Love of the Land: Can the US Contain a Nuclear Iran?

Can the US Contain a Nuclear Iran?

Emily B. Landau
INSS Insight No. 171
24 March '10

With any hope of a new round of UN Security Council sanctions on Iran now postponed until June, and the understanding that if at all, these will be weak and ineffective measures, Obama's diplomatic initiative is slowly grinding to a halt. Taking into account Iran's steady progress in developing fissible material, its work on producing a nuclear warhead, and its ever-improving missile capabilities -- together with low expectations that anything in this dynamic will impress upon the Obama administration the need to ultimately take military action -- part of the discourse on this topic is changing track. Instead of focusing on the stinging failure to curb Iran's nuclear ambitions, some are arguing that it's now time to move on. They say that in the likely scenario that Iran becomes the next nuclear state, the US will simply resort to its ultimate strategy that has worked in other cases: it will contain a nuclear Iran.

But will the US indeed be able to contain a nuclear Iran? The answer to this question involves two levels: first, US credibility vis-à-vis Iran, and second, what the US will be seeking to contain. On both counts, there is little room for optimism.

Containment (and deterrence) of an adversary necessarily depend on a state's ability to transmit to the adversary credible threats of consequences for certain behavior on the part of the adversary. In this regard, the idea that the US can contain Iran cannot be divorced from what has transpired over the past year vis-à-vis the diplomatic initiative that Obama has pursued from his first day in office. The lesson that Iran has learned from the Obama administration is that while there has been no shortage of threats of consequences, there have been little to no actual consequences. Iran has seen that the US sets red lines and deadlines that in practice are virtually meaningless. The US has undermined its own ability to present a credible threat by saying outright that it has no intention of taking military action because it is overstretched in Iraq and Afghanistan. And it has clarified through its actions that broad multilateral agreement is more important than demonstrating resolve to Iran in the economic realm as well. Why should we assume that the US will be any more successful in projecting credibility toward Iran when this state becomes a nuclear state than it has been in the period before Iran crossed this line?

(Read full report)

Love of the Land: Can the US Contain a Nuclear Iran?

Love of the Land: The bunker-buster story

The bunker-buster story

Fresnozionism.org
21 March '10

British newspapers have been credibly reporting for about of week that the US has shipped 387 bunker-buster bombs to a US base on the British possession of Diego Garcia, an island in the Indian Ocean.

There are at least two possible interpretations. One is that the US is planning to attack Iran (some Brits are very upset about this possibility), or at least to make a strategic move designed to show the Iranians that they mean business. Some air attacks on Iraq and Afghanistan have originated on Diego Garcia. That’s the good interpretation.

The other one is that the bombs were intended to be sent to Israel, but were diverted to Diego Garcia to prevent Israel from using them against Iran, or, worse, to punish Israel for its insouciance in building apartments in Jerusalem:

In 2008, the United States approved an Israeli request for bunker-busters capable of destroying underground facilities, including Iranian nuclear weapons sites. Officials said delivery of the weapons was held up by the administration of President Barack Obama, Middle East Newsline reported.

Since taking office, Obama has refused to approve any major Israeli requests for U.S. weapons platforms or advanced systems. Officials said this included proposed Israeli procurement of AH-64D Apache attack helicopters, refueling systems, advanced munitions and data on a stealth variant of the F-15E.

“All signs indicate that this will continue in 2010,” a congressional source familiar with the Israeli military requests said. “This is really an embargo, but nobody talks about it publicly.”

Under the plan, the U.S. military was to have stored 195 BLU-110 and 192 BLU-117 munitions in unspecified air force bases in Israel. The U.S. military uses four Israeli bases for the storage of about $400 million worth of pre-positioned equipment meant for use by either Washington or Jerusalem in any regional war…

(Read full post)

Love of the Land: The bunker-buster story

Love of the Land: When Bibi Meets Biden

When Bibi Meets Biden

Allison Kaplan Sommer
Pajamasmedia.com
08 March '10

As Joe Biden’s plane fueled up to head in the direction of the Middle East for today’s arrival, even the most optimistic of Israelis were viewing the U.S. vice president’s trip to Israel with skepticism — and the more pessimistic anticipated his mission with outright suspicion.

Publicly, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu waxed enthusiastic and “praised” the upcoming visit by his “personal friend of 30 years,” even as a “senior diplomatic official” (presumed to be either Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman or Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon) was quoted as angrily asking why Israel must settle for second best. President Obama, the official pointed out, seems to have no trouble showing up in person to woo Arab countries — and yet he keeps his distance from Israel.

“If the president speaks to one side, why do you send the No. 2 to speak to us? He can’t give a speech in Cairo to the Arabs, and suffice with speaking to us through videos.”

The answer isn’t complicated. In the Obama playbook, countries that are hostile to the U.S. deserve a charm offensive. Allies like Israel can be taken for granted. But to be fair, even the most supportive presidents have rarely graced Israel with their presence, unless there was a significant diplomatic achievement to take pride in. And at this moment in time, diplomatic progress has never seemed further from sight.

And so, with the possible exception of Netanyahu, Israelis weren’t exactly waiting for Biden’s arrival with bated breath. On Sunday’s news programs, news of preparations for his visit followed stories of multiple car accidents, coverage of crimes, and long discussions of the chances of Israel’s entry Ajami to win the Academy Award for best foreign-language film (with the mini-scandal that accompanied the entry after one of the directors, an Israeli Arab, declared that his “film shouldn’t represent Israel because Israel doesn’t represent me”).

When the hosts of the morning news shows finally got around to talking about U.S. envoy George Mitchell’s meeting on Saturday night with Defense Minister Ehud Barak to prepare the ground for the Biden arrival, they rolled their eyes and exclaimed, “Déjà vu!” Indeed, it seems as if Mitchell has been dropping in on a weekly basis as the latest Sisyphus of the peace process. His comings and goings have become part of the landscape.

(Read full article)

Love of the Land: When Bibi Meets Biden

Love of the Land: The Most Unethical Act: Losing a War

The Most Unethical Act: Losing a War

Jonathan S. Tobin
Commentary Magazine
07 February '10

(Excellent article. Y.)

Monday night, PBS’s American Experience series will broadcast a new documentary titled The Bombing of Germany, about the strategic-bombing campaign carried out against the Nazis by American forces in World War II. Coming from the liberal-leaning PBS and in an era where denunciations of American military actions — even in the “good war” against Nazi Germany — have become commonplace, it would have been no surprise if this film was yet another revisionist attempt to decry Allied tactics as immoral. This impression is reinforced by the introduction to the film on PBS’s website, which highlights the number of German civilian casualties incurred by Allied bombing and the “defining moments that led the U.S. across a moral divide” that would make it easier to drop a nuclear bomb on Japan. Indeed, the narration heard during the opening moments of The Bombing of Germany goes straight to this conclusion when it says that by the time the war ended, the bombing left “both German cities and America’s lofty ideals in ruins.”

But, fortunately, there is more to this documentary than the facile conclusion that the bombing of Germany was so immoral that it cannot be defended even in a war in which the future of civilization was at stake. By the time the 50-minute film is over, liberals expecting another trashing of America are left with some conclusions that not only reinforce the morality of American tactics during that war but also might affect the way we think about contemporary conflicts.

The story of the bombing offensive is complex. During the war, Britain’s Royal Air Force believed that the key to knocking German war industries was to burn down the cities where the factories existed. From their frame of reference, there was no moral distinction between the factories themselves and the homes of the defense workers who created the material that enabled the Nazi regime to commit the crimes against humanity that made the war a matter of life or death for the free world.

(Read full article)

Love of the Land: The Most Unethical Act: Losing a War

Love of the Land: Parsi's Precedent

Parsi's Precedent

Backspin/Honest reporting
30 November 09

At the Huffington Post, Trita Parsi argues that the US can and should stop Israel from attacking Iranian nuclear facilities. He even cites this precedent:

On August 2, 1990, almost a year after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Iron Curtain divide, Iraq invaded Kuwait. Within months, the George H. W. Bush administration carefully assembled a coalition of states under the UN flag and defeated the Iraqi army and restored Kuwait's ruling family, the House of Sabah. The Bush senior administration saw particular value in ensuring that the international coalition contained numerous Arab states. But to get the Arab's to join a war alongside the US and against another Arab power, Israel needed to be kept out of the coalition.

This turned out to be a tricky issue, particularly when Saddam Hussein hurled thirty-four Scud missiles at Tel Aviv and other Israeli cities, in an obvious attempt to lure Israel into the war . . . .

Just as Israeli retaliation against Iraq in 1991 would have been devastating for the US, an Israeli preventive attack against Iran today would spell disaster for US national security.

The Israeli debate over deterrence vs. undermining coalition forces was as anguished as Parsi goes on to describe. There was the added uncertainty -- which Parsi doesn't acknowledge -- of Saddam's Scuds being outfitted with chemical or biological warheads. Fortunately, Saddam Hussein didn't raise the stakes with a non-conventional attack.

Parsi expresses no concern for the threat Iranian nukes pose to Israeli national security (and Palestinian national security, for that matter).

We've seen that the Israeli public is remarkably resilient in the face of Iraqi Scuds, Palestinian Qassams and Hezbollah Katyushas. But Parsi's then-and-now comparison breaks down because air strikes on Iran would be to prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Love of the Land: Parsi's Precedent

Love of the Land: Iran Speeds Up

Iran Speeds Up

John Podhoretz
Contentions/Commentary
29 November 09

Iran has announced its intention to build ten new nuclear-enrichment sites. What? How could this be? Surely the international community’s outrage at Iran’s deception, which then led last week to a really strong letter to the editor—excuse me, scolding from the International Atomic Weapons Agency—was going to teach the Persians a thing or two!

It would seem logical to assume the purpose of these multiple sites is to make a successful military strike to downgrade or destroy Iran’s nuclear bomb-making capacity difficult to the point of impossibility. It would be hard enough for Israel or the United States to stage a complex series of simultaneous surprise aerial bombings against four locations; from four to fourteen would certainly be beyond Israel’s capacity and would significantly strain our own.

Remember when everybody was saying, including in the Democratic primary for president, that it would be unacceptable for Iran to get the bomb? Remember when President Bush said those who allowed Iran to get the bomb would enjoy the same reputation in the annals of history as the Western leaders at Munich?

Love of the Land: Iran Speeds Up

Love of the Land: Analysis: Virtual diplomacy, real damage

Analysis: Virtual diplomacy, real damage

Jonathan Spyer
Mideast/JPost
22 November 09

The statement by French President Nicolas Sarkozy in Riyadh last week expressing French willingness to mediate talks between Syria and Israel is the latest indication of Syria's emergence from diplomatic isolation.

Damascus has largely rebuilt its links with Europe and the Arab world. There is now a real possibility of a revival of indirect talks between Israel and Syria. Such talks, if they take place, are almost certain to get nowhere.

Still, the near guarantee of failure of any talks does not render Sarkozy's offer insignificant. It is to be hoped that the Netanyahu government resists the temptation to reopen the Syrian track.

Why might the government be tempted to enter indirect negotiations with Syria at this point? It is an article of faith among European countries and in the current US administration that a peace process between Israel and one or other of its enemies is essential. Israel's international diplomatic position currently leaves a lot to be desired. The perceived US distancing from Israel has emboldened those very considerable elements in Europe who would like to see increased pressure on the Jewish state.

There appears to be little hope of substantive movement in stalled talks between Israel and the troubled, perhaps moribund Palestinian Authority. Talks with Syria could provide the illusion of diplomatic motion which could help alleviate claims that Israel represents an intransigent barrier to progress toward regional stability.

(Read full article)

Love of the Land: Analysis: Virtual diplomacy, real damage

Love of the Land: 'Israel's Self-Described Greatest Concern'

'Israel's Self-Described Greatest Concern'

Jeffrey Goldberg
The Atlantic
28 October 09

I'm telling people who are worried about the hijinks at the unofficial J Street bloggers' panel not to become overly bothered by it; it was a clownish event, and the people on the panel were marginal figures except in the rather circumscribed universe of anti-Zionists-with-Jewish parents (where they are giants).

I couldn't go to the conference, as I've explained earlier, but I have heard from many people who attended, and they describe to me an organization still finding itself. The leadership of J Street seems drawn from liberal pro-Israel circles. The average participant in the conference, they said, seemed somewhat to the left of the leadership (included in this group are the sort who often begin statements on the Middle East with "As a Jew," as in, "As a Jew, I am appalled/shocked/perturbed/ etc. etc.' These are the sort of people caught booing Rabbi Eric Yoffie for condemning the Goldstone report.)

The most problematic thing I've heard so far is the make-up of the panel meant to discuss Iran. In the program, Iran was described as "Israel's self-described greatest concern and strategic threat," which is a bit too distancing a description for me, but never mind that. The panel featured Hillary Mann Leverett, who, with her husband, Flynt Leverett, is an apologist for the Iranian regime. Goldblog Iran-Panel-Reporter-At-Large Tali Yahalom told me that the consensus on the panel, which also included Trita Parsi, who also does a lot of leg-work for the Iranian regime, was that Iran doesn't think about Israel, doesn't care about Israel, and certainly doesn't want to obliterate Israel. Here are some of Hillary Mann Leverett's thoughts:

Hillary Mann Leverett: Tehran has asked for an extension of the deadline for its response to a proposal to shed most of Iran's low-enriched uranium out of the country. ... Many commentators here in the U.S. and Israel have attributed this delay to political divisions in Tehran ... (or to) quote-unquote typical Iranian negotiating behavior, that they're just merchants in the bazaar, haggling away to get the most that they can in a very deceptive atmosphere. I believe these characterizations are fundamentally misleading.

... Too often, Iran's security concerns are dismissed in the U.S. and in Israel as false or manufactured, reinforcing the stereotype of Iranians as chronically duplicitous and unprepared to keep any commitment they enter into. ... Those stereotypes are simply not supported by the historical record. ... They are fundamentally racist -- if someone were to criticize Israeli diplomacy by referring to rabbis as lying and conspiring behind their beards, as far too many commentators accuse Iran's mullahs of lying and conspiring behind their beards, we would rightly -- and I'd be the first to -- denounce that as an anti-Semitic stereotype."

One small point worth making: Rabbis aren't in charge of Israel. Mullahs are in charge of Iran. This is a fact that probably does seem relevant to most people, though not to Hillary Mann Leverett.

Love of the Land: 'Israel's Self-Described Greatest Concern'

Israel Matzav: Miami Herald: US should use its veto

Miami Herald: US should use its veto

In an editorial in Wednesday's editions, the Miami Herald calls on the United States to use its veto to put a stop to the Goldstone Report in the Security Council. Here's part of it.

The Israelis cannot get a fair hearing from the council, nor impartiality from any of its offshoots. Mr. Goldstone, a Jewish South African and trustee of Hebrew University in Jerusalem, is a distinguished former prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal and points to the report's criticism of Hamas for ``serious war crimes and crimes against humanity'' as proof of the commission's even-handed approach.

Mr. Goldstone's record and good intentions aside, this formulation is both naive and mistaken.

Such symmetry fails to make obvious and necessary moral distinctions. For countries like Israel, the death of civilians is an unintended tragedy of war. Prior to the Gaza incursion, the Israeli Defense Forces dropped leaflets in civilian areas and otherwise tried to warn of an impending attack in an extraordinary effort to avoid collateral casualties.

For terrorist groups like Hamas, inflicting civilian casualties is a way to score points and advance an evil agenda.

They deliberately target noncombatants and routinely use human shields to protect their fighters.

Regardless of the report's ``even-handed'' contents, it is being used as a cudgel against Israel. Criticism of Hamas's methods and conduct is routinely ignored by Palestinian advocates, who see the document as a great opportunity to smear Israelis as war criminals.

Read the whole thing.

Using the veto is something that would grate on the Obama administration, especially if it's done to benefit Israel. I don't believe it will use the veto. I believe that the Obama administration will try to water down whatever resolution is presented (and I have a pdf of a draft of one - it can be found here) to the point where it can vote in favor - something which is likely to hurt Israel. And if the Obama administration cannot vote in favor of the resolution, it will abstain. But I believe that it's highly unlikely that the United States will use the veto for Israel.

Israel Matzav: Miami Herald: US should use its veto

Israel Matzav: Daily News: US should veto Goldstone

Daily News: US should veto Goldstone

An editorial in Sunday's New York Daily News calls on the United States to exercise its veto power in the United Nations Security Council to prevent any action on the Goldstone Report.

On Oct. 1, the Palestinian Authority, under pressure from the United States and others, had a brief interlude of decency. Its representatives chose to defer further discussion on the Goldstone Report in the Human Rights Council.

But that decision sparked ridicule by Hamas and anger in the Arab streets toward authority chief Mahmoud Abbas - including posters reading "to the trash heap of history, you traitor."

Abbas reversed course, paving the way for Libya to present the report to the Security Council.

The enemies of Israel are an energetic bunch. So, too, must be its defenders. This means you, veto-wielding Security Council member United States of America.

My fear is that the Obama administration either won't use the veto or will try to extract something from Israel in return.

What this administration needs to see - somehow - is that even if it were another country in the dock and not Israel, it would be an American interest to use the veto. If Israel is punished for defending itself, the United States is sure to be near the front of the line to be next.

Israel Matzav: Daily News: US should veto Goldstone

Love of the Land: The Israeli Challenge

The Israeli Challenge

Will Bibi follow in footsteps of Begin or Peres in face of Iranian threat?

Yoram Ettinger
Ynet/Opinion
07 October 09

The options of deterrence and retaliation are not available in face of the Iranian terror regime, which sacrificed hundreds of thousands of its people during the 1980-88 war against Iraq. The only option available is that of prevention and preemption.

The Jewish state cannot rely on the US to prevent Iran's nuclearization, especially not on a US that opposes the military option and embraces the options of engagement and sanctions, which have played into the hands of Iran during the last seven years.

In 1981, the heads of Israel's Mossad and military intelligence, then Defense Minister Ezer Weizman and Opposition Head Shimon Peres lobbied Prime Minister Menachem Begin against the bombing of Iraq's nuclear reactor. They contended that the chance of success was negligible and that the prospect of watching the pilots dragged beheaded in the streets of Baghdad was higher than welcoming the pilots back in Israel. They warned that the operation would cause a deep rift between Israel and the US with devastating political, economic and social consequences. They projected the collapse of the Israel-Egypt peace treaty, an all out Muslim war on Israel – without US support – and a significant deterioration of the personal security of Jews around the globe. However, Prime Minister Begin demonstrated a pre-requisite to leadership, asserting that the cost of inaction (a nuclear Iraq) would dwarf the cost of action. He sacrificed short-term convenience on the altar of long-term national security.

In 1981, the US did not fully appreciate the severity of Iraq's nuclear threat. In 2009, the US is fully aware of Iran's nuclear threat. Would Prime Minister Netanyahu follow in the footsteps of Begin, or Peres, in face of a clear and present lethal, nuclear danger?

An Iranian nuclear cloud, hovering above Israel, would not require the launching a nuclear bomb, in order to wreck domestic and external confidence in the future of the Jewish state. Aliya (immigration of Jews) would come to a halt, emigration would surge dramatically, Israel's credit rating and growth projection would collapse, and oversea investors would stay away, causing economic, social and security devastation. Therefore, the Jewish state cannot await a smoking nuclear gun in the hand of Teheran; the Jewish state must prevent the nuclear gun from reaching Teheran's hand.

Ultimate leadership test
In 2009, Iran's nuclear infrastructure benefits from defensive means, which are superior to Iraq's 1981 defense capabilities: proliferation throughout Iran, deep and heavily fortified facilities and most-advanced Russian air defense systems. But, in 2009, Israel's offensive capabilities have improved geometrically, compared with 1981: destruction, precision, penetration and the capability to launch missiles away from the range of enemy radar. In 1981, Israel had only one-time offensive option, which was based on untested modifications of the F-15 and F-16. In 2009, Israel benefits from a number of offensive options, which are based on proved military systems and on superior human and satellite intelligence.

In 2009, the destruction of a few critical nuclear installations would paralyze, or substantially delay, Iran's nuclear effort.

In 1981, the American public and Congress shared the relative-indifference of the Free World toward Iraq's nuclear threat. In 2009, the American public and Congress are fully cognizant of Iran's nuclear threat to US soldiers in the Gulf and in the Indian Ocean, to the US mainland and to Israel. They push President Obama to adopt a more hawkish policy on Iran and they identify with Israel's right of self-defense. Would Israel leverage such attitude by the American public and its representatives in both chambers of Congress, their traditional solid support of the Jewish state and the power of Congress to initiate and stop the supply of sophisticated military systems, in order to enhance Israeli capabilities to prevent the nuclearization of Iran?

A unilateral military Israeli action in 1967 (Six-Day War) and in 1981 (bombing Iraq's nuclear reactor) triggered painful short-term condemnations and sanctions, but accorded the Jewish state with long-term strategic respect. The destruction of Egypt's pan-Arab clout and Iraq's nuclear capabilities reduced Middle East turbulence, dealt a blow to the USSR, bolstered the stability of Saudi Arabia and other pro-US vulnerable regimes, advanced US interests and upgraded Israel's posture of deterrence.

The elimination of Iran's nuclear threat would trigger similar results, in addition to a possible shower of Iranian, Hezbollah and Hamas missiles on Israeli population centers, accompanied by reinforced PLO terrorism. As severe as the cost of a military offensive would be, it would be dwarfed by the cost of avoiding military offensive: A nuclear attack on the Jewish state.

The Iranian nuclear challenge constitutes – for Israel's prime minister, cabinet and Knesset members - the ultimate test of leadership. Will they follow pragmatism, driven by tenacity and the long-term survival interest of the Jewish state, or will they demonstrate "pragmatism," driven by vacillation and short-term needs, which has characterized all Israeli governments since 1992, thus eroding the foundation of the Jewish state.

Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger, expert on Middle East and US affairs, Executive Director of "Second Thought"

Love of the Land: The Israeli Challenge

Israel Matzav: In the next war, Hezbullah will invade the Galilee and the US will abandon Israel

In the next war, Hezbullah will invade the Galilee and the US will abandon Israel

Some frightening assessments from the IDF regarding the next war with Hezbullah were made in an article written by Lt. Col. Robi Sandman that assessed the results of the Second Lebanon War. The article won an award from IDF Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi.

The IDF assessment is that Hezbullah had better intelligence and better motivation than the IDF. But what's more frightening is the IDF assessment of the next war.

In the article, Sandman claims the IDF is currently structured in a way that it will not be able to prevent thousands of fighters - from Hizbullah or Syria - from infiltrating deep into Israel.

The next war, he wrote, will likely include Hizbullah sending hundreds of teams comprised of 4-5 fighters each, armed with anti-tank missiles and sniper rifles, into the Galilee.

"We need to recognize that the IDF with its current structure cannot provide a response to the unbelievably well-equipped force that is rising up to destroy the State of Israel," he wrote.

These hundreds of squads will be able to rely on local Israeli-Arab infrastructure in the Galilee, Sandman wrote. He recommended that the IDF immediately establish small, elite reconnaissance squads capable of countering this threat.

Sandman also warned of the possibility that in a future conflict, the United States might not help Israel as it had in the past. During the 2006 war and the Yom Kippur War in 1973, the US airlifted advanced weapons and ammunition to Israel to refresh dwindling stockpiles.

Sandman warned of two main catalysts for a possible lack of support. The first was what he called the decreasing influence the Jewish community had over the US government.

...

The second was a possible change in government and subsequent policy that "could leave Israel without an ally."

As a result, Sandman recommended that the IDF ask the US to establish additional warehouses with emergency stockpiles of weaponry in Israel, even "if Israel has to pay for their maintenance."

...

His second recommendation was that Israel and the US hold joint training exercises to prepare for the possibility that the IDF will one day be under threat and require American troop support.

"This type of support will be important one day in an emergency, but could also serve as a deterrent for enemies when planning an attack," he wrote.

I hope you all had the Jews of the State of Israel in mind in your prayers yesterday. As if we didn't know it already, it sounds like we need even more hope from God.

By the way, for those who didn't figure it out already, this ties in quite closely with Iran. One of the things that is likely to happen if Israel attacks Iran is that we will be attacked by their proxies, Hezbullah and Hamas.

I guess it takes a lot more than the six months that Netanyahu has been in office to turn around the gross neglect of the IDF that took place during the Olmert government.

By the way, I disagree with the IDF assessment that the US may not support Israel in the future because of "the decreasing influence the Jewish community had over the US government." That's a nice way of avoiding saying the truth: The Jewish community in the US is not nearly as united in its support of Israel as it used to be. And now the likes of J Street are giving it cover to claim it supports Israel when its support is actually weak.

Israel Matzav: In the next war, Hezbullah will invade the Galilee and the US will abandon Israel

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

Love of the Land: U.S. Takes Its Seat at U.N. Rights Council, With Fresh Controversy Brewing Over Israel

U.S. Takes Its Seat at U.N. Rights Council, With Fresh Controversy Brewing Over Israel

Patrick Goodenough, International Editor
cnsnews.com
14 September 09

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and Justice Richard Goldstone, head of the HRC’s Gaza fact-finding mission. (U.N. Photo by Eskinder Debebe)(CNSNews.com) – The United States on Monday took its seat on the U.N.’s three year-old Human Rights Council for the first time, for a session that once again promises controversy over the council’s single most focused-upon topic – Israel.

The three-week long, 12th regular session of the 47-nation council will include consideration of and debate over a report compiled by investigators into allegations of war crimes during Israel’s military offensive against Hamas in the Gaza Strip last winter.

The inquiry was mandated by a “special session” of the HRC last January, which passed a resolution condemning Israel for “massive violations of the human rights of the Palestinian people.”

The resolution did not directly mention Hamas or its attacks against Israeli civilians – the stated reason given by Jerusalem for mounting what it called Operation Cast Lead last December. (Of 17 operative paragraphs, one paragraph urged “all parties … to refrain from violence against the civilian population.”)

The investigation’s mandate is simply to probe violations by Israel against the Palestinians.

The resolution passed by a 33-1 vote, with Canada alone in rejecting it. Thirteen members – Japan, South Korea, Cameroon and ten European countries – abstained.

In April, the council announced that the investigation would be chaired by Richard Goldstone, a respected South African judge and former U.N. war crimes prosecutor, and include three other experts.

Making the announcement, HRC president Martin Uhomoibhi of Nigeria said he was confident it would operate “in an independent and impartial manner.”

Groups supportive of Israel quickly raised doubts, however, pointing to what they viewed as an unbalanced mandate that prejudged the inquiry.

Goldstone has stressed his intention to investigate allegations of war crimes and violations on all sides, but the Israeli government rejected the inquiry and its mandate and refused to cooperate.

‘Total integrity’

Another concern raised was the fact that one of the inquiry’s members, Prof. Christine Chinkin of the London School of Economics, had signed a letter last January rejecting Israel’s assertion that its operation constituted self-defense against Hamas rocket attacks.

U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice is congratulated after the U.S. won a seat on the Human Rights Council for the first time, in New York on May 12, 2009. (U.N. Photo by Eskinder Debebe)

The letter, signed by 27 academics and lawyers and published in a London newspaper, condemned Hamas’ attacks against Israelis, but concluded that “the manner and scale of [Israel’s] operations in Gaza amount to an act of aggression and is contrary to international law, notwithstanding the rocket attacks by Hamas.”

During a dialogue with non-governmental organizations in Geneva last May, Chinkin was challenged on her support for the letter by one of the participating NGOs, U.N. Watch, and responded that she had signed it long before she was asked to take part in a fact-finding mission.

“I, along with all others member of the mission, intend fully to act with total integrity, and look at the facts of what had occurred on the basis of the evidence, on the basis of the evaluation, on the basis of all materials that we can cover,” she said.

The controversy continued, however, with U.N. Watch – a Geneva-based monitoring group – formally seeking Chinkin’s disqualification from the inquiry, charging that she had publicly taken a stand on the disputed issues the investigation was meant to be examining impartially.

The fact-finding mission rejected the appeal, saying the investigation was not a judicial proceeding.

(Full Article)

Related: The Goldstone Show-Trial

Love of the Land: U.S. Takes Its Seat at U.N. Rights Council, With Fresh Controversy Brewing Over Israel

Love of the Land: Re: Getting to “No”?

Re: Getting to “No”?

Jennifer Rubin
Contentions/Commentary
10 September 09

This report suggests that the administration doesn’t comprehend that the U.S. and “international community” have been given the brush off by the Iranian regime—or they do and they aren’t yet ready to answer the “What now?” question. Laura Rozen reports that Dennis Ross, NSC Middle East adviser, and William Burns, undersecretary of state for political affairs, met with a few hundred Jewish activists. Here is the gist:

Essentially, Ross and Burns reiterated that the administration’s objective is to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. The strategy has been “engagement without illusions.” But the President will take stock in September and revisit further at year’s end, the conference was told.

They are engaging countries around the globe to help the effort. Burns did say they are starting the planning of the tough sanctions steps now, so that if/when the President decides to take that decision, they are ready to go.

Did you catch the “year end” part? Well, that September deadline is now, it seems, a December 31 deadline. The attendees told Rozen that the bottom line is, aside from the fact that there isn’t really a bottom line, that “it’s time to get the wheels of tough sanctions turning.” But the president is going to take stock. And check back at year’s end. And so it goes. One imagines the Iranians are not exactly quaking in their boots.

Love of the Land: Re: Getting to “No”?

Love of the Land: New Dawn, New Year

New Dawn, New Year

Marc Prowisor

Yesha Views

10 September 09

Back in 1982, Shimon Peres traveled to the USA to speak in opposition of Israel’s then war against terror from Lebanon. He managed to gain US support and increased international pressure on Israel amidst the fighting causing a premature cease-fire and in essence prolonging Israel’s presence in Lebanon. We as soldiers were in the middle of battle as we were listening on the radio how one of our own Government officials was gathering support against us. Most of us in our late teens and early twenty’s, we simply cared about doing our job, protecting Israel and stopping the enemy and then going home. We didn’t understand how a government official could speak out against what we were doing, and worst, take it to the outside world. Was it the world’s business anyway, were they getting bombed? We knew in our hearts that we were stopping the terrorists from continuing to fire on the North, and we were stopping our enemies.

I remember watching the terrorists of Fatah traveling safely from Lebanon, because of a brokered cease fire and the confusing feeling among us, how could we let our enemies leave so they would attack us again?

After Oslo, we let these same terrorists back into our country, rearmed them only to see those weapons turned against us and we watched as waves of bombings against the innocent took their toll in lives, again the result of the same team from 1982.

Even today, opposition leader Tzippi Livni will travel to the US to gain support against the present government and attempt at keeping her job. Peace Now, Human Rights Watch, Rabbis for whatever and so many others will do the same.

Continuing to travel outside the country to gain support and funds, these movements and politicians that put the security and safety of the Jewish people here in jeopardy and roam freely without regard to the Jewish lives they endanger.

People of the world look at us, the Jewish people, in amazement how we endanger ourselves and our nation by capitulating to outside pressures and give in to an enemy that has one goal in mind, that of destroying us. How come everybody understands this but our own officials and so called peace movements? How can we expect any sort of unity among our own people, or the attempt of unity, when our own representatives choose to air their dirty laundry outside?

These politicians and others hold a grudge against the new growing strength in Israel. The new Israel is that of a strong Jewish identity, this new Israeli, is not ashamed of who he or she is. They know they are in their land, and will defend it and fight for it. They grow vineyards and orchards and produce world renowned goods. They are creating technologies that are saving lives around the world. They are not ashamed of lighting candles Friday night and they are proud of who they are and where they live.

This is what frightens our dear Knesset members and supposed intelligentsia who oppose our presence in Judea and Samaria. They go so far as to seek out and create more opposition because they cannot find enough support at home. These same people ignore democracy and justice while attempting to create their own rules and double standards. They are racists, discriminating against their own.They do not believe in equality, only their way, at the expense of Jewish life. They will adopt an enemy rather than make peace at home and they will bend laws without regard to justice.

Most of the nations of the world do not really care what happens to us, they care what happens to them, quite normal. This applies to most people in the world, again, normal. By creating and bringing opposing views outside the country, we weaken and confuse our people and ourselves. This in turn creates the exact atmosphere needed to harm us, and what are enemies seek and this is forbidden.

Every nation and country in the world has its problems, we all agree and disagree with each other, we talk, we yell and eventually work things out, you might say this is the democratic process. Our job in Israel regarding the Jewish Communities outside the country is to keep them strong, and protect them when needed, they are the minority there. Our job here in Israel is to keep our country strong and safe and to be able to provide a place to live for all Jews around the world, when needed.

So I turn to our people, who bear this grudge against their own, and embrace values that are foreign to us and our people, come home, look inside, you will be proud of who you are and who you are becoming.

There is a new dawn, and it is beautiful.

Love of the Land: New Dawn, New Year

Israel Matzav: EU and US slam Netanyahu building permit plan

EU and US slam Netanyahu building permit plan

Shavua tov, a good week to everyone.

Not surprisingly, the EU and the US have slammed Prime Minister Netanyahu's plan to hand out building permits before implementing a 'settlement freeze.'

Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini told reporters the EU's 27 foreign ministers were all against the move, following similar criticism levied by the US

"The announcement made to build new buildings and new settlements exactly at the moment when all the international community is asking Israel for a freeze has been criticized by the ministers of foreign affairs," Frattini said after the ministers completed the first day of a two-day meeting in Stockholm.

Read All at :

Israel Matzav: EU and US slam Netanyahu building permit plan

Israel Matzav: US foils plot to export fighter jet parts to Iran

US foils plot to export fighter jet parts to Iran

The United States has foiled a plot to export F-5 fighter jet engines and parts to Iran to help the Iranians upgrade their depleted air force. Two arms dealers who live in France are behind the plot. One of them, a Belgian national (pictured below), was arrested on Friday in New York. The other, an Iranian national is still at large.

An examination of the past activities of the Belgian national, Jacques Monsieur, shows that he has extensive connections to Iran, and even attempted to obtain uranium for the Islamic Republic in September 1999. While the current charges only relate to jet engine parts, it would not be at all surprising if Monsieur's activities include much more.

Monsieur also has connections to Israel's Mossad, and was one of the arms dealers involved in the Iran-Contra scandal of the 1980's.

The indictment alleges that in February 2009, Monsieur contacted an undercover agent seeking engines for the F-5 (EIF) fighter jet or the C-130 military transport aircraft for export to Iran. Thereafter, Monsieur began regular e-mail contact with the undercover agent regarding requested F-5 engines and parts.

These engines, known as J85-21 models, are replacement engines for the F-5 fighter jet that was sold to Iran by the U.S. before the 1979 Iranian revolution. It is prohibited to export the engines and parts without a license from the U.S. State Department. Additionally, these items may not be exported to Iran without a license from the U.S. Treasury Department due to the U.S. trade embargo on Iran.

The charges stated that in March 2009, Monsieur met with an undercover agent in Paris, where Monsieur again requested engines and parts for the F-5 fighter jet. In May 2009, an undercover agent met with Monsieur in London, where Monsieur introduced Dara Fotouhi as a business partner, and again discussed the illegal export of F-5 fighter jet engines from the U.S. to Iran. During this negotiation, the defendants allegedly asked the undercover agent if he could obtain or use U.S. shipping or export authorization documents that falsely indicated that the end user of the items would be located in Colombia.

In June 2009, Monsieur sent an e-mail to the undercover agent and provided a purchase order for F-5 fighter jet parts from a front company for an organization known as Trast Aero Space, located in Kyrgyzstan. The order requested that the parts be located by the undercover agent and illegally shipped to Iran via Saudi Arabia.

The following month, Monsieur allegedly contacted the undercover agent indicating that about $110,000 had been wired from Dubai to a U.S. bank account as payment for the parts. He also ensured that he would deposit a $300,000 down payment for two F-5 fighter jet engines. In August 2009, Monsieur requested information from the undercover agent about his contact in Colombia for forwarding the aircraft parts from Colombia to Saudi Arabia.

Arms to Iran being shipped via Saudi Arabia? Why would anyone be surprised by that?

Monsieur (pictured) is apparently a well-known arms dealer, who has also tried to buy uranium for the Iranians in the past. (This article is from 2002):

Over a three-month period in 1997, Lissouba's government ordered more than $60 million in arms. A dozen shipments brought helicopters, rockets, missiles and bombs from a handful of countries to Congo-Brazzaville. Executives of the French state-owned company, Elf Aquitaine – which pumped oil from the country and was a longtime player in its various changes in government, often befriending both sides – had arranged a loan backed by the country's future petroleum production to pay for the armaments. Yet Lissouba was forced to flee before the payments could be made, leaving the middleman who had arranged the shipments owed millions of dollars.

Read All at :

Israel Matzav: US foils plot to export fighter jet parts to Iran