Yom Kippur in Iran: War Games and Missile Drill - Defense/Middle East - Israel News - Israel National News
Shared via AddThis
Posts
20 hours ago
Sunday, 27 September 2009
RubinReports: Is America Losing Its Greatness on the Playing Fields of the East Coast?
Is America Losing Its Greatness on the Playing Fields of the East Coast?
By Barry Rubin
My son, Daniel, who is doing anthropological field work on American society at age 10, points out something interesting after he comes off the field in his soccer (football) game. But I can see it also.
The boys don’t play very aggressively. And by “aggressively” I don’t mean brutally or in a nasty or macho way. It's so far below that level that the concept of "macho" isn't in this universe at all. They really seem to hold back and, as much as my memory is accurate, they are far more diffident than when I was that age.
Is this the result of social conditioning and educational indoctrination in contemporary American society, or is it my imagination?
One reason that I think I might be on to something here is an American documentary I saw aired on Israeli television. It was a two-part program about how to raise a boy. I expected the worst and, sure enough, within minutes there was a scene on an American football (not soccer) field in which the coach was urging the players to be tougher.
The narrator was explaining that this was unnecessary. Why did the coach believe that boys should be aggressive? she asked. That was only because he was so conditioned when he was young, a delusion about the way men were supposed to be. Really? Are thousands of years of history to be dismissed so easily?
Or perhaps one might say: that’s why there have been so many wars in the past, we no longer need that sort of behavior, and so we are going to train them out of it.
That really does seem to be the conscious trend in educational philosophy now, right? And, of course, it has certain implications for foreign policy as well.
I should quickly add that what I’m saying probably pertains more to big-city and suburbs upper middle class young people. In the Mid-West, South, Mountain States, and rural areas, things have changed far less. Or perhaps it is a matter of the change coming only when those young people have gone to universities and been exposed to the kind of professors who seem dominant in those institutions nowadays?
I’m just raising questions here, having not spent much time in the United States during the past couple of decades. You tell me.
But there’s also something else accompanying this observation, and again perhaps I’m overstating the case. The coach and parents keep telling the kids how well they are doing, how every play they are making is terrific. My son mimics this with an exaggerated: “Isn’t that great!”
Even when they lose, even when they make a mistake, the emphasis isn’t on correction but on encouragement. There is much to be said for this, of course. It certainly builds self-esteem and that’s a good thing. But is it also a preparation for mediocrity, indifference between victory and defeat, loss of competitiveness?
Again, I don’t know. You tell me. In Israel, as my son points out, the coach yells at the kids and even curses at a “fashlan,” a real mess-up on the field. When they were picking the team at his Israeli school to play in the championships, the teacher told the students: “Don’t feel bad if you aren’t chosen but we have to pick the best players for the good of the class.” The idea was that the goal is to win, not just to make everyone feel good.
At the end of the game, which I think he played quite well, my son is upset. He’s very hard, even too hard, on himself because he didn’t play up to his own standards. It’s bad that he’s unhappy about it, yet it’s good also because it means he’ll practice hard and be determined to do better next time.
Obviously, every approach has its drawbacks. Kids have been long traumatized by pressure, over-critical parents, low self-esteem, and a sense of failure. They were also told, however, it doesn’t matter if you win or lose but how you play the game. This didn’t mean that it didn’t matter at all whether you won or lost but rather that the single most important thing was to fight hard and genuinely do your best. And if you don’t play well enough I’m going to show you how to do better.
That’s very different—I hope you see the distinction—from saying: Whatever you do is fine. That statement ends discussion, it ensures the status quo situation. It doesn't promote personal excellent, putting everything you have into the effort.
The Duke of Wellington—who hated his old school—didn't say, as it is often claimed he did, that the Battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton. Still there is some relationship between these two kinds of things.
Are Americans—at least elite Americans, at least a significant portion of Americans--being programmed to lose in the world and on the playing field by the current child-raising, educational, and politically dominant philosophy and leadership?
I honestly don’t know. You tell me.
Here's what one non-American correspondent writes to me: "This is certainly true. I taught soccer in the LA area, and this kind of capitulation mentality had already started, at least with some of the league officials and the refs then in the mid-1990's. Receiving encouragement when you do your best and fail is one thing, it is another thing when you do nothing and are told you are wonderful. In the latter case, you end up becoming Obama-like."
My son, Daniel, who is doing anthropological field work on American society at age 10, points out something interesting after he comes off the field in his soccer (football) game. But I can see it also.
The boys don’t play very aggressively. And by “aggressively” I don’t mean brutally or in a nasty or macho way. It's so far below that level that the concept of "macho" isn't in this universe at all. They really seem to hold back and, as much as my memory is accurate, they are far more diffident than when I was that age.
Is this the result of social conditioning and educational indoctrination in contemporary American society, or is it my imagination?
One reason that I think I might be on to something here is an American documentary I saw aired on Israeli television. It was a two-part program about how to raise a boy. I expected the worst and, sure enough, within minutes there was a scene on an American football (not soccer) field in which the coach was urging the players to be tougher.
The narrator was explaining that this was unnecessary. Why did the coach believe that boys should be aggressive? she asked. That was only because he was so conditioned when he was young, a delusion about the way men were supposed to be. Really? Are thousands of years of history to be dismissed so easily?
Or perhaps one might say: that’s why there have been so many wars in the past, we no longer need that sort of behavior, and so we are going to train them out of it.
That really does seem to be the conscious trend in educational philosophy now, right? And, of course, it has certain implications for foreign policy as well.
I should quickly add that what I’m saying probably pertains more to big-city and suburbs upper middle class young people. In the Mid-West, South, Mountain States, and rural areas, things have changed far less. Or perhaps it is a matter of the change coming only when those young people have gone to universities and been exposed to the kind of professors who seem dominant in those institutions nowadays?
I’m just raising questions here, having not spent much time in the United States during the past couple of decades. You tell me.
But there’s also something else accompanying this observation, and again perhaps I’m overstating the case. The coach and parents keep telling the kids how well they are doing, how every play they are making is terrific. My son mimics this with an exaggerated: “Isn’t that great!”
Even when they lose, even when they make a mistake, the emphasis isn’t on correction but on encouragement. There is much to be said for this, of course. It certainly builds self-esteem and that’s a good thing. But is it also a preparation for mediocrity, indifference between victory and defeat, loss of competitiveness?
Again, I don’t know. You tell me. In Israel, as my son points out, the coach yells at the kids and even curses at a “fashlan,” a real mess-up on the field. When they were picking the team at his Israeli school to play in the championships, the teacher told the students: “Don’t feel bad if you aren’t chosen but we have to pick the best players for the good of the class.” The idea was that the goal is to win, not just to make everyone feel good.
At the end of the game, which I think he played quite well, my son is upset. He’s very hard, even too hard, on himself because he didn’t play up to his own standards. It’s bad that he’s unhappy about it, yet it’s good also because it means he’ll practice hard and be determined to do better next time.
Obviously, every approach has its drawbacks. Kids have been long traumatized by pressure, over-critical parents, low self-esteem, and a sense of failure. They were also told, however, it doesn’t matter if you win or lose but how you play the game. This didn’t mean that it didn’t matter at all whether you won or lost but rather that the single most important thing was to fight hard and genuinely do your best. And if you don’t play well enough I’m going to show you how to do better.
That’s very different—I hope you see the distinction—from saying: Whatever you do is fine. That statement ends discussion, it ensures the status quo situation. It doesn't promote personal excellent, putting everything you have into the effort.
The Duke of Wellington—who hated his old school—didn't say, as it is often claimed he did, that the Battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton. Still there is some relationship between these two kinds of things.
Are Americans—at least elite Americans, at least a significant portion of Americans--being programmed to lose in the world and on the playing field by the current child-raising, educational, and politically dominant philosophy and leadership?
I honestly don’t know. You tell me.
Here's what one non-American correspondent writes to me: "This is certainly true. I taught soccer in the LA area, and this kind of capitulation mentality had already started, at least with some of the league officials and the refs then in the mid-1990's. Receiving encouragement when you do your best and fail is one thing, it is another thing when you do nothing and are told you are wonderful. In the latter case, you end up becoming Obama-like."
RubinReports: Is America Losing Its Greatness on the Playing Fields of the East Coast?
RubinReports: Barack Obama, Iran, and the “Or Else” Factor
Barack Obama, Iran, and the “Or Else” Factor
By Barry Rubin
At the G-20 meeting in Pittsburgh, President Barack Obama and several European leaders threatened Iran that it had just better stop developing nuclear weapons right away or else they would act decisively. Let’s call this the “Or Else” factor.
The Western countries revealed that they knew all about a secret Iranian enrichment facility which showed how thoroughly that regime had hitherto lied and concealed its nuclear weapons’ project. Yet there is something very curious in this: Why didn’t President Barack Obama mention this facility during his UN speech?
A different way to express the same thought is the contradiction between the U.S. delegation walking out on Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's speech at the UN, declaring him an extremist and antisemite, at the same time as Obama is stating his eagerness to negotiate with Iran in a "serious, meaningful" dialogue and to make a deal with that very same man's regime.
Presumably, in both cases, Obama wanted to keep the U.S. response limited and to avoid triggering a real crisis. By behaving this way he also forfeited a remarkable opportunity to build a large support base for doing something about the problem. Sure, he is moving forward, but doing so very slowly and—after eight months in office—without material effect.
Who believes that he is really willing to confront Iran (or anyone else who threatens U.S. interests) in future? The date on the calendar will change but this administration's underlying philosophy is more likely to remain the same.
Given Obama’s strange (in terms of all previous U.S. history) approach to international relations, the Or Else factor becomes paramount and the usual roles are reversed. Iran is openly defiant, acting as if it is the more powerful side before which the West must cower. The more extreme the regime’s behavior, the more it demonstrates—especially to Iran’s primary audience of Arabs and Muslims—who’s strong, who’s courageous, and who’s winning.
The Or Else factor is a major part of personal, social, and political life. “Clean up your room or else!” Or else a spanking? No allowance? No TV or computer? You’re grounded? The threat must be credible and it is helpful to have seen it put into action once or twice.
“Don’t cheat on your taxes or else!” Or else what? You have a good chance of being investigated, caught, sent to jail? But the people in question have to believe there is a real chance this might happen, a risk that outweighs the benefits they get from the money they save by cheating.
“Sponsor terrorism, attack your neighbor, and ignore our interests and our gunboats will overthrow you or our covert agents will undercut your government. Well, that’s sure out of fashion. In fact, Iranian and Syrian officials help kill American soldiers in Iraq, the U.S. government knows about it, and nowadays does nothing in response.
Or else is based on the idea that we are much stronger than you, that we will take risks, take and give casualties, spend money, and succeed in taking away your power. Or wealth.
But when countries renounce the legitimacy of their power—all states have an equal right to nuclear weapons; we are no better than you are—and lose self-confidence in their power and demonstrably so, they thumb their nose at you or give you the finger.
That is what Khomeini did: they are bluffing (see my Iran book) and Ahmadinejad is in this tradition. America can’t do a damn thing
This is where credibility comes in. but if you destroy your own credibility by apologizing for past actions (and we’ll never be aggressive and arrogant again), pledging not to do more than timid allies permit, expressing sympathy for the other side (in Middle East politics, kindness is considered weakness and empathy a sign of cowardice), and showing a notable reluctance about the use of force.
There is a saying that a real collision occurs when the unstoppable force meets the immovable object. In Obama versus the Islamist regime, it is a case of the reluctant force meeting the immovable object.
And look at the international community’s recent record:
Hamas fires missiles at Israel, Israel retaliates, world condemns Israel.
Hizballah fires missiles at Israel, Israel retaliates, world (through the UN) promises to restrain Hizballah, Hizballah threatens UN forces, world backs down.
Russia seizes parts of Georgia and the West does nothing, with most comments blaming Georgia for not surrendering fast enough.
Yet even if Obama was far more effective (that is, scary for America’s enemies rather than its friends), the Iranian regime would behave this way. After all, it was founded by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini who was convinced he had the deity on his side.
Khomeini, who seized power in 1979 and died in 1989, was explicit in exhorting Iranians to defy America and the West. He assured them that if they did so, the Great Satan would back down. On one occasion he expressed this by saying, “American can’t do a damn thing,” to hurt Iran. The hostage crisis, and President Jimmy Carter’s restraint, seemed to prove him right.
True, in 1988, fearful that the United States might attack Iran to protect Saudi Arabia and other Gulf Arabs in the Iran-Ira war, Khomeini backed down and ended the conflict. Anything short of such a credible threat probably won’t work.
Iran’s current President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad styles himself as Khomeini’s disciple. He believes—and he’s shown it—that if he is very aggressive the West won’t take him on. So far, he’s been proven right. That success was a central element in the decision of Iran’s spiritual guide, Ali Khameinei, to back him for another term in office.
To foreign observers, the stolen election and demonstrations make the regime look weak; to Iran’s rulers, having successfully stolen the election and put down the demonstrations makes them feel strong.
Obama is treating Iran as if it is a generic country: offer talks and benefits or sanctions and punishment. But Iran’s Islamist regime is not just another country but rather an ambitious, ideologically guided regime that thinks it is winning and its enemies won’t confront it. That regime is not going to respond to Obama’s treatment, especially lacking the Or Else factor’s credibility.
On behalf of Obama, Britain, and some other states, French President Sarkozy gives a rather low-level "or else" threat: “If by December there is not an in-depth change by the Iranian leaders, sanctions will have to be taken.”
If and when this happens, Iran will first examine the level of new sanctions—if any—and find them not so frightening. It will look for ways to get around them, probably with Chinese and Russian help. It will then say: Bring it on! Do your worst! Make my day! Punk, do you feel lucky?
And then, what’s the United States going to do? Go to the UN, where action will be delayed—both by Obama’s caution and the constraints of a divided Security Council--and any tough response whittled down further?
Thus, unless Israel attacks, a year or two or three will go by with Iran surviving the sanctions. And the day will come when the regime has nuclear weapons. This is Ahmadinejad’s game plan and it seems a reasonable one from his standpoint.
Obama is trying above all to prove that he isn’t the Big Bad Wolf of international relations—he doesn’t just apologize for but greatly exaggerates the errors of past American diplomacy—and daily expresses his determination not to threaten to, “Huff and puff and blow your house down.” Whether their regime is made of straw, mud, or bricks, the Iranian dictators can thumb their nose at him, give him the finger, and not tremble the least bit.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing," said the British political philosopher Edmund Burke. He might just as well have said: …do far too little, far too late.
At the G-20 meeting in Pittsburgh, President Barack Obama and several European leaders threatened Iran that it had just better stop developing nuclear weapons right away or else they would act decisively. Let’s call this the “Or Else” factor.
The Western countries revealed that they knew all about a secret Iranian enrichment facility which showed how thoroughly that regime had hitherto lied and concealed its nuclear weapons’ project. Yet there is something very curious in this: Why didn’t President Barack Obama mention this facility during his UN speech?
A different way to express the same thought is the contradiction between the U.S. delegation walking out on Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's speech at the UN, declaring him an extremist and antisemite, at the same time as Obama is stating his eagerness to negotiate with Iran in a "serious, meaningful" dialogue and to make a deal with that very same man's regime.
Presumably, in both cases, Obama wanted to keep the U.S. response limited and to avoid triggering a real crisis. By behaving this way he also forfeited a remarkable opportunity to build a large support base for doing something about the problem. Sure, he is moving forward, but doing so very slowly and—after eight months in office—without material effect.
Who believes that he is really willing to confront Iran (or anyone else who threatens U.S. interests) in future? The date on the calendar will change but this administration's underlying philosophy is more likely to remain the same.
Given Obama’s strange (in terms of all previous U.S. history) approach to international relations, the Or Else factor becomes paramount and the usual roles are reversed. Iran is openly defiant, acting as if it is the more powerful side before which the West must cower. The more extreme the regime’s behavior, the more it demonstrates—especially to Iran’s primary audience of Arabs and Muslims—who’s strong, who’s courageous, and who’s winning.
The Or Else factor is a major part of personal, social, and political life. “Clean up your room or else!” Or else a spanking? No allowance? No TV or computer? You’re grounded? The threat must be credible and it is helpful to have seen it put into action once or twice.
“Don’t cheat on your taxes or else!” Or else what? You have a good chance of being investigated, caught, sent to jail? But the people in question have to believe there is a real chance this might happen, a risk that outweighs the benefits they get from the money they save by cheating.
“Sponsor terrorism, attack your neighbor, and ignore our interests and our gunboats will overthrow you or our covert agents will undercut your government. Well, that’s sure out of fashion. In fact, Iranian and Syrian officials help kill American soldiers in Iraq, the U.S. government knows about it, and nowadays does nothing in response.
Or else is based on the idea that we are much stronger than you, that we will take risks, take and give casualties, spend money, and succeed in taking away your power. Or wealth.
But when countries renounce the legitimacy of their power—all states have an equal right to nuclear weapons; we are no better than you are—and lose self-confidence in their power and demonstrably so, they thumb their nose at you or give you the finger.
That is what Khomeini did: they are bluffing (see my Iran book) and Ahmadinejad is in this tradition. America can’t do a damn thing
This is where credibility comes in. but if you destroy your own credibility by apologizing for past actions (and we’ll never be aggressive and arrogant again), pledging not to do more than timid allies permit, expressing sympathy for the other side (in Middle East politics, kindness is considered weakness and empathy a sign of cowardice), and showing a notable reluctance about the use of force.
There is a saying that a real collision occurs when the unstoppable force meets the immovable object. In Obama versus the Islamist regime, it is a case of the reluctant force meeting the immovable object.
And look at the international community’s recent record:
Hamas fires missiles at Israel, Israel retaliates, world condemns Israel.
Hizballah fires missiles at Israel, Israel retaliates, world (through the UN) promises to restrain Hizballah, Hizballah threatens UN forces, world backs down.
Russia seizes parts of Georgia and the West does nothing, with most comments blaming Georgia for not surrendering fast enough.
Yet even if Obama was far more effective (that is, scary for America’s enemies rather than its friends), the Iranian regime would behave this way. After all, it was founded by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini who was convinced he had the deity on his side.
Khomeini, who seized power in 1979 and died in 1989, was explicit in exhorting Iranians to defy America and the West. He assured them that if they did so, the Great Satan would back down. On one occasion he expressed this by saying, “American can’t do a damn thing,” to hurt Iran. The hostage crisis, and President Jimmy Carter’s restraint, seemed to prove him right.
True, in 1988, fearful that the United States might attack Iran to protect Saudi Arabia and other Gulf Arabs in the Iran-Ira war, Khomeini backed down and ended the conflict. Anything short of such a credible threat probably won’t work.
Iran’s current President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad styles himself as Khomeini’s disciple. He believes—and he’s shown it—that if he is very aggressive the West won’t take him on. So far, he’s been proven right. That success was a central element in the decision of Iran’s spiritual guide, Ali Khameinei, to back him for another term in office.
To foreign observers, the stolen election and demonstrations make the regime look weak; to Iran’s rulers, having successfully stolen the election and put down the demonstrations makes them feel strong.
Obama is treating Iran as if it is a generic country: offer talks and benefits or sanctions and punishment. But Iran’s Islamist regime is not just another country but rather an ambitious, ideologically guided regime that thinks it is winning and its enemies won’t confront it. That regime is not going to respond to Obama’s treatment, especially lacking the Or Else factor’s credibility.
On behalf of Obama, Britain, and some other states, French President Sarkozy gives a rather low-level "or else" threat: “If by December there is not an in-depth change by the Iranian leaders, sanctions will have to be taken.”
If and when this happens, Iran will first examine the level of new sanctions—if any—and find them not so frightening. It will look for ways to get around them, probably with Chinese and Russian help. It will then say: Bring it on! Do your worst! Make my day! Punk, do you feel lucky?
And then, what’s the United States going to do? Go to the UN, where action will be delayed—both by Obama’s caution and the constraints of a divided Security Council--and any tough response whittled down further?
Thus, unless Israel attacks, a year or two or three will go by with Iran surviving the sanctions. And the day will come when the regime has nuclear weapons. This is Ahmadinejad’s game plan and it seems a reasonable one from his standpoint.
Obama is trying above all to prove that he isn’t the Big Bad Wolf of international relations—he doesn’t just apologize for but greatly exaggerates the errors of past American diplomacy—and daily expresses his determination not to threaten to, “Huff and puff and blow your house down.” Whether their regime is made of straw, mud, or bricks, the Iranian dictators can thumb their nose at him, give him the finger, and not tremble the least bit.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing," said the British political philosopher Edmund Burke. He might just as well have said: …do far too little, far too late.
RubinReports: Barack Obama, Iran, and the “Or Else” Factor
Israel Matzav: Why Israel is unlikely to attack Iran - for now
Why Israel is unlikely to attack Iran - for now
In a post entitled Why Israel is unlikely to attack Iran, Benjamin Kerstein lays out the case for why Israel will attack Iran - just not now. What this means in terms of the Iranian issue is that the final decision regarding Israeli military action will be taken by Barak and probably by no one else. Certainly, Netanyahu could order a strike, or veto one, but without Barak’s support, he would be forced into a very uncomfortable position. At worst, he would have to remove his defense minister and replace him, thus also losing the Labor Party’s participation in the government at precisely the moment when political unity would be most necessary. For the same reasons, if Barak were to insist upon a strike, or refraining from one, there would be little room for Netanyahu to refuse, even if he wanted to.
This is significant in regard to the latest revelations about the Qom facility because despite Netanyahu and Leiberman’s urgent statements, Barak’s personality and his previous actions suggest that an Israeli strike is highly unlikely, precisely because of the current sense of political urgency. Barak’s is a legendarily mercurial and mathematical mind. One oft-told anecdote is that his favorite method of relaxation is to dismantle watches and put them back together. With one notable exception (the 2000 withdrawal from Lebanon) he tends not to act rashly or emotionally; and plans his moves meticulously beforehand. Along with this, however, he displays a strong affinity for the unexpected stroke. As in the case of the Syrian strike and several surprise evacuations of illegal Israeli settlements, he tends to strike when it is least expected, and to deliberate avoid those moments when action seems inevitable.
Paradoxically, then, the exhortations of Netanyahu and Leiberman, as well as the dramatic revelations of Obama and other Western governments, indicate that IDF action against Iran is decidedly unlikely at this time. Certainly, they can do no harm, and may help build some political support for the strike that is, I think, inevitable. Given who will actually be giving the order, however, they actually make action less likely at this time. That will only happen when the world is busy chattering about other things.
Well, maybe. I don't expect an attack next week, and I can name a couple of other not-very-meticulously planned moves by Barak (Camp David in 2000, and the rumor that he went to sleep during the Battle of Sultan Yaqub - the worst tank battle in Israel's history, which was under his command - in 1982). I don't expect Netanyahu to order a strike without Barak nor do I expect Barak to demand a strike from Netanyahu and have Netanyahu say no. But I do expect that the strike will happen, and that when it does both Barak and Netanyahu will be behind it.
Israel Matzav: Why Israel is unlikely to attack Iran - for now
Israel Matzav: Deja vu all over again? US would not have accepted pre-emptive strike in '73
Deja vu all over again? US would not have accepted pre-emptive strike in '73
Haaretz's Hebrew edition reports that the United States was convinced that Egypt and Syria would not attack Israel in 1973 and therefore would not have allowed a pre-emptive strike. Oren quotes from a report prepared by U.S. General Daniel Graham shortly after the war that studied the failure of American intelligence to predict the outbreak of the war. A similar study was carried out in Israel by the Agranat Committee. It turns out that Graham identified the problem that intelligence analysts failed to properly interpret information because of their blind adherence to a "concept" well before the "concept" problem was identified by the Agranat Committee.
Among the examples cited by Graham:
3 October 1973 DIA report: "The movement of forces in Syria and the military preparations in Egypt are considered a coincidence and are not planned to lead to a large attack."
6 October, 1973 CIA report [The day the war started. CiJ]: "There is increased mutual concern on the part of Israel and the Arab states regarding the military activity of the other side, but it appears that neither side intends to carry out an attack. From the Egyptian standpoint, there is no great logic in a military initiative. It is almost certain that an additional round will demolish Sadat's efforts to advance the economy. Assad is generally careful, a military adventure now would be suicidal, from his standpoint, and he himself says so."
In July 1973 a joint report by the CIA, DIA and the State Department concluded that the "Egyptian ground forces are not prepared to cross the canal in a large scale operation", and that the supply of SAM 6 ground to air missiles "did not significantly increase the military strength of Syria."
Oren closes his article by noting cynically that last week DM Ehud Barak said that a surprise like October 1973 won't be repeated.
"It is possible that he is correct," Oren warns, "that there won't be a new edition of the same surprise. There will be a new surprise, a different one."
There is a fuller summary of the Haaretz article in English here.
Golda Meir, who was Israel's Prime Minister in 1973, did not act on information that Egypt and Syria were planning an attack. Now, we may know why.
Golda Meir, who was Israel's Prime Minister in 1973, did not act on information that Egypt and Syria were planning an attack. Now, we may know why.
Israel Matzav: Deja vu all over again? US would not have accepted pre-emptive strike in '73
Israel Matzav: Israel Television interview with Richard Goldstone
Israel Television interview with Richard Goldstone
Here's an interview on Israel Television with 'Human Rights Council' 'investigator' Richard Goldstone.Let's go to the videotape.
Heh. (Yes, this was a satire).
Israel Matzav: Israel Television interview with Richard Goldstone
Israel Matzav: Goldstone is the criminal
Goldstone is the criminal
The foreign ministry translated Ben Dror Yemini's Friday column in Maariv. It's long but it's worth reading in its entirety: GOLDSTONE IS THE CRIMINAL
(Article by Ben-Dror Yemini, Ma'ariv, 25.9.09, p. B4-5)
Let's start at the end. Richard Goldstone perpetrated a moral crime. Not against the State of Israel but against human rights. He turned them into a weapon for dark regimes. Goldstone was not negligent. He did this with malice.
The criticism that was made in the first days following the report was on the basis of preliminary study. But time passes. And the more that the details of this report are revealed, the more it becomes clear that it is a libel. A libel with legal cover. A libel that was prepared in advance to incriminate the State of Israel, in the service of Libya and Iran. Goldstone willingly took up the loathsome role. He supplied these countries with the goods. The claim that "the discourse of rights" has become the dark forces' most effective tool is a familiar one. The Goldstone report is the supreme expression of this. Its legal terminology is exemplary. It gushes about international human rights treaties. But it cannot hide the result: It is a libelous indictment of the State of Israel, in the service of the axis of terrorism and evil. Yes, there is marginal – very marginal – lip service regarding criticism of Hamas. Goldstone's ilk is a sophisticated lot. They now reiterate from every stage, and Goldstone does it well, that they were actually objective. Here, they also leveled criticism at Hamas. How enlightened of them!
Goldstone sold his soul for an endless series of lies. Even Mary Robinson, who is not known as an admirer of Israel, understood that, "This is unfortunately a practice by the [UN Human Rights] Council: adopting resolutions guided not by human rights but by politics. This is very regrettable." She refused to take the post. Goldstone took it and carried it out with excessive enthusiasm. If international law worked as it should, if the representatives of dark regimes did not have an automatic majority in it, Goldstone would have to stand trial. But this is impossible. And therefore, not only Israel but every moral person, every person for whom human rights are important, must declare Goldstone a criminal. Here is the proof.
***
Let's start with what is not in the report. In its almost 600 pages there is not one word – there simply isn't! – about Hamas's ideology. Hamas has a covenant. This covenant is the basis for the conflict between Israel and the demonic entity that has arisen in Gaza. This covenant is pure anti-Semitism. This covenant makes it clear that Hamas is no different from the Taliban. On the contrary, it is worse. The leaders of Hamas also declare – in their own voices – their solidarity with the Taliban, their desire to take over the entire free world, their hatred of Jews and their abrogation of the ceasefire with Israel. But there is not one word in the Goldstone report about this. Contrary to the general impression, Israel is not Hamas's main victim. As in other cases where radical Islam grows, most of Hamas's victims since Israel's withdrawal from Gaza – have been Muslims. Hamas's Kassam rockets, suicide terrorists, abductions and military operations do not stem from the occupation or the blockade, as the Goldstone Mission either claims or hints. All of these actions stem from an Islamo-fascist ideology that massacres mainly Muslims. Even during Operation Cast Lead, Hamas killed more Palestinians than Israelis. Goldstone and his cohorts did not hear about this.
It was one thing if Goldstone had just ignored the link between ideology and actual practice. But in addition, when he jumps to Israel, he takes the trouble to disparage the Zionist enterprise. Thus, for example, in Article 207 of the report, in a footnote, he tells about confiscated Palestinian property. Not that it has any relevance. But the sophisticated Goldstone had to provide Hamas with justifications. Historic accuracy? Certainly not. This is another product of the industry of lies. Because the property robbed and confiscated from Jewish refugees who were forced out of Arab countries was greater than Arab property left behind in Israel. But let us not confuse Goldstone by investigating the truth.
***
There is no need to go far in order to expose the lies. It is possible to start with the first paragraph. There, Goldstone says that he was granted the authority, "to investigate all violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law that might have been committed at any time in the context of the military operations that were conducted in Gaza." Really?
At this stage, let us go to the UN Human Rights Council decision to appoint the mission. Article 14, regarding the mission's authority, says: "To investigate all violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law by the occupying Power, Israel, against the Palestinian people throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory, particularly in the occupied Gaza Strip, due to the current aggression, and calls upon Israel not to obstruct the process of investigation and to fully cooperate with the mission."
The difference is Heaven and Earth. Goldstone, I repeat, is not stupid. He is a sophisticated jurist. He understands that the Human Rights Council decision puts him in a bind. There is no demand for an investigation. There are instructions to investigate only Israel, while fixing blame in advance. Thus Article 14 and thus others in the same document. How does Goldstone square the circle? First, he does not mention Article 14 – which is the source of his authority – throughout the entire report. And second, in cooperation with the Council President, who was authorized to appoint the mission (but not to change its responsibilities), the authorization is improved in order to present a false objectivity. You see, Goldstone will claim in fawning interviews – we were authorized to investigate both sides. He is lying and he knows that he is lying.
It is not only the lie in the first paragraph. It goes on. In order to supply the goods, Professor Christine Chinkin, an expert on international law, was recruited to the mission, for example. There is only one problem. Before being appointed to the mission, Chinkin signed a petition that determined in advance that Israel had perpetrated war crimes. Can someone who took a position in advance sit on the mission? And indeed, the mission was presented with a legal suit for her dismissal. The suit was denied. There is absolutely no difference between the "judge's" pre-determination and the Council's. And when dozens of jurists petitioned the mission to dismiss Chinkin, Goldstone rejected them. It is clear why. The identity between the judge and the Council was absolute.
We must tarry another moment on the Council's decision. Any enlightened person should give deference to human rights and the international bodies dealing with them. This Council is the UN's most important body. And indeed, it seems that 33 countries participated in the vote on establishing the mission. And the results: Not one western democracy supported the decision; most abstained. One country voted against – Canada. The third-world countries voted in favor, as did all of the Islamic countries.
Can such an automatic majority – of non-democratic countries – be taken seriously? Certainly not. The Council will not send a Libyan representative to discuss human rights The representative from Pakistan, a country which caused millions of refugees only two months ago, in the framework of a just struggle against several hundred Taliban fighters – will find it hard to talk about "collective punishment" on CNN. For the charade of accusing Israel, one needs an internationally renowned jurist. He'll do the work. The automatic dark majority does not need to convince itself. It needs someone to publish articles in The New York Times and Ha'aretz, and appear on the BBC.
This is how to turn Israel into a pariah. This is propaganda that even Goebbels the genius didn't dream of. He is also a Jew; he even has a "Zionist" past. There could be no casting more perfect.
***
A precise study of the report reveals how the libel was perpetrated. This is no cheap, old-fashioned libel. This is a much more sophisticated libel. Now it is called a "narrative." The Goldstone mission builds the narrative one stage after another. Does libel start with the Kassams that began to fall in 2001? No way. Does the Executive Summary say anything about the thousands of Kassams that have been fired since and have turned the lives of the residents of southern Israel into hell? Not with Goldstone. After the clauses regarding the appointment of the mission members, relevant international law, methodology and Israel's non-cooperation, the mission gets down to business. The findings. The factual determinations and the verdict.
***
And indeed, the narrative begins with Article 27 (of the Executive Summary), entitled "The Blockade." According to the article, Israel imposed a blockade. Why? What happened? How did it start? Were there thousands of rockets? Did Hamas take military control of the Strip, while massacring dozens – maybe hundreds – of Palestinians? There is not a word in the opening account. Neither is there any mention of Hamas's internal terrorism against innocent Palestinians.
And this isn't all. If there is a blockade, it is not only Israel's responsibility. The Hamas regime has a long border with Egypt. It seems that this border is completely open. Hundreds of tunnels operate there on a regular basis and deliver everything the Hamas regime wants. The mission's Executive Summary makes no mention of the tunnels, the open border with Egypt or the smuggling. And what does the report say about the blockade? "Gaza's economy is further severely effected by the reduction of the fishing zone open to Palestinian fishermen." This is an amazing example of the mission's being recruited for the industry of lies. And the Palestinians established industries before the "blockade"? See, there is free movement of materials, through the tunnels. The problem is that Hamas has chosen only one raw material. Explosives. And there is also a flourishing industry. The production of rockets. "For the Palestinian people," claimed Fathi Hamad, a Hamas member of Parliament, "death became an industry." This even appears in Article 475. But Goldstone, the Devil's advocate, insists on blaming Israel. The same Fathi, in the same speech, admits with his own voice that Hamas, " created a human shield of women, children, [and] the elderly." This is also cited in the report. But Goldstone, " does not consider it to constitute evidence." (Article 476) Certainly. When the result has been pre-determined, even the explicit, filmed and recorded admission of a senior Hamas official, like the video footage of the use of children, will not change the conviction. Is it possible to call such work by Goldstone "negligence", or is it a crime, in the service of a terrorist regime?
Article 28 simplistically determines that Israel is the occupying power. Why? Because. Only in Article 88 does the mission see fit to mention the disengagement. As if it had no bearing on the story. As if Israel had not proven that it had no interest in the Strip. As if Israel had not fulfilled all of its obligations. As if Israel had not left the Palestinians to their fate, so that they could govern themselves, without a single soldier or settler.
Article 29 says that Israel embarked on Operation Cast Lead. Were there barrages of rockets beforehand? They appear later on but not in the Executive Summary. Apparently, they are not relevant. This is how one constructs a lie. Start with a blockade. Then a criminal assault. That's the Executive Summary.
The mission's lie repeats itself when it presents a false picture of permanent Israeli aggression. In exactly the same way, the mission says, in Article 193, that Israel began Operation Defensive Shield and caused the killing of hundreds of Palestinians. There is not even one word about the series of terrorist attacks on cafes, restaurants and buses. There is not one word about the Passover massacre at the Park Hotel in Netanya, in which 30 Israelis were murdered – a massacre which broke Israel's long restraint.
Article 30 deals with the number of casualties but ignores – of course – any study which proves that most of the Palestinian casualties were Hamas personnel. In order to strengthen the impression, the report presents the number of Palestinian dead as opposed to the number of Israelis. The proportionality creates the result. So many Palestinians were killed. So few Israelis. According to this logic, NATO perpetrated war crimes in bombing Yugoslavia in 1999, because the results were similar to those in Gaza: Over 1,000 Yugoslav dead (mostly civilians) and zero casualties among the NATO forces. Thus in Afghanistan as well. Far more Afghans, civilians and fighters, have been killed than NATO soldiers. Does this turn the NATO countries and soldiers into war criminals? And there will yet be proportionality issues. Pakistan sought to get rid of the vexing problem caused by several hundred Taliban fighters. It caused thousands of dead and millions of refugees. Thus also in Lebanon, when it was obliged to fight a few hundred Fatah al-Islam fighters. Their refugee camp, Nahr al-Bared, was destroyed. Hundreds were killed and tens of thousands became refugees.
The world understands that these are the proportions of dealing with terrorists, who hide among civilians. But when Goldstone comes to Israel – he refuses to understand even though Hamas's threat to Israel is greater than the Taliban's threat to Europe or Fatah al-Islam's to Lebanon. Goldstone knows the new battlefields. But he ignores because the goal was to demonize Israel. And therefore, he must lie and mislead.
Article 32 deals with Israel's bombing of Palestinian Authority buildings, rejects the Israeli claim that these were part of the, "Hamas terrorist infrastructure," and determines that these were, "deliberate attacks on civilian objects in violation of the rule of customary international humanitarian law." Certainly. If they ignore the fact that Hamas is a terrorist entity that uses terrorism mainly against innocent Palestinians as well – the result is that this is a legitimate political body. Maybe even a charitable organization. Now it is possible to understand why the mission ignores the Hamas Covenant. It is no coincidence. It is easier to square the circle that way.
***
How is Hamas absolved of responsibility for serious crimes? The Goldstone report cites hundreds of inquiries that were carried out by various groups. One of the groups cited is, of course, Amnesty International, which has provided countless hostile reports against Israel. These are cited extensively. But there was another Amnesty report, issued on 21.2.09. This surprising report reviews a series of incidents in which Hamas eliminated dozens of Fatah members, during the time of Operation Cast Lead, in Gaza. And here's the surprise: Of all the reports, it is this one which is not mentioned in the Goldstone report. There is mention of attacks on Fatah personnel (in Article 80, for example), but with exaggerated effort to minimize the significance of the matter.
The general impression is that Goldstone is much more critical towards Fatah than towards Hamas. For example, Goldstone blames Fatah for the "refusal to cede control of the security institutions" in favor of the Hamas (Article 190), causing the confrontation between the factions. Hamas, according to the whole report, is a completely legitimate body that should control the security institutions. Goldstone stubbornly refuses to see the very anti-Semitic and terrorist nature of Hamas, an entity whose very existence is a crime against humanity.
***
It is possible to continue, article after article, in order to expose the construction of the deceptions and the lies. The mission details 36 factual events that prove, as it were, that Israel perpetrated war crimes. In their reduced framework below, let us examine the attack on the Abd Rabbo family. This event became one of the most prominent symbols of Operation Cast Lead, received widespread coverage and was mentioned in many reports. The Goldstone report devotes ten articles (768-777) to this incident. The mission repeated the claim that family members waived a white flag and that its daughters were murdered in cold blood by Israel. This claim is not only negligent, it is also a malicious lie. Thorough checks have shown that family members agave different and contradictory versions. One of the claims was that this was cold-blooded murder because there were no Hamas personnel in the area. It seems that this claim has also been refuted, by contradictory testimony, even by Time magazine, to the effect that there were indeed Hamas personnel in the area. Moreover, it seems that Al-Hayat Al-Jadida reports that, ""The Abd Rabbo family kept quiet while Hamas fighters turned their farm in the Gaza strip into a fortress." The testimony is contradictory and the Time and Al-Hayat Al-Jadida reports were supposed to be before the mission. But there is not even a hint of them in the Goldstone report, which publishes a libel, even though it has already been contradicted. The objective has been marked. The facts will not confuse the mission.
***
The foregoing is only the tip of the iceberg. Space is too short to detail the parade of lies known as "the Goldstone Report." We have presented here only isolated examples about the method. Goldstone, who chose to collaborate with the dark majority, supplied the goods. The report deserves a much closer study. The State of Israel must establish a commission of inquiry, led by top-notch jurists, in cooperation with their colleagues from around the world, in order to examine article after article, claim after claim, and refute the libel. The deeper one digs into the report, the more it becomes clear that Goldstone is a criminal hiding under the umbrella of human rights. On behalf of human rights, he and his lies must be exposed. The truth must come to light.
Israel Matzav: Goldstone is the criminal
Israel Matzav: Sarkozy mocks Obama at the UN Security Council
Sarkozy mocks Obama at the UN Security Council
Big Government.com reports on French President Nicolas Sarkozy's takedown of President Obama in the United Nations Security Council on Thursday, a story that unsurprisingly is not being reported in the United States. Mr. Spillius reported a similar (albeit watered-down) version in the UK’s Telegraph.
Obama: “We must never stop until we see the day when nuclear arms have been banished from the face of the earth.”
Sarkozy: “We live in the real world, not the virtual world. And the real world expects us to take decisions.”
The rest of Sarkozy’s remarks were, well, remarkable:
“President Obama dreams of a world without weapons … but right in front of us two countries are doing the exact opposite.
“Iran since 2005 has flouted five security council resolutions. North Korea has been defying council resolutions since 1993.
“I support the extended hand of the Americans, but what good has proposals for dialogue brought the international community? More uranium enrichment and declarations by the leaders of Iran to wipe a UN member state off the map,” he continued, referring to Israel.
The sharp-tongued French leader even implied that Mr Obama’s resolution 1887 had used up valuable diplomatic energy.
“If we have courage to impose sanctions together it will lend viability to our commitment to reduce our own weapons and to making a world without nuke weapons,” he said.
Mr Sarkozy has previously called the US president’s disarmament crusade “naive.”No American newspapers seem to have featured Sarkozy’s justifiably derisive remarks about Obama’s naivete regarding the realities of nuclear technology.
The United States is in good hands. What could go wrong?
Israel Matzav: Sarkozy mocks Obama at the UN Security Council
Israel Matzav: Good question
Good question
At Pajamas Media, Lauri Regan asks a question that has to be on the mind of many Jews. As I watch Americans of diverse socio-economic demographics come together to organize tea parties, protest at town hall meetings, and ensure that their voices are heard with regard to Obama’s destructive domestic agenda, I keep wondering when I will hear American Jews protest Obama’s Mideast agenda? While our president, who remains on a perpetual campaign tour, may not need the vote of American Jews any longer, he certainly has benefited from their financial support. American Jews need to ensure that their voices are heard and that they make it clear that the present policy emanating from the White House is unacceptable.
As Jews the world over celebrate the high holidays, I hope and pray that American Jews reflect on the events of the past year and the realities of the world in which they live. While the reformed rabbis that participated in Obama’s sales pitch in a conference call last month appeared to be asleep or intimidated at the time, I look forward to learning that instead of preaching liberalism to the choir that already blindly supports Obama’s misdirected policies, they choose to use their pulpit to address the dire situation for Israel and Jews globally.
As we listen to the sound of the shofar and usher in this New Year, I pray for the self-reflection by my fellow American Jews that will lead to their rekindled connection and absolute commitment to Israel.
So are we here in Israel. But we're not holding our breaths.
Israel Matzav: Good question
Israel Matzav: Something fishy going on
Something fishy going on
Victor Davis Hanson points out that there's something really fishy going on in the disclosure about Iran's nuclear facility (Hat Tip: Instapundit). Hmmm.But to me it is a much bigger deal that Obama knew of this facility even during the transition last autumn, as his radical new policy toward Iran was being formulated.
Officially, the American people have had to assume the truthfulness of the most recent, highly questionable national intelligence estimate of 2007 (“We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program”). Why, then, was not the updated information released earlier, and the 2007 estimate rendered inoperative, especially since that flawed assessment has been used to demagogue the issue? I recall candidate Joe Biden in 2007 asserting, "Let's get this straight. In 2003, they stopped their program." And it was the supposed authority of the 2007 estimate that prompted candidate Obama to claim that the Senate decree naming the Iranian Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organization was wrong and gave Bush "a blank check" to go to war with Iran.
Other questions. If there are suddenly two facilities, why not three, four, or more? Do we know about others that are better left undisclosed? And did we keep quiet about this supposed intelligence coup to allow bold, new diplomatic efforts to proceed — efforts that might not have gone on had the American people learned that the Iranians were escalating, that the IAEA was incompetent or duplicitous, and that the much-publicized diplomatic initiatives Obama set to wow us with in October might be sidetracked if the information were disclosed?
There Are Antisemites and There Are Antisemites
There Are Antisemites and There Are Antisemites
My reading of Juan Cole is that he's either an antisemite, or he writes a lot of things that are antisemitic. (Follow my "Juan Cole" tag to see the story). Still, as anyone who has ever given the topic of antisemitism any thought will readily recognize, there are gradations of the malaise. Cole's is a comparatively benign version, and he himself recoils from some of the worse stuff. A fine example of this is his post of September 19th, in which he forcefully expressed his revulsion at a speech of Ahmedinejad. You may wish to note, however, that he then posted some comments from readers who were less squeamish than he - and keep in mind that he actively censors the comments on his blog, thus taking responsibility for each and every one of them.
Being repulsed by Ahmedinejad, of course, is no proof of innocence. That would be like saying, say, that Father Coughlin wasn't an antisemite, since his contemporary Goebbels was worse - clearly not a reasonable position.
The folks at CIFWatch have noticed the Guardian is less squeamish than Juan Cole. They apparently can't bring themselves to say that Ahmedinejad is a Jew hater. Particularly useful is an article by Mark Gardner, who compared how the various British news outlets reported on Ahmedinejad's UN speech. The Guardian was the only outlet that didn't manage to see the plain reality.
Someday I should write about this in greater depth, but this afternoon - a few short hours before Yom Kippur - isn't gong to be that day.
Being repulsed by Ahmedinejad, of course, is no proof of innocence. That would be like saying, say, that Father Coughlin wasn't an antisemite, since his contemporary Goebbels was worse - clearly not a reasonable position.
The folks at CIFWatch have noticed the Guardian is less squeamish than Juan Cole. They apparently can't bring themselves to say that Ahmedinejad is a Jew hater. Particularly useful is an article by Mark Gardner, who compared how the various British news outlets reported on Ahmedinejad's UN speech. The Guardian was the only outlet that didn't manage to see the plain reality.
Someday I should write about this in greater depth, but this afternoon - a few short hours before Yom Kippur - isn't gong to be that day.
Originally posted by Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations
More on Missile Defenses
More on Missile Defenses
Everyone seems to be surprised that the Iranians tried to hide part of their nuclear program, as disclosed last week; the more honest are asking if perhaps additional sections remain to be discovered. It's at moments like these one can't help scratching one's head in perplexion. Israel has been warning the Iranians are trying to achieve nuclear weapons for, what, 10 years? 12? 15? Hello? Anyone out there?
Barry Rubin offers an interesting column about the potential effectiveness of anti-missile defense systems. He'd better be right, because the more convincing they look, the more pause they'll give the Iranians and their proxies, and the fewer people will get killed on all sides. ~
Barry Rubin offers an interesting column about the potential effectiveness of anti-missile defense systems. He'd better be right, because the more convincing they look, the more pause they'll give the Iranians and their proxies, and the fewer people will get killed on all sides. ~
Originally posted by Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations
Love of the Land: How Israel's Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu Should Have Concluded His U.N. Speech
How Israel's Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu Should Have Concluded His U.N. Speech
Batya Medad
26 September 09
On Friday I wrote my opinon of PM Binyamin Netanyahu's UN Speech. I sent it to my list and received a lot of comments. For that reason, I found myself writing what I think would have been a polite and diplomatic way of telling the world to cut off the pressure. We're not contiuing with our dangerous self-destructive policies.
Here's my suggestion as to how Bibi should have concluded the speech. How would you have written it?
Here's my suggestion as to how Bibi should have concluded the speech. How would you have written it?
"As the son a a great historian, I was raised on history and value its lessons. For that reason I can't ignore the past, and I must learn from it. I'm sorry to be forced by facts to say that Israel can no longer offer gestures, Land, to our enemies. We are not attacking them. We behave in a peaceful way. They don't. I hope and pray that some day they will. Peace is up to them. We will endanger ourselves no more."
Related: A Speech For The Ages
Love of the Land: How Israel's Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu Should Have Concluded His U.N. Speech
Love of the Land: EDITORIAL: Leader of the Free World no more
EDITORIAL: Leader of the Free World no more
The torch has been passed
Washington Times Editorial
27 September 09
Israel is looking like the new leader of the Free World. The previous leader, the United States, resigned this role last week at the United Nations to take the position of global community organizer. This was made plain by President Obama in his speech, titled "Responsibility for Our Common Future," in which he heralded "a new chapter of international cooperation." By contrast, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivered a blunt and forceful call to action in the central challenge facing free people today. This is the struggle of "civilization against barbarism" being fought by "those who sanctify life against those who glorify death."
Mr. Obama's address was the predictable mix of criticism of the past policies of the United States, self-praise for correcting said policies and vague calls to united action on matters of collective interest. It sought to ingratiate rather than offend. But Mr. Netanyahu chastised the United Nations for its "systematic assault on the truth." He spoke truths that Mr. Obama would never whisper regarding the regime in Iran, which is "fueled by an extreme fundamentalism" and an "unforgiving creed." Mr. Netanyahu rebuked those members who countenanced Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's diatribe before the same world body, rightly calling it a "disgrace."
Mr. Netanyahu repeatedly paid tribute to the blessings of liberty and "the allure of freedom." He marveled at the technological advances freedom made possible. He asked if the international community would support the Iranian people "as they bravely stand up for freedom." He envisioned a future of Israel and Palestine, "two free peoples living in peace, living in prosperity, living in dignity." Mr. Obama, meanwhile, touted the imperative of responding to global climate change and mentioned as an afterthought that democracy should not be an afterthought.
Israel stands out because it understands the central challenge faced by the civilized world and by its willingness to take action. Israel is readying to stem the tide of barbarism and stand up to the threat of a nuclear Iran. In return, it asks only for moral support. "If Israel is again asked to take more risk for peace," Mr. Netanyahu said, "we must know today that you will stand with us tomorrow." He challenged the countries of the world with a clear-cut test: "Will you stand with Israel? Or will you stand with the terrorists?"
Mr. Obama said in closing that "we call on all nations to join us in building the future that our people deserve." But people only deserve what they have earned. Mr. Netanyahu called on the civilized world to "confront this peril, secure our future, and, God willing, forge an enduring peace for generations to come." Sometimes the future doesn't come without a fight.
Love of the Land: EDITORIAL: Leader of the Free World no more
Michael Oren in the NYT
Michael Oren in the NYT
The New York Times has a profile of our Ambassador to the US, Michael Oren. It's not a very important article, but I like Michael, so why not link to it?
Originally posted by Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations
Israel Matzav: Iran has at least one other unreported nuclear facility?
Iran has at least one other unreported nuclear facility?
This is from an AP report on Friday's disclosure that Iran has a nuclear facility near the Shiite holy city of Qom. George Perkovich, an Iran expert at Washington's Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, suggested Iran must be building at least one other unreported facility, a uranium conversion plant to provide feedstuff for the newly disclosed enrichment plant. That's because the Iranians' known conversion plant, at Isfahan, is under IAEA oversight.
"Why would you have a secret enrichment plant under a mountain if you don't have a secret conversion plant?" he asked.
Mark Fitzpatrick, a senior fellow for nonproliferation at the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security, said there has been suspicion for some time — but no concrete evidence — that Iran had been working on a second uranium conversion facility to supplement the one at Isfahan, and he agreed that if Iran had an enrichment plant, it would also need a facility to produce the gasified uranium.
Presumably the IAEA monitors the destinations of shipments leaving Isfahan, meaning that indeed, there must be another uranium conversion plant.
By the way, I noted in a post on Friday that the MEK - which provided intelligence about the Qom facility - is classified by the US as a terror organization. The AP article notes that the Europeans removed the MEK from the terror list earlier this year.
Read the whole thing.
By the way, I noted in a post on Friday that the MEK - which provided intelligence about the Qom facility - is classified by the US as a terror organization. The AP article notes that the Europeans removed the MEK from the terror list earlier this year.
Read the whole thing.
Israel Matzav: Iran has at least one other unreported nuclear facility?
Israel Matzav: The 'Quartet' destroys what's left of the 'roadmap'
The 'Quartet' destroys what's left of the 'roadmap'
Hillary Clinton attended a meeting of the 'Quartet' this week. As you might recall the 'Quartet' consists of the United States, the Soviet Union, the European Union and the United Nations and is meant to bring 'peace' to the Middle East. The 'Quartet' was set up under the 'road map' in 2003. The 'road map' is meant to provide a way to a 'Palestinian state' and was accepted by the Sharon government in 2003 with fourteen reservations. The 'Quartet' specifically rejected those reservations in its statement on Thursday. Here's the key passage in the 'Quartet' statement: The Quartet shares the sense of urgency expressed by President Obama and fully supports the steps ahead as outlined in his statement to the UN General Assembly on September 22. The Quartet calls on Israel and the Palestinians to act on their previous agreements and obligations--in particular adherence to the Roadmap, irrespective of reciprocity--to create the conditions for the resumption of negotiations in the near term. The Quartet urges the government of Israel to freeze all settlement activity, including natural growth; and to refrain from provocative actions in East Jerusalem and calls on the Palestinian Authority to continue to make every effort to improve law and order, to fight violent extremism, and to end incitement.
But when Sharon accepted the road map, he and his government made the following reservation:
1. Both at the commencement of, and during the process, and as a condition to its continuance, calm will be maintained. The Palestinians will dismantle the existing security organizations and implement security reforms during the course of which new organizations will be formed and act to combat terror, violence and incitement (incitement must cease immediately and the Palestinian Authority must educate for peace).
These organizations will engage in genuine prevention of terror and violence through arrests, interrogations, prevention and the enforcement of the legal groundwork for investigations, prosecution and punishment. In the first phase of the plan and as a condition for progress to the second phase, the Palestinians will complete the dismantling of terrorist organizations (Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front, the Democratic Front, Al-Aqsa Brigades and other apparatuses) and their infrastructure; collection of all illegal weapons and their transfer to a third party for the sake of being removed from the area and destroyed; cessation of weapons smuggling and weapons production inside the Palestinian Authority; activation of the full prevention apparatus and cessation of incitement.
There will be no progress to the second phase without the fulfillment of all above-mentioned conditions relating to the war against terror. The security plans to be implemented are the Tenet and Zinni plans.
The 'Palestinians' have never fulfilled Phase One of the 'road map.' And now the 'Quartet' - including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton - has said they don't have to.
What could go wrong?
What could go wrong?
Israel Matzav: The 'Quartet' destroys what's left of the 'roadmap'
Israel Matzav: The damage Obama has done to American foreign policy
The damage Obama has done to American foreign policy
Writing in the Weekly Standard, Abe Greenwald gives a great summary of the damage President Obumbler has done to American foreign policy. For as we abandon the notion of critical allies, the world's bad actors embrace it anew. If in January 2002 there was an Axis of Evil, today there is a continuous loop. One can draw a line of nefarious cooperation through the following countries and connect the last with the first to start all over again: Russia-Venezuela-Iran-Syria-North Korea-Burma. On matters of defense, economics, intelligence, and energy, these anti-democratic, nuclear and nuclear-aspirant countries are working together in various configurations to extend their reach into all hemispheres. Simultaneously history's most effective force for good is shrinking its influence and severing ties with sympathetic global partners. The hope is that antagonistic regimes will so appreciate this humility they will reconfigure their political and cultural DNA and become friends of the United States.
While this is a foreign policy worthy of grade school it is certainly not harmless.
In December of 2007, Senator Barack Obama was winding down a caucus pitch in Iowa when he hit one of the loftiest rhetorical notes of his candidacy for President of the United States: "I will send once more a message to those yearning faces beyond our shores that says, 'You matter to us. Your future is our future. And our moment is now.'"
Although Barack Obama has broken his campaign promise, it remains true that our allies' futures are tied to our own. When the world's strongest democracy is compromised, weaker democracies are imperiled. Last Thursday, the U.S. assented to a revanchist bully. Eastern Europe has every reason to worry. The president who was supposed to repair American ties around the globe and restore the world's faith in American benevolence has done something far worse than fall short. He has made room for a new age of autocracy.
Israel Matzav: The damage Obama has done to American foreign policy
Israel Matzav: Iran has second enrichment plant, working on detonators
Iran has second enrichment plant, working on detonators
As has been widely reported in the international media on Friday, earlier this week Iran informed the IAEA that it has a second uranium enrichment facility in an undisclosed location whose existence has not been previously disclosed. Additionally, Iranian exiles from the opposition MEK party (which, by the way, the United States classifies as a terror organization!) have announced that Iran has two facilities just outside Tehran in which it is working on detonators for nuclear weapons. This is from an AP report in the Jerusalem Post: The officials said that Iran revealed the existence of a second enrichment plant in a letter sent Monday to International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei.
...
The officials said that the letter contained no details about the location of the second facility, when it had started operations or the type and number of centrifuges it was running.
The government officials - one speaking from his European capital outside Vienna, the other a diplomat in Vienna from a country accredited to the IAEA - demanded anonymity because their information was confidential. One said he had seen the letter. The other told the AP that he had been informed about it by a UN official who had seen it.
While Iran's mainstay P-1 centrifuge is a decades-old model based on Chinese technology, it has begun experimenting with state-of-the art prototypes that enrich more quickly and efficiently than its old model.
UN officials familiar with the IAEA's attempts to monitor and probe Iran's nuclear activities have previously told the AP that they suspected Iran might be running undeclared enrichment plants.
The existence of a secret Iranian enrichment program built on black market technology was revealed seven years ago.
Since then the country has continued to expand the program with only a few interruptions as it works toward its aspirations of a 50,000-centrifuge enrichment facility at the southern city of Natanz.
My first question upon hearing this story (I heard it early Friday morning on the news here) was why would Iran disclose this now, a week before the P5 + 1 meeting? The answer is in the New York Times: The United States, Britain and France already knew about the facility and planned to disclose it to the G20 meeting starting in Pittsburgh on Friday, to inject a sense of urgency into the discussion about Iran.
American officials said that they had been tracking the covert project for years, but that Mr. Obama decided to make public the American findings after Iran discovered, in recent weeks, that Western intelligence agencies had breached the secrecy surrounding the project. On Monday, Iran wrote a brief, cryptic letter to the International Atomic Energy Agency, saying that it now had a “pilot plant” under construction, whose existence it had never before revealed.
In a statement from its headquarters in Vienna on Friday, the atomic agency confirmed that it had been told Monday by Iran that “a new pilot fuel enrichment plant is under construction in the country.”
The agency said it had requested more information about the plant and access to it as soon as possible. “The agency also understands from Iran that no nuclear material has been introduced into the facility,” said the statement said.
What do they mean by "no nuclear material has been introduced"? That they're not enriching uranium there? That seems rather odd. But that's apparently it. At least if you only read the first part of the Times article.
The newly discovered enrichment plant is not yet in operation, American officials said, but could be next year.
The Times also discloses the plant's location: Inside a mountain near the city of Qom, which is holy to Shiite Muslims. That location virtually ensures that if the plant is attacked, Iran will be able to incite Muslims around the world to violence by pointing to an attack on a Shiite Muslim holy site.
But later in the article, the Times seems less sure that the plant is not operational:
But later in the article, the Times seems less sure that the plant is not operational:
American officials said late Thursday that they believe the plant was designed to hold about 3,000 centrifuges, which enrich uranium for nuclear power plants — or, with additional enrichment, for bombs. That would be enough centrifuges to manufacture about one bomb’s worth of material a year, though it is unclear whether any of the centrifuges have been installed or turned on. Mr. Obama said Friday that “the size and type of the facility is inconsistent with that of a peaceful facility,” and he added that French, British and American intelligence about the plant had been provided to the I.A.E.A.
The I.A.E.A. statement said Iran had told the agency the new plant would enrich uranium to a level of 5 percent —high enough for nuclear fuel, but not nearly enough to make the fissile material for an atomic bomb. Iran assured the agency in its letter that “further complementary information will be provided in an appropriate and due time,” the I.A.E.A. said.
Meanwhile, as noted above, the Washington Post cites Iranian exiles who have reported that Iran has two other facilities outside of Tehran where they are seeking to develop detonators for nuclear weapons.
There was no way to confirm the authenticity of Thursday's allegation. But previous MEK information has given Western intelligence agencies tips about some Iranian nuclear activities or provided details about research sites.
Mehdi Abrishamchi, an MEK activist, said that as far as he knew, no Western governments were aware of the existence of the two sites.
...
But Abrishamchi said the two sites house programs designed to research and produce high-explosive detonators for atomic bombs.
The information came from "dozens of sources at different levels of the Iranian regime's various organs" and was cross-checked with dozens more, he said in a statement.
Abrishamchi, a senior member of the National Council of Resistance of Iran, an MEK-run umbrella group, said the two sites were part of a complex known as METFAZ -- the Farsi acronym for Research Center for Explosion and Impact -- that apparently has been in operation for several years under the command of the Defense Ministry.
The first site, a research and administrative facility in eastern Tehran, was bought by the Defense Ministry under the name of Massoud Sadighi Divani, a senior ministry official, Abrishamchi said. Inside, scientists carry out computer simulations and other experiments to reach an effective design for high-explosive impact and penetration devices that could serve to detonate a nuclear weapon, he said.
The second site, about 20 miles to the east, is used to manufacture parts needed to construct the detonators, he said. Lying within a military zone with restricted access, it is surrounded by high concrete walls and includes tunnels dug into a nearby hill, he added.
Abrishamchi said the two sites basically continue work that was being done at Shian, a facility that was razed by Iranian authorities after being denounced by the MEK in 2003. He called on the International Atomic Energy Agency to try to inspect the sites as quickly as possible.
Between the facility near Qom being clearly 'not peaceful' and the two facilities working on detonators, it is difficult to deny that Iran wishes to develop nuclear weapons.
But with China refusing to go along with stronger sanctions, let alone military action, and time running out to stop Tehran, we are quickly moving into a crisis mode. On the one hand, the 'great powers' are wringing their hands unable to agree on what to do. On the other hand, in light of these new revelations can Israel, the only party apparently willing to go to war to stop Iran, be certain that it has all the intelligence information it needs to make the best possible strike against Iran? And will the United States at least allow Israel to reach Iran unimpeded?
Unfortunately, I don't have answers for you. But the uncertainty is increasing daily.
But with China refusing to go along with stronger sanctions, let alone military action, and time running out to stop Tehran, we are quickly moving into a crisis mode. On the one hand, the 'great powers' are wringing their hands unable to agree on what to do. On the other hand, in light of these new revelations can Israel, the only party apparently willing to go to war to stop Iran, be certain that it has all the intelligence information it needs to make the best possible strike against Iran? And will the United States at least allow Israel to reach Iran unimpeded?
Unfortunately, I don't have answers for you. But the uncertainty is increasing daily.
Israel Matzav: Iran has second enrichment plant, working on detonators
Israel Matzav: Ehud Barak rips Goldstone
Ehud Barak rips Goldstone
Defense Minister Ehud Barak - who cannot be accused of being a Right winger - ripped the Goldstone Commission report in Friday's Wall Street Journal. After enduring eight years of ongoing rocket fire—in which 12,000 missiles were launched against our cities, and after all diplomatic efforts to stop this barrage failed—it was my duty as defense minister to do something about it. It's as simple and self-evident as the right to self-defense.
While such logic eluded Mr. Goldstone and his team, it was crystal clear to the thousands of Israeli children living in southern Israel who had to study, play, eat and sleep while being preoccupied about the distance to the nearest bomb shelter. When I accompanied then-presidential candidate Barack Obama on his visit to the shelled city of Sderot, he said "If somebody was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I'm going to do everything in my power to stop that. And I would expect Israelis to do the same thing." Too bad the Human Rights Council wasn't listening.
Whenever we are forced to defend our own lives, it is our obligation to do so in a way that ensures that the lives of innocent civilians on the other side are protected. This duty becomes extremely difficult when we have to face an enemy that intentionally deploys its forces in densely populated areas, stores its explosives in private homes, and launches rockets from crowded school yards and mosques. In Gaza, we reached out to the civilians via millions of leaflets, telephone calls and text messages urging them to leave areas before we acted.
So when the Goldstone mission gathers testimony from local residents in Hamas-ruled Gaza, but forgets to ask them whether they happened to notice any armed Palestinians during the Israeli operation, or didn't realize that its impartially chosen witnesses happened to be known Hamas operatives according to Israeli intelligence, I begin to question the methodology of such a "fact-finding" effort.
Although I am incensed by the Goldstone Report, I must admit that I was not surprised. It is, more than anything else, a political statement—not a legal analysis.
Barak goes on to list some of the ways in which Israel attempted to minimize civilians casualties. He says that the only ones who will benefit from this report are the terrorists - other democracies will be hurt by it. Hopefully, Obama and the Europeans see that.
Hopefully. So far, I'm not sure that the Europeans see it.
Read the whole thing.
Hopefully. So far, I'm not sure that the Europeans see it.
Read the whole thing.
Israel Matzav: Ehud Barak rips Goldstone
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
