news that Defense Minister Barak has expressed to the US concern that Hamas may take over Judea and Samaria, and that Israeli gestures to the US may backfire.
Well, good morning! But why didn't he register this concern BEFORE making the gestures. Why didn't he flatly refuse to make the gestures (which are blatantly said to be gestures to the US) because his first responsibility is to protect Israel?
Yet Israel has signed on to allowing the PA to have armored personnel carriers, night vision goggles and a whole lot more.
All in the interests of peace, you understand.
~~~~~~~~~~
Rice is due here tomorrow night. She is coming to push that moribund "peace process." And we must ask, here too, why she thinks Fatah is a viable peace partner for Israel, given the parameters outlined above.
What is particularly infuriating is that she is being "even handed," criticizing both Israel and the PA for "failures" to live up to their commitments. But what she criticizes Israel for are such things as not taking down "illegal outposts," while with the PA the criticism is not fighting terrorism.
These are not parallel issues. The bottom line is that without an elimination of terrorist infrastructure there will be no peace here. Everything else must be on hold until that is accomplished.
As to the issues of communities established beyond the Green Line being an "obstacle to peace," I will discuss this further in the next posting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
