Author Topic: Israel, and its neighbors  (Read 889636 times)

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69498
    • View Profile
Israel fuct by France
« Reply #2100 on: May 21, 2015, 09:56:20 AM »
"According to French initiative, if sides fail to reach agreement by deadline, Paris will officially recognize Palestine"

What kind of an initiative is this? How does that produce any incentive for Fatah to make necessary compromises for peace, when they will get what they want, if they simply wait long enough?

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4659872,00.html

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69498
    • View Profile
Great video clip
« Reply #2101 on: May 24, 2015, 03:30:44 PM »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69498
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69498
    • View Profile
Former Israeli ambassador Michael Oren
« Reply #2103 on: June 16, 2015, 07:28:31 AM »

By
Michael B. Oren
June 15, 2015 7:09 p.m. ET
408 COMMENTS

‘Nobody has a monopoly on making mistakes.” When I was Israel’s ambassador to the United States from 2009 to the end of 2013, that was my standard response to reporters asking who bore the greatest responsibility—President Barack Obama or Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—for the crisis in U.S.-Israel relations.

I never felt like I was lying when I said it. But, in truth, while neither leader monopolized mistakes, only one leader made them deliberately.

Israel blundered in how it announced the expansion of Jewish neighborhoods and communities in Jerusalem over the border lines that existed before the Six Day War in 1967. On two occasions, the news came out during Mr. Netanyahu’s meetings with Vice President Joe Biden. A solid friend of Israel, Mr. Biden understandably took offense. Even when the White House stood by Israel, blocking hostile resolutions in the United Nations, settlement expansion often continued.

In a May 2011 Oval Office meeting, Mr. Netanyahu purportedly “lectured” Obama about the peace process. Later that year, he was reported to be backing Republican contenderMitt Romney in the presidential elections. This spring, the prime minister criticized Mr. Obama’s Iran policy before a joint meeting of Congress that was arranged without even informing the president.

Yet many of Israel’s bungles were not committed by Mr. Netanyahu personally. In both episodes with Mr. Biden, for example, the announcements were issued by midlevel officials who also caught the prime minister off-guard. Nevertheless, he personally apologized to the vice president.

Mr. Netanyahu’s only premeditated misstep was his speech to Congress, which I recommended against. Even that decision, though, came in reaction to a calculated mistake by President Obama. From the moment he entered office, Mr. Obama promoted an agenda of championing the Palestinian cause and achieving a nuclear accord with Iran. Such policies would have put him at odds with any Israeli leader. But Mr. Obama posed an even more fundamental challenge by abandoning the two core principles of Israel’s alliance with America.

The first principle was “no daylight.” The U.S. and Israel always could disagree but never openly. Doing so would encourage common enemies and render Israel vulnerable. Contrary to many of his detractors, Mr. Obama was never anti-Israel and, to his credit, he significantly strengthened security cooperation with the Jewish state. He rushed to help Israel in 2011 when the Carmel forest was devastated by fire. And yet, immediately after his first inauguration, Mr. Obama put daylight between Israel and America.

“When there is no daylight,” the president told American Jewish leaders in 2009, “Israel just sits on the sidelines and that erodes our credibility with the Arabs.” The explanation ignored Israel’s 2005 withdrawal from Gaza and its two previous offers of Palestinian statehood in Gaza, almost the entire West Bank and half of Jerusalem—both offers rejected by the Palestinians.

Mr. Obama also voided President George W. Bush’s commitment to include the major settlement blocs and Jewish Jerusalem within Israel’s borders in any peace agreement. Instead, he insisted on a total freeze of Israeli construction in those areas—“not a single brick,” I later heard he ordered Mr. Netanyahu—while making no substantive demands of the Palestinians.

Consequently, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas boycotted negotiations, reconciled with Hamas and sought statehood in the U.N.—all in violation of his commitments to the U.S.—but he never paid a price. By contrast, the White House routinely condemned Mr. Netanyahu for building in areas that even Palestinian negotiators had agreed would remain part of Israel.

The other core principle was “no surprises.” President Obama discarded it in his first meeting with Mr. Netanyahu, in May 2009, by abruptly demanding a settlement freeze and Israeli acceptance of the two-state solution. The following month the president traveled to the Middle East, pointedly skipping Israel and addressing the Muslim world from Cairo.

Israeli leaders typically received advance copies of major American policy statements on the Middle East and could submit their comments. But Mr. Obama delivered his Cairo speech, with its unprecedented support for the Palestinians and its recognition of Iran’s right to nuclear power, without consulting Israel.

Similarly, in May 2011, the president altered 40 years of U.S. policy by endorsing the 1967 lines with land swaps—formerly the Palestinian position—as the basis for peace-making. If Mr. Netanyahu appeared to lecture the president the following day, it was because he had been assured by the White House, through me, that no such change would happen.

Israel was also stunned to learn that Mr. Obama offered to sponsor a U.N. Security Council investigation of the settlements and to back Egyptian and Turkish efforts to force Israel to reveal its alleged nuclear capabilities. Mr. Netanyahu eventually agreed to a 10-month moratorium on settlement construction—the first such moratorium since 1967—and backed the creation of a Palestinian state. He was taken aback, however, when he received little credit for these concessions from Mr. Obama, who more than once publicly snubbed him.

The abandonment of the “no daylight” and “no surprises” principles climaxed over the Iranian nuclear program. Throughout my years in Washington, I participated in intimate and frank discussions with U.S. officials on the Iranian program. But parallel to the talks came administration statements and leaks—for example, each time Israeli warplanes reportedly struck Hezbollah-bound arms convoys in Syria—intended to deter Israel from striking Iran pre-emptively.

Finally, in 2014, Israel discovered that its primary ally had for months been secretly negotiating with its deadliest enemy. The talks resulted in an interim agreement that the great majority of Israelis considered a “bad deal” with an irrational, genocidal regime. Mr. Obama, though, insisted that Iran was a rational and potentially “very successful regional power.”

The daylight between Israel and the U.S. could not have been more blinding. And for Israelis who repeatedly heard the president pledge that he “had their backs” and “was not bluffing” about the military option, only to watch him tell an Israeli interviewer that “a military solution cannot fix” the Iranian nuclear threat, the astonishment could not have been greater.

Now, with the Middle East unraveling and dependable allies a rarity, the U.S. and Israel must restore the “no daylight” and “no surprises” principles. Israel has no alternative to America as a source of security aid, diplomatic backing and overwhelming popular support. The U.S. has no substitute for the state that, though small, remains democratic, militarily and technologically robust, strategically located and unreservedly pro-American.

The past six years have seen successive crises in U.S.-Israeli relations, and there is a need to set the record straight. But the greater need is to ensure a future of minimal mistakes and prevent further erosion of our vital alliance.

Mr. Oren, Israel’s former ambassador to the United States and a member of the Knesset, is the author of “Ally: My Journey Across the American-Israeli Divide” (Random House, 2015).

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69498
    • View Profile
Re: Israeli reconciliation with Turkey looks likely
« Reply #2104 on: June 28, 2015, 10:44:00 PM »
Analysis
Forecast

    Regional developments will further align Israeli and Turkish interests over time, ultimately leading to a formal reconciliation.
    In the short term, cooperation between Israel and Turkey will continue behind closed doors.

Israel and Turkey may once again be taking steps toward repairing their relationship, which has been damaged since the Mavi Marmara flotilla incident in May 2010. On June 22, Haaretz reported that the new director general of the Israeli Foreign Ministry, Dore Gold, met in Rome with an undersecretary in the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Feridun Sinirlioglu. The pair reportedly discussed mending ties between their countries, something that the Israeli and Turkish governments have tried several times to achieve over the past five years. Israel in particular maintains a deep interest in improving its relations with Turkey, while the weak performance of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan's Justice and Development Party (AKP) in recent elections may have cleared some of the obstacles preventing the two countries from burying the hatchet. Though Israel and Turkey still must overcome a significant amount of inertia to fully revive their relationship, the two share too many common interests to remain at odds over the long term.
Reconciliation: A History of Stalled Attempts

Many attempts have been made to restore Israeli-Turkish ties. Perhaps the most notable occurred during U.S. President Barack Obama's visit to Israel in March 2013, when he cajoled Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu into apologizing to Erdogan, Turkey's prime minister at the time. By May, Netanyahu's office was optimistic enough to announce that an agreement with Ankara was imminent. However, the draft deal agreed to by both sides sat on Netanyahu's desk for months and ultimately remained unsigned. The following February, a new round of talks led to yet another agreement that was again derailed by Netanyahu's reticence and Erdogan's demands that Israel include a written pledge to lift the Gaza blockade — a request that, according to Israeli media, had not been included in the reconciliation deal. Obama tried to pressure Erdogan to accept the proposal, but to no avail.

The most recent olive branch, then, should be viewed with a healthy dose of skepticism. But putting aside the unpredictable stops and starts of what has become a convoluted diplomatic process, it is important to note who is publicizing the most recent revival of talks: Israeli sources quoted in an Israeli newspaper. Turkey, for its part, initially stayed silent on the matter, neither confirming nor denying the report until Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu verified the rumor two days later. Equally strange was the initial report's claim that Gold did not inform the team tasked by Netanyahu to develop the 2014 draft agreement about the meeting — information that normally would not be included in a report about a secret diplomatic meeting. Meanwhile, an Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesperson confirmed that Gold went to Rome but did not reveal why. While it remains unclear who initiated the meeting in Italy, it is clear that it was Israel that wanted the world to know about it.
Two Possible Explanations

There are two possible explanations for Israel's eagerness to highlight the renewed talks. The first centers on internal Israeli politics. Netanyahu's May 25 appointment of Gold as the Foreign Ministry's next director general — a post that has been conspicuously vacant since Avigdor Lieberman resigned May 4 — signaled the prime minister's intention to empower and solidify control over the ministry. Lieberman's irreverence toward the very idea of reconciliation with Turkey was one of the main sticking points on the Israeli side preventing talks from moving forward. Because Netanyahu also never particularly trusted Lieberman, he appointed several of his own special envoys to carry out sensitive diplomatic missions, including reconciliation with Turkey, while Lieberman was in office. Once Lieberman's position became available, the Times of Israel speculated that Netanyahu would give the post to Zionist Union leader Isaac Herzog in order to persuade his party to join the ruling coalition. But Netanyahu's decision to select Gold instead, when taken together with his initial choice to leave the post vacant for a spell, indicates that the prime minister intends to essentially run the Foreign Ministry himself. Gold has long been Netanyahu's confidant; his trip to Rome and the subsequent leaks emphasizing the exclusion of other key Israeli officials involved in Israeli-Turkish relations could be a move by either Gold or Netanyahu to reassert the Foreign Ministry's control over Israeli foreign policy. In addition, Netanyahu's use of Gold, a trusted adviser and an accomplished diplomat, rather than previous envoys as the primary negotiator in Rome could indicate how serious he is about healing the rift between Israel and Turkey this time around.

The second explanation is that Netanyahu sees the results of Turkey's recent general elections, which have at least momentarily curbed the influence of Erdogan and the ruling AKP, as an opportunity to reopen a dialogue with Ankara. All of the AKP's potential coalition partners have publicly criticized Erdogan's enmity toward Israel. It is possible, then, that the leaks were designed to test the waters and signal that the Israelis are ready to reconcile if the Turks will meet them at the table. Netanyahu may even be hoping to subtly influence the coalition-building talks currently underway in Turkey. Sinirlioglu's attendance at the Rome meeting indicates that the Turks, though they have not publicly admitted as much, continue to be serious about normalizing relations with Israel. (Sinirlioglu served as Turkey’s ambassador to Israel from 2002 to 2007, and he is a well-respected figure within Turkish diplomatic circles and the ruling party.)
With Converging Interests, a Better Outlook

The Israeli government, for its part, is deeply interested in smoothing things over with Turkey. Israel is a small country in a hostile neighborhood that depends on its relationships with regional and global powers to ensure its survival. But there are also a number of specific areas in which partnering with Turkey could prove beneficial to Israel. For example, the Islamic State's attempts to carve out a caliphate alongside the ongoing rebellion in Syria have created chaos on both the Israeli and Turkish borders. The conflict has hit particularly close to home for Israel's Druze community. On June 11, Syrian militant group Jabhat al-Nusra killed 20 Druze villagers in Idlib province, prompting Israel's 130,000-strong Druze community to pressure the government to help their Syrian brethren. Neither Israel nor Turkey wants to see the Syrian conflict spill over their borders, and thus the two countries share the common goal of keeping the violence contained.

The energy sector provides another attractive opportunity for cooperation with Turkey. Israel hopes to become an exporter of natural gas, but the steep cost of developing Israel's giant Leviathan field will require substantial foreign investment to fund the construction of the necessary export infrastructure. Theoretically, a pipeline running through Turkey would face many obstacles, but it is nevertheless an appealing idea for Israel. On the security front, Turkey maintains ties with Hamas and the Palestinian National Authority. While Israel views Turkey's relationship with Hamas with suspicion, the Israeli government would gain legitimacy with other regional and global powers if it established friendly ties with Ankara.

One of the most important factors driving Israel toward Turkey has nothing to do with Ankara and everything to do with Washington, which has been consistently pushing Israel and Turkey to mend ties. Netanyahu's personal relationship with Obama has been publicly antagonistic, and rekindling Israel's relations with Turkey could at least somewhat lessen the tension between Israel and its most important patron.

For Turkey, its relationship with Israel is more complicated. In 2010, when Israeli-Turkish ties first disintegrated, Stratfor noted that Israel was a liability to Turkey's expansionist agenda at the time. But in the years since the flotilla incident, the rise of jihadism in Syria, the eclipse of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and the AKP's recent electoral setbacks have aligned Turkey's interests more closely with those of Israel. Stratfor sources have also suggested that the Turkish military is pushing for normalization in the hope that it could receive military training and aid from Israel — an arrangement that was once robust. With Erdogan and the AKP facing so many challenges at home, revitalizing Turkey's relationship with Israel may be an easy compromise that placates Turkey's many political parties and figures who believe strong ties with Israel to be in Turkey's best interest — especially since Israel is at odds with Iran, Turkey's natural competitor in the Middle East.

At this point, many of the issues that continue to separate Israel and Turkey are more personal than geopolitical. Lieberman's resignation from the Israeli Foreign Ministry may help the reconciliation process, but Netanyahu's pride could continue to stand in the way, as it has in previous attempts to reach a deal. Erdogan, for his part, has consistently made public and inflammatory statements about Israel over the past few years, as has Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu. However, reports suggest Davutoglu's influence may be waning, which could further open the door to a normalization.

Even so, it would be premature to assume that one secret meeting in Rome indicates Israel and Turkey are finally ready to resolve their differences. (As if to underscore this point, a new flotilla will soon depart from Athens in an attempt to break Israel's blockade of Gaza — a stark reminder of the flotilla that derailed Israeli-Turkish relations in the first place.) Though Erdogan's power has been temporarily diminished, any Turkish government formed will likely be short-lived; new elections, if held, could restore at least some of Erdogan's previous authority.

Still, the process of patching up the Israeli-Turkish relationship, however circuitous, continues. This time, though, regional developments are bringing the two countries' interests closer together, which will eventually lead to a formal reconciliation. In the meantime, cooperation between Israel and Turkey will continue, if only behind closed doors.


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69498
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69498
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69498
    • View Profile


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69498
    • View Profile
Re: Israel, and its neighbors
« Reply #2109 on: July 24, 2015, 07:30:08 AM »
Click here to watch: Iran Releases Video Threatening Missile Strike on Israel

A video threatening that the safety of Israel will not be ensured despite the nuclear deal signed between world powers and Tehran last week was released on the official YouTube page of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollal Ali Khamenei this week. The video begins with a clip of US President Barack Obama ensuring that the US "will continue our unprecedented efforts to strengthen Israel's security." A montage of Iranian missiles blasting off follows, accompanied by a voice-over from a speech by Khamenei in which he declares, "Israel's security will not be ensured whether there will be a nuclear agreement or not." The video was released as Iran's leaders try to convince hardliners in the country to accept the concessions it made in the nuclear deal. An Iranian official said Wednesday that Iran will not accept any extension of sanctions beyond 10 years. Abbas Araqchi, one of several deputy foreign ministers, also told a news conference Iran would do "anything" to help allies in the Middle East, underlining Tehran's message that despite the deal Iran will not change its anti-Western foreign policy.

Watch Here

Khamenei, the highest authority in Iran, told supporters on Saturday that US policies in the region were "180 degrees" opposed to Iran's, in a Tehran speech punctuated by chants of "Death to America" and "Death to Israel". Under the accord, Iran will be subjected to long-term curbs on its nuclear work in return for the lifting of US, European Union and UN sanctions. The deal was signed by the United States, Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the EU. The world powers suspected Iran was trying to create a nuclear bomb; Tehran said its program was peaceful. The accord was a major success for both Obama and Iran's pragmatic President Hassan Rouhani. But both leaders have to promote it at home to influential hardliners in countries that have been enemies for decades. Araqchi, Iran's senior nuclear negotiator, told the televised conference that any attempt to re-impose sanctions after they expired in 10 years would breach the deal. He was referring to a resolution endorsing the deal passed by the UN Security Council on Monday. The resolution allows all UN sanctions to be re-imposed if Iran violates the agreement in the next 10 years. If Iran adheres to the terms of the agreement, all the provisions and measures of the UN resolution would end in 10 years.
Source: Jpost

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Israel, and its neighbors
« Reply #2110 on: July 26, 2015, 01:50:29 PM »
Ah, the good old days, when we were told that Iran was a rational actor and Obama had lots of Jews in his administration  so Israel was safe.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69498
    • View Profile
Re: Israel, and its neighbors
« Reply #2111 on: August 03, 2015, 09:00:21 AM »
Occasionally Stratfor slides into glibness in the service of having a narrative that fits in with the Stratfor's Big Narrative about how the world works.  IMHO this piece does just that to some extent, but remains worth the reading nonetheless.



 How the U.S.-Iranian Pact Affects Israel
Analysis
August 3, 2015 | 09:45 GMT
Print
Text Size
Summary

Editor's Note: This is the second installment of an occasional series on the evolving fortunes of the Middle East that Stratfor will be building upon periodically.

The U.S.-Israeli relationship was forged in the crucible of the Cold War, when Israel functioned as a meaningful counterweight to Soviet ambitions in the Middle East. The Iran nuclear deal is not so much an existential threat to Israel as it is a development that burdens it to act and to help shape the region the way the United States desires. Israel may often be forced to the front lines in the coming years, whether as a result of Iran striking via proxies such as Hezbollah or whether by becoming an appealing secondary target for the Islamic State and other jihadist groups. It will also find itself in strange alliances, such as partnering with the Saudis against Iran, with Hamas and Egypt against the Islamic State, and simultaneously with Turkey and various Kurdish factions.

Nevertheless, the U.S.-Israeli relationship will endure. Although this relationship will not be the cushy arrangement it was during U.S. President George W. Bush's administration, Israel will still be important to the U.S. strategy of creating a balance of power in the Middle East.

Analysis

Judging from the openly antagonistic relationship between U.S. President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, it would be easy to assume that the Iranian deal will further fray the ties between Israel and the United States. Indeed, part of Washington's strategy to create a balance of power means forging more pragmatic relationships with regional powers: In this case, countries such as Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. The United States was not going to avoid an agreement with Iran just because Israel said to.


But that does not mean Washington will abandon its relationship with Israel. Israel essentially is an American insurance policy should Iran or Turkey prove able to capitalize too effectively on regional turmoil. Though the United States cannot depend solely on Israel to shape the region to Washington's wishes, Israel still serves a very important role in Washington's overall strategy: A powerful Israel, armed to the teeth by the United States, precludes the possibility of one power dominating the region completely. This means Israel will still enjoy significant American support, but it also means Israel will become a target for would-be regional hegemons.
The Role of Israel's Geography

For any power emanating from the east, whether based in present-day Iraq or Iran, Israel is situated on particularly important strategic territory. The ancient Persian Empire pushed to the eastern Mediterranean precisely because it required an anchor in the Levant to protect against aggressive actions from Mediterranean powers. Without a foothold in the Levant, Iran cannot feel secure.

Even if Iran's Shiite crescent strategy had succeeded in the 2000s, Iran's proxy in the Levant, Hezbollah, would have had to face an aggressive Israel that would not have tolerated such a powerful Iranian-backed force so close to home. The Lebanon conflict of the 1980s was disastrous for Israel, but it also demonstrated that when sufficiently threatened Israel will extend its influence north to the Litani River. A Hezbollah stronghold connected by land all the way to Iran's Zagros Mountains would have forced Israel's hand.

Israel is also important strategic territory for a potential Mediterranean power such as Turkey. The simplest reason is that without controlling the greater Levant, a Mediterranean power leaves itself open to attack from an eastern power such as Iran. Turkey's geographic core is the Sea of Marmara, and its greatest geopolitical advantage is its control of important maritime trade routes in the Mediterranean; an ambitious foreign power with a grip on the Levant could disrupt valuable trade routes or challenge maritime domination of the Mediterranean. Furthermore, if Turkey ever hopes to reclaim even a portion of the power it wielded as the Ottoman Empire, when it controlled both the northern and southern littorals of the Mediterranean, control of Israel is an imperative. Without it, no government in Istanbul can easily project land-based military power into the southern Mediterranean.

An Eventual Call to Action

The Israelis will not necessarily find the Middle East's new diplomatic climate a temperate one. The current front-line battleground in the Middle East is Iraq and Syria. Yemen is the secondary front, but Israel will not be able to stay out of the general fray forever. When the Syrian civil war eventually abates, Israel may find that it is bordered to the north by either an Iranian-backed Alawite state, a Sunni Islamist state with ties to Turkey or Saudi Arabia, or some other as-yet-unimaginable entity. This unknown is nothing short of terrifying for Israel, and it will have to be vigilant against attacks from both conventional forces and militants. Stratfor has written about how the Palestinian question in recent years has been a minor irritant at worst for the Israelis, but the possibility that a foreign power could use the Palestinian issue against Israel cannot be overlooked.

Like other Middle Eastern players, Israel will have to be become significantly more opportunistic. It will be unable to simply build a security fence on all sides of its borders and let the Middle East stew in its own juices. Traces of change in Israel's behavior are already apparent. Stratfor sources indicate that furtive Saudi-Israeli relations have accelerated in recent months and that Riyadh and Israel have working understandings regarding the conflict in Syria. A recent sophisticated attack by the Islamic State's Sinai Peninsula franchise in Egypt has created a shared fear among Egypt, Hamas and Israel, and all three will work to combat the Islamic State's attempt to establish a base of operations in Sinai.

Moreover, talks between important officials in Israel and Turkey were leaked to the media in June. Although formal reconciliation has not occurred yet, Israel will work with Turkey on issues of shared interest, particularly in Syria but also in preventing Iran from becoming too powerful. Also, there are indications that Israeli and the Palestinian National Authority might return to the negotiating table. This runs parallel to Israel's quiet exchanges with Hamas. All the while, Israel will continue to maintain relationships with stateless groups in the region such as the Kurds and the Druze, while forging new alliances and alignments to minimize the fallout from the emerging balance of power.

The relative calm and quiet Israel has experienced in recent decades is not the norm. Israel is not in jeopardy of being overrun by Iran or any other Middle Eastern power for as long as the United States backs it. And while changes in U.S. strategy have downgraded Israeli influence over the strategic decisions Washington makes, Israel remains an integral part of the overall U.S. attempt to create a more stable Middle East. Israel has had years to prepare for this situation. The new strategic environment will force Israel to be much more aggressive in pursuing calculated relationships with old enemies and new friends. Israel is not going anywhere, but that should not obscure the fact that its geopolitical circumstances just became significantly more perilous.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Israel, and its neighbors
« Reply #2112 on: August 03, 2015, 12:32:27 PM »
Dumbest. Stratfor.Article.Ever.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69498
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69498
    • View Profile
Stratfor: The Case against attacking Iran
« Reply #2114 on: August 30, 2015, 04:56:10 PM »


By George Friedman

On Aug. 21, Israeli Channel 2 Television aired a recording of Ehud Barak, Israel's former defense minister and former prime minister, saying that on three separate occasions, Israel had planned to attack Iran's nuclear facilities but canceled the attacks. According to Barak, in 2010 Israel's chief of staff at the time, Gabi Ashkenazi, refused to approve an attack plan. Israeli Cabinet members Moshe Yaalon and Yuval Steinitz backed out of another plan, and in 2012 an attack was canceled because it coincided with planned U.S.-Israeli military exercises and a visit from then-U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta.

The fact that the interview was released at all is odd. Barak claimed to have believed that the tape would not be aired, and he supposedly tried unsuccessfully to stop the broadcast. It would seem that Barak didn't have enough clout to pressure the censor to block it, which I suppose is possible.

Yaalon, like Ashkenazi, was once chief of staff of Israel Defense Forces but was also vice premier and Barak's successor as defense minister. Steinitz had been finance minister and was vocal in his concerns about Iran. What Barak is saying, therefore, is that a chief of staff and a vice premier and former chief of staff blocked the planned attacks. As to the coinciding of a U.S.-Israeli exercise with a planned attack, that is quite puzzling, because such exercises are planned well in advance. Perhaps there was some weakness in Iranian defenses that opened and closed periodically, and that drove the timing of the attack. Or perhaps Barak was just confusing the issue.

A number of points are worth noting: Ehud Barak is not a man to speak casually about highly classified matters, certainly not while being recorded. Moreover, the idea that Barak was unable to persuade the military censor to block the airing of the recording is highly improbable. For some reason, Barak wanted to say this, and he wanted it broadcast.

Part of the reason might have been to explain why Israel, so concerned about Iran, didn't take action against Iran's nuclear facilities. Given the current debate in the U.S. Congress, that is a question that is undoubtedly being asked. The explanation Barak is giving seems to be that senior military and defense officials blocked the plans and that the Israelis didn't want to upset the Americans by attacking during a joint exercise. The problem with this explanation is that it is well known that Israeli military and intelligence officials had argued against an Israeli strike and that the United States would have been upset whether or not joint exercises were occurring.

It would seem, intentionally or unintentionally, that Barak is calling Israeli attention to two facts. The first is that militarily taking out Iranian facilities would be difficult, and the second is that attempting to do so would affect relations with Israel's indispensible ally, the United States. Military leaders' opposition to the strikes had been rumored and hinted at in public statements by retired military and intelligence heads; Barak is confirming that those objections were the decisive reason Israel did not attack. The military was not sure it could succeed.
The Potential for Disastrous Failure

A military operation, like anything else in life, must be judged in two ways. First, what are the consequences of failure? Second, how likely is failure? Take, for example, the failure of the U.S. hostage rescue operation in 1980. Apart from the obvious costs, the failure gave the Iranian government reason to reduce its respect for U.S. power and thus potentially emboldened Iran to take more risks. Even more important, it enhanced the reputation of the Iranian government in the eyes of its people, both demonstrating that the United States threatened Iranian sovereignty and increasing the credibility of the government's ability to defend Iran. Finally, it eroded confidence in U.S. political and military leaders among the U.S. public. In reducing the threat and the perception of threat, the failure of the operation gave the Iranian regime more room to maneuver.

For the Israelis, the price of failure in an attack on Iranian nuclear sites would have been substantial. One of Israel's major strategic political assets is the public's belief in its military competence. Forged during the 1967 war, the IDF's public image has survived a number of stalemates and setbacks. A failure in Iran would damage that image even if, in reality, the military's strength remained intact. Far more important, it would, as the failed U.S. operation did in 1980, enhance Iran's position. Given the nature of the targets, any attack would likely require a special operations component along with airstrikes, and any casualties, downed pilots or commandos taken prisoner would create an impression of Israeli weakness contrasting with Iranian strength. That perception would be an immeasurable advantage for Iran in its efforts to accrue power in the region. Thus for Israel, the cost of failure would be extreme.

This must be measured against the possibility of success. In war, as in everything, the most obvious successes can evolve into failure. There were several potential points for failure in an attack on Iran. How confident were the Israelis that their intelligence on locations, fortifications and defenses were accurate? How confident were they that they could destroy the right targets? More important, perhaps, how certain could they be that the strikes had destroyed the targets? Finally, and most important, did they know what Iran's recuperative capabilities were? How quickly could the Iranians restore their program? Frequently, an operationally successful assault does not deal with the strategic problem. The goal of an attack was to make Iran incapable of building a nuclear weapon; would destroying all known targets achieve that strategic goal?

One of the things to bear in mind is that the Iranians were as obsessed with Israeli and U.S. intelligence efforts as the Israelis and Americans were obsessed with the Iranian programs. Iran's facilities were built to be protected from attack. The Iranians were also sophisticated in deception; knowing that they were being watched, they made efforts to confuse and mislead their observers. The Israelis could never be certain that they were not deceived by every supposedly reliable source, every satellite image and every intercepted phone call. Even if only one or two sources of information were actually misleading, which sources were they?

A failed Israeli assault on Iran would cause a major readjustment among other regional players in the way they perceive Israel and Iran. And for Israel, the perception of its military effectiveness is a strategic asset. There was a high risk of damaging that strategic asset in a failed operation, coupled with a strong chance that Israeli actions could unintentionally bolster Iran's power in the region. The likelihood of success was thrown into question by Israel's dependence on intelligence. In war, intelligence failure is a given. The issue is how great the failure will be — and there is no way to know until after the strike. Furthermore, operational success may not yield strategic success. Therefore, the ratio of potential risk versus reward argued against an attack.
Considering Iran's Capabilities

There is another side to this equation: What exactly were the Iranians capable of? As I have argued before, enriched uranium is a necessary but insufficient component for a nuclear weapon. It is enough to create a device that can be detonated underground in controlled conditions. But the development of a weapon, as opposed to a device, requires extensive technology in miniaturization and ruggedization to ensure the weapon reaches its target. Those who fixated on progress in uranium enrichment failed to consider the other technologies necessary to create nuclear weaponry. Some, including myself, argued that the constant delays in completing a weapon were rooted both in the lack of critical technologies and in Iranian concerns about the consequence of failure.

Then there is the question of timing. A nuclear weapon would be most vulnerable at the moment it was completed and mounted on its delivery system. At that point, it would no longer be underground, and the Israelis would have an opportunity to strike when Iranians were in the process of marrying the weapon to the delivery device. Israel, and to an even greater extent the United States, has reconnaissance capabilities. The Iranians know that the final phase of weapon development is when they most risk detection and attack. The Israelis may have felt that, as risky as a future operation may seem, it was far less likely to fail than a premature attack.
Barak's Motivations

Whether intentionally or not (and I suspect intentionally) Barak was calling attention, not to prior plans for an attack on Iran, but to the decision to abandon those plans. He pointed out that an Israeli chief of staff blocked one plan, a former chief of staff blocked a second plan and concern for U.S. sensibilities blocked a third. To put it in different terms, the Israelis considered and abandoned attacks on Iran on several occasions, when senior commanders or Cabinet members with significant military experience refused to approve the plan. Unmentioned was that neither the prime minister nor the Cabinet overruled them. Their judgment — and the judgment of many others — was that an attack shouldn't be executed, at least not at that time.

Barak's statement can be read as an argument for sanctions. If the generals have insufficient confidence in an attack, or if an attack can be permanently canceled because of an exercise with the Americans, then the only option is to increase sanctions. But Barak also knows that pain will not always bring capitulation. Sanctions might be politically satisfying to countries unable to achieve their ends through military action or covert means. As Barak undoubtedly knows, imposing further restrictions on Iran's economy makes everyone feel something useful is being done. But sanctions, like military action, can produce unwelcome results. Measures far more painful than economic sanctions still failed to force capitulation in the United Kingdom or Germany, and did so in Japan only after atomic weapons were used. The bombing of North Vietnam did not cause capitulation. Sanctions on South Africa did work, but that was a deeply split nation with a majority in favor of the economic measures. Sanctions have not prompted Russia to change its policy. Imposing pain frequently unites a country and empowers the government. Moreover, unless sanctions rapidly lead to a collapse, they would not give Iran any motivation not to complete a nuclear weapon.

I don't think Barak was making the case for sanctions. What he was saying is that every time the Israelis thought of military action against Iran, they decided not to do it. And he wasn't really saying that the generals, ministers or the Americans blocked it. In actuality, he was saying that ultimately, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu blocked it, because in the end, Netanyahu was in a position to force the issue if he wanted to. Barak was saying that Israel did not have a military option. He was not attacking Netanyahu for this decision; he was simply making it known.

It's unlikely that Barak believes sanctions will compel Iran to abandon its nuclear program, any more the current agreement does. My guess is that for him, both are irrelevant. Either the Iranians do not have the ability or desire to build a bomb, or there will come a point when they can no longer hide the program — and that is the point when they will be most vulnerable to attack. It is at that moment, when the Iranians are seen arming a delivery system, that an Israeli or U.S. submarine will fire a missile and end the issue.

If Barak didn't want a strike on Iran, if Netanyahu didn't want a strike and if Barak has no confidence in agreements or sanctions, then Barak must have something in mind for dealing with an Iranian nuclear weapon — if it ever does appear. Barak is an old soldier who knows how to refrain from firing until he is most certain of success, even if the delay makes everyone else nervous. He is not a believer in diplomatic solutions, gestures to indirectly inflict pain or operations destined for failure. At any rate, he has revealed that Israel did not have an effective military option to hamper Iran's nuclear program. And I find it impossible to believe he would rely on sanctions or diplomacy. Rather, he would wait to strike until Iran had committed to arming a delivery system, leaving itself wide open to attack — a nerve-racking solution, but one with the best chance of success. 

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18556
    • View Profile
Re: Israel, and its neighbors
« Reply #2115 on: August 31, 2015, 06:32:04 AM »
"And I find it impossible to believe he would rely on sanctions or diplomacy. Rather, he would wait to strike until Iran had committed to arming a delivery system, leaving itself wide open to attack — a nerve-racking solution, but one with the best chance of success."

I don't follow this reasoning.  How in the world is it that waiting for Iran to commit to arming a delivery system increases the chance for success? (of a military strike)

 

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69498
    • View Profile
Re: Israel, and its neighbors
« Reply #2116 on: August 31, 2015, 09:07:15 AM »
I guess the argument is that by acting before then the blow back would be more than Israel could handle.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18556
    • View Profile
Re: Israel, and its neighbors
« Reply #2117 on: August 31, 2015, 09:21:05 AM »
Aren't they [Iran] working on long range delivery systems?

missles

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69498
    • View Profile
Re: Israel, and its neighbors
« Reply #2118 on: August 31, 2015, 01:31:15 PM »
Some of Iran's missiles already reach eastern Europe and they have plenty that reach Israel.  Also very much worth noting is the over 100,000 rockets Iran has placed with Hezbollah.   Russia looks to be going forward with selling the advanced anti-aircraft system to Iran, and Baraq-Kerry's deal allows Iran to buy missiles and rockets on the open market.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69498
    • View Profile
Stratfor: Israel and Turkey reconnecting?
« Reply #2119 on: September 03, 2015, 10:12:36 AM »
 Turkey, Israel: A Slow, Steady Strengthening of Ties
Geopolitical Diary
September 3, 2015 | 01:01 GMT
Text Size
Print

On June 26, Stratfor published an article predicting that regional developments were bringing Israeli and Turkish interests into greater alignment. The leading indicator behind that forecast was a secret meeting between the director general of the Israeli Foreign Ministry, Dore Gold, and the undersecretary in the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Feridun Sinirlioglu. In the past week, additional signs have indicated that the rapprochement is continuing apace.

It has long been thought that Turkey and Israel could cooperate in the energy sector. Though Israel's efforts to develop the relatively large Leviathan natural gas field have stalled as a result of domestic politics, and despite the Aug. 30 announcement of the discovery of a natural gas field even larger than Leviathan in Egyptian waters, both sides still have a great deal of political will to eventually export Israeli natural gas to Turkey. Multiple Turkish natural gas company executives, such as Nusret Comert and Batu Aksoy, have said in interviews recently that Turkey remains interested in developing and importing Israeli natural gas. Turkey wants to be the chief transit state to Europe for Eastern Mediterranean natural gas, and as a result of its fear of being excluded by Israeli, Egyptian and Cypriot understandings, it is eager to work with Israel.

What is a Geopolitical Diary?

For its part, Israel wants to use economic connections to repair and maintain strategic relationships in the region; its intention was to use Leviathan to do so with Jordan and Egypt. However, Egypt's natural gas discovery may actually prompt Israel to take a closer look at Turkey, assuming the Israeli parliament can agree on what to do with Leviathan's natural gas.

It also has become clear that there is an understanding between Feridun Sinirlioglu, who has been appointed foreign minister, and Gold. On his appointment, Gold sent a letter of congratulations to Sinirlioglu, and speaking to reporters in Jerusalem on Sept. 1, Gold extolled Sinirlioglu's personal qualities, calling him a "first-class diplomat" and saying Turkey was lucky to have him.

Most interesting, however, is the arrival of a Turkish business delegation in the Palestinian territories and Israel. The delegation, led by Prof. Guven Sak, the managing director of The Economic Policy Research Foundation in Turkey, is the first Turkish delegation to visit Israel since the Mavi Marmara debacle five years ago. The delegation visited Gaza on Aug. 30 and spoke of the potential for establishing an industrial zone in the Gaza Strip. The delegation met with Deputy Leader of Hamas and former Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh to discuss developing Gaza's economy. The delegation also met with Palestinian Labor Minister Mamoun Abu Shahla, who said after his meeting that Turkey had donated 20 million euros (about $22.5 million) to the Palestinian working fund.

The following day, the delegation headed to Israel, where it met with Israeli Deputy Minister of Regional Cooperation Ayoub Kara. Reportedly, Sak and his fellow Turkish business leaders are interested in developing an industrial zone in the West Bank as well, near the city of Jenin. According to Daily Sabah, the Turkish delegation communicated a desire to invest $100 million into the potential industrial zone. Palestinians have already purchased the 1,300 acres for the initialization of the project at a cost of $10 million, and the project has the support of Israel, the United States and the European Union. Kara highlighted the project's potential to help in rebuilding the fractured relationship between Ankara and Jerusalem.

The development of industrial zones in the Palestinian territories is not new. In 1974, Israel built the Erez industrial zone in the Gaza Strip. Before it fell into disuse after Israeli disengagement from the Gaza Strip in 2005, the zone held more than 180 different businesses that employed about 5,000 Gazans. The decision to have Israeli businesses withdraw from the Erez zone was announced in June 2004 by then-Israeli Minister of Industry and Trade and Deputy Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who would go on to serve as prime minister.

Ever since Israel withdrew from the industrial zone, Turkey has sought to resuscitate the project. At the time, Turkey was seeking to burnish its regional leadership credentials by owning the Gaza issue and being concerned for Gaza's plight. Then-Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul traveled to Israel and the Palestinian territories in January 2006, at the time hoping to sign agreements that would lead to the creation of 10,000 jobs for Palestinians. In 2007, reports surfaced about then-head of Turkish Chambers of Commerce and Bourses Rifat Hisarciklioglu meeting with then-Israeli Vice Premier Shimon Peres and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in January 2007 to discuss reviving the Erez industrial zone.

Despite these commitments, the restoration of Erez by Turkish-Israeli-Palestinian partnership was never realized. Talk of developing a new industrial zone outside of Jenin in the West Bank, which the visiting Turkish delegation seems to be most serious about, or of recovering Erez must then be taken with a grain of salt when evaluating whether the project itself will come to fruition. That multiple stakeholders are on board for the creation of the zone outside Jenin is a start, but many hurdles remain.

Still, there is a sense of deja vu surrounding these proceedings. Many of the same players who previously tried to rebuild Erez or use the industrial zone model are still around; Sak, though not leading delegations back in 2006, has always been a vocal supporter of such plans. It also harkens back to a time before the Mavi Marmara incident, when relations between Turkey and Israel were strong. Trade has continued between the two countries. Defense exports resumed as early as 2013, in part because of U.S. pressure, and the business and security establishments in both countries have continued to cooperate as much as possible while lamenting the current frayed state of national ties.

Where once Turkey's interests were in distancing itself from Israel, the countries' interests are now converging. Israel is upset with the United States about the Iran deal, and Turkey, while it is more welcoming of Iran than Israel is, still views Iran as a competitor. Furthermore, U.S. pressure on Turkey to participate in its campaign against the Islamic State has increased, as has U.S. frustration with Turkey's using the pretense of attacking the Islamic State to strike at its Kurdish problem in the southeast and its rather blunt hostility toward one of Washington's best allies against the Islamic State thus far: Syrian Kurds. The United States often has urged Turkey and Israel to make up, and reconciling means scoring an easy victory with Washington while making public cooperation that has never truly stopped behind the scenes. Turkey wants the removal of Bashar al Assad from Damascus; Israel at this point just wants an assurance that stability will reign on its northern border. Moreover, developing an understanding with Turkey as it asserts itself more in Syria will become important for an Israeli government that has become more wary of activities in Syria and on its northern border in general in recent weeks.

Turkey's and Israel's broader strategic interests are continuing to align, and smaller indicators — such as the Turkish delegation's visit concerning industrial zones, a degree of cordiality between Turkish and Israeli diplomatic officials absent in recent years and statements from business elites — all point to the relationship's continuing regeneration. Gold has been hesitant to declare an open reconciliation yet, and such a prediction would be premature, but that is ultimately less important than the reality that the two countries' underlying partnership appears to be strengthening.

objectivist1

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1048
    • View Profile
Caroline Glick: The Upside of Obama's Nuke Deal...
« Reply #2120 on: September 04, 2015, 10:43:26 AM »
As usual, some insightful analysis by Caroline Glick:

A GLORIOUS DEFEAT

The upside of the Iran nuke deal.

September 4, 2015  Caroline Glick   

Originally published by the Jerusalem Post.


Sometimes you have to fight battles you cannot win because fighting – regardless of the outcome – advances a larger cause.

Israel’s fight against the nuclear deal the major powers, led by US President Barack Obama concluded with Iran was such a battle.

The battle’s futility became clear on July 20, just six days after it was concluded in Vienna.

On July 20, the US administration anchored the deal – which paves the way for Iran to become a nuclear power and enriches the terrorism-sponsoring ayatollahs to the tune of $150 billion – in a binding UN Security Council resolution. Once the resolution passed, the deal became unstoppable.

Most of the frozen funds that comprise the $150b. would have been released regardless of congressional action. And the nonproliferation regime the US developed over the past 70 years was upended the moment the deal was concluded in Vienna.

The fight in Congress itself probably couldn’t have succeeded even if the administration hadn’t made an end run around the lawmakers at the Security Council.

After Sen. Bob Corker, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, passed the law obligating Obama to secure the support of a mere third of the members of either House to implement his nuclear deal, its implementation was a foregone conclusion. The US Constitution gives sole power to approve international treaties to the Senate and requires a minimum of two-thirds approval for passage. Corker turned the Constitution on its head when he went forward with his bill. Far from curbing Obama’s executive overreach, Corker gave Obama unprecedented power to enact his radical, reckless nuclear agenda.

So if the fight against the deal was doomed to fail, why did the Israeli government decide to fight it for all it was worth? And why is Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu still fighting it even though there is no longer any way to stop Obama from enabling Iran to sprint across the nuclear finish line? By fighting Obama’s nuclear deal, Israel seeks to advance two larger efforts. First, it uses the battle to expand its capacity to act without the US to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Second, it is shaping its relations with the US both for the duration of Obama’s presidency and for the day after he leaves office.

As far as Iran’s nuclear program is concerned, Obama’s deal has not impacted Israel’s options for preventing the mullahs from getting the bomb.

Even before the US betrayed Israel, its Arab allies and its own national security interests and closed a deal that will transform Iran into a nuclear power and a regional hegemon, there was no chance that the Americans would take action to prevent Iran from developing atomic warheads.

That prospect was taken off the table in November 2007. The National Intelligence Estimate on Iran’s nuclear program published that month falsely – and scandalously – asserted that Tehran abandoned its nuclear weapons program at the end of 2003.

The NIE was a bureaucratic coup. CIA analysts, notorious since the 1970s for their biased and politicized analyses, used the falsified NIE to block then-president George W. Bush from dealing with Iran. After losing the public’s support for the war in Iraq, and after failing to find Saddam’s WMD (which magically fell into the hands of Islamic State 11 years after the US invasion), Bush was powerless to oppose an official assessment of the intelligence community that claimed Iran was not a nuclear proliferator.

As for Obama, in early 2008, even before he secured the Democratic presidential nomination, he announced that he wanted to negotiate with then-Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

At no time since was there any evidence supporting the notion that Obama would lift a finger to prevent Iran from going nuclear.

In other words, for the past eight years it has been apparent to everyone willing to see that Israel has but option for preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

By fighting so strenuously against Obama’s nuclear deal, Israel improved its ability to carry out a military strike against Iran’s nuclear installations in two ways.

First, it removed the most serious domestic obstacle to carrying out such a strike.

Last week’s publication of audio recordings of former defense minister Ehud Barak discussing of Iran’s nuclear program revealed that for the past several years, Israel’s military and intelligence brass have blocked operations against Iran’s nuclear installations three times. In 2010, 2011 and 2012 the IDF chief of General Staff and senior generals supported by hesitant cabinet members refused to carry out instructions they received from Netanyahu and Barak to prepare to carry out such a strike.

There is no doubt that one of the main reasons they opposed lawful instructions was their faith in Obama’s security pledges.

For their part, the Americans did their best to subvert the authority of Israel’s elected leadership.

Over the past seven years Washington has sent a steady stream of senior officials to “oversee joint Israeli-American efforts” regarding Iran. It is now obvious that this “unprecedented cooperation” was never aimed at strengthening Israel against Iran. Rather, its aim has been to erode the government’s power to make independent decisions regarding Iran’s nuclear installations.

Had Netanyahu kept his criticism of Obama’s decision to give Iran a free hand to develop nuclear weapons quiet, the generals might have shrugged their shoulders and expressed gratitude for the shiny new weapons Obama will throw at them to “compensate” for giving nukes to a regime sworn to annihilate the country.

By making his opposition public, Netanyahu alerted the nation to the dangers. The top commanders can no longer pretend that US security guarantees are credible. Now they will be forced to kick their psychological addiction to worthless American security guarantees, accept reality and act accordingly.

Better eight years late than never.

The Americans weren’t the only ones paying attention to Israel’s fight. Israel’s Arab neighbors also saw how Netanyahu and Ambassador to the US Ron Dermer left no stone unturned in their efforts to convince Democratic lawmakers to oppose it. And the regional implications are already becoming clear.

As the Saudis’ willingness to stand with Israel in public to oppose this deal has shown, our neighbors have been deeply impressed by the diplomatic courage Israel has shown. If and when Israel strikes Iran’s nuclear installations, our willingness to openly oppose the administration will weigh in our favor. It will impact our neighbors’ willingness to cooperate in action aimed at removing Iran’s nuclear sword from their necks and ours.

By fighting the deal, Israel has also worked to shape our relations with the US in a favorable way both in the short and long term.

Obama has another year and four months in office. (503 days, but who’s counting?) Even before the fight over his nuclear deal began in earnest, Obama made clear that he intends to use his remaining time in office to undermine the US-Israel alliance and to weaken Israel internationally.

In the first instance, his Democratic and progressive surrogates’ anti-Semitic assaults against New York Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer, and the Justice Department’s coincidental indictment of pro-Israel New Jersey Democratic Sen. Robert Menendez communicated a clear message to Democratic lawmakers: Any Democrat who supports Israel against Obama will be targeted.

By acting in this way, Obama has communicated the clear goal of transforming support for Israel into the foreign policy equivalent of opposing abortion: a Republicans-only position.

Internationally, there can be little doubt that until Obama leaves office, he will seek to harm Israel and the UN. He may as well seek to harm our economy by quietly instituting administrative trade barriers with the US and Europe.

Israel’s fight against Obama’s nuclear deal has diminished Obama’s ability to use his full power to harm it while preparing the ground for relations to be repaired under his successor.

Until Netanyahu spoke before the joint houses of Congress in March, Obama’s nuclear deal was largely outside the American discourse. The fierce public debate began only after Netanyahu’s address. True, on Wednesday Obama got the support of his 34th Democratic senator and so blocked Israel’s efforts to convince Congress to vote down the deal. But his victory will be Pyrrhic.

Obama’s success will backfire first and foremost because thanks to Netanyahu’s move to spearhead the public debate in the US, today two-thirds of Americans oppose the deal. Since Iran will waste no time proving just how devastating a mistake Obama and his fellow Democrats have just made, Obama’s success makes him far less free to enact further steps against Israel than he was before the deal was concluded. The public no longer will give him the benefit of the doubt.

Moreover, since the deal is as bad as its opponents say it is, and given that most Americans oppose it, Obama’s successor will face no impediments in canceling the deal and adopting a new policy towards Israel and Iran.

Then there are Obama’s Democratic followers in Congress.

Today some commentators argue that Obama’s victory over opponents of his nuclear deal – first and foremost AIPAC – spells the demise of the pro-Israel lobby in the US.

Thankfully, they are mistaken.

Just as it failed to prevent then-president Ronald Reagan from selling AWACs to Saudi Arabia in 1981, so AIPAC had no chance of preventing Obama from moving ahead with his Iran deal.

AIPAC has never had the power to defeat a president intent on advancing an anti-Israel policy.

We will only be able to measure AIPAC’s power after the 2016 elections.

Given that the nuclear pact will fail, there will be plenty of Democrats challengers who will be eager to use their Democratic incumbent opponents’ support for Obama’s nuclear madness against them. AIPAC’s public fight against the deal has set the conditions for it to extract a political price from its supporters who preferred Obama to US national security.

If AIPAC extracts a price from key Democratic lawmakers who played crucial roles in approving the nuclear deal with Iran, it will prevent Obama from turning support for Israel into a partisan issue and emerge strengthened from the fight.

On Wednesday, after Maryland’s Sen. Barbara Mikulski became the 34th senator to support Obama’s nuclear deal, PBS’s senior anchorwoman Gwen Ifill tweeted, “Take that, Bibi.”

Obama’s win is Bibi’s loss. Bibi failed to convince 12 Democratic senators and 44 Democratic congressmen to vote against the head of their party. But by fighting against this deal, Netanyahu removed the main obstacle that kept Israel from taking action that will prevent Iran from going nuclear. He reduced Obama’s power to harm Israel.

The fight strengthened American and American- Jewish opposition to the nuclear deal, paving the way for a Democratic renewal after Obama leaves office. And finally, Israel’s public battle against Obama’s deal paved the way its abrogation by his successor.

All in all, a rather glorious defeat.

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69498
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69498
    • View Profile
Re: Israel, and its neighbors
« Reply #2122 on: September 05, 2015, 11:48:33 AM »
Click here to watch: Islamic State's Sinai Branch Releases Video Showing Advanced Missiles

A new video produced by ISIS’s Wilayat Sinai branch in the Sinai Peninsula released on Wednesday reveals that the group has new sophisticated weaponry, which it hopes to use to launch a war against Israel. The new 37-minute video, produced in ISIS’s well-known sleek style, opens by criticizing Egypt’s “apostate” relationship with the State of Israel over a clip from the Camp David Peace Accords in 1978. Calling Sinai the “southern gates to Jerusalem,” and “an opening to fight a war against the Jews,” the video also includes clips of the Temple Mount, former Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak shaking hands with former Israeli president Shimon Peres, as well as talking with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and even includes animation from Israel’s Channel 10 showing a terrorist attack on an Israeli bus in 2011 on its way to Eilat. In the video, Wilayat Sinai, then known as Ansar Bait al-Maqdis [Supporters of Jerusalem], boasted its responsibility for the 2011 attack, as well as various rocket attacks, which they claim were revenge for Israel’s actions in Gaza. Additionally, the group quotes Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the former leader of al-Qaida in Iraq, saying that “the Jews and the ‘Crusaders’ [Christians] will taste what they tasted in the Battle of Khaybar,” referring to the battle in which the prophet Muhammad’s army slaughtered a tribe of Jews north of Medina. Sinai is referred to in the video as being part of the historical “Land of Canaan” and therefore part of the “holy land of Palestine.” Michael Horowitz, a security analyst and member of the Levantine Group, told The Jerusalem Post that Wilayat Sinai often depicts the Egyptian Army as collaborating with Israel, noting that the group often refers to the Egyptian military as the “Camp David Army.”

Watch Here

Though the video can be seen as a threat to Israel, Horowitz believes that despite Israeli concerns of threats from the terrorist group, the video’s anti-Israel rhetoric is mostly aimed at delegitimizing the Egyptian military. By depicting the Egyptian military as Israel’s watchdogs, its rhetoric is actually meant to justify the opposite, and legitimize the fact that the group is fighting the Egyptian army rather than Israel. Following the threats to Israel, the video shows clips of deposed Egyptian president Mohamed Morsi, while accusing the Egyptian government of creating “a democracy of infidels,” including fake Salafists and the “bankrupt” Muslim Brotherhood. The video mostly focuses on Wilayat Sinai’s attacks on Egyptian military and civilian targets over the past year, showing clips of the group’s ever increasing strength. These include a bomb attack on the police station in the town of Sheikh Zuweid, as well as the use of the latest generation of Russian Kornet anti-tank missiles against tanks, APCs, and on one occasion, an Egyptian navy ship in the Mediterranean on July 19. According to Horowitz, “The most significant and new element that this video seems to depict is the group’s usage of advanced missiles. Most notably the video shows that the group used an anti-aircraft missile, likely an SA-18 Igla, which is concerning, in light of the Egyptian military’s reliance on air power.”
Source: Jpost

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69498
    • View Profile
Israel big loser in Russia's new dominance
« Reply #2123 on: September 26, 2015, 04:15:11 PM »
Click here to watch: Israel is the biggest loser in Russia’s Syria build-up

By deploying troops, aircraft and weapons to Syria, Russia has over the past fortnight surprised the US, outmaneuvered regional players such as Turkey, and positioned itself as a decisive player in any postwar regional order.

However, Israel, the pre-eminent military power in the Levant, has arguably emerged as the biggest loser from the Kremlin’s Syrian gambit.

Watch Here

By stationing about 2,000 troops and setting up what analysts say could become three bases around Latakia, Moscow has bolstered the flagging regime of Bashar al-Assad, whose main allies in the four-year-old war are Israel’s leading regional enemies: Iran and the militant group Hizbollah.

Israeli planes and artillery have struck inside Syria several times since 2013 to prevent the transfer of weapons to the militant group, and Israel accuses the Assad government of working with Iran to open a front against it in the Syrian Golan. Now it must co-ordinate any potential strikes with Moscow.

Russia’s move also comes amid Israeli government unease over a US-led nuclear agreement with Iran, which Israel contends is open to violation and will enhance Tehran’s ability to finance future regional military adventures.

Benjamin Netanyahu, the prime minister, has put the best possible face on what some analysts are calling the “game-changing” move by Russia. Emerging from hastily arranged talks with Russia’s president Vladimir Putin on Monday, Mr Netanyahu said that Israel and Russia had agreed a joint co-ordination mechanism to “prevent misunderstandings” — code for clashes or dogfights over Syria.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Israel, and its neighbors
« Reply #2124 on: September 26, 2015, 06:03:43 PM »
Almost like Putin has more flexibility in Obama's second term. Where would he have gotten that idea?

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69498
    • View Profile

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
No worries, Obama has Israel's back
« Reply #2126 on: October 02, 2015, 01:24:47 AM »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18556
    • View Profile
Re: Israel, and its neighbors
« Reply #2127 on: October 02, 2015, 07:40:33 AM »
GM,

Great post.    :-D

Could go under (dark) humor too.


objectivist1

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1048
    • View Profile
Israeli Disgraces Dead Terrorist with Pork...
« Reply #2128 on: October 14, 2015, 08:55:02 AM »
ISRAELI PUTS PORK ON DEAD TERRORIST'S BODY, DENYING HIM HIS VIRGINS

If burial in pigskin will deter suicide bombers, then it is incumbent on us to do this. "

October 13, 2015  Daniel Greenfield



Muslims murder non-Muslims confident that if they die, they'll get access to "paradise" and 72 virgins to rape in the hereafter. Muslim clerics make even more extravagant promises, claiming that dead killers will receive all sorts of added benefits. Muslims who have killed (other Muslims) or committed adultery will still get an express ticket to paradise if they die while killing non-Muslims.

As long as he doesn't come into contact with a pig.

There's a long history of people fighting Muslim Jihadis by wrapping their Jihadis in pigskin or shooting them with lard bullets. US soldiers did it not all that long ago in the Philippines. While the belief that pork on a corpse can stop someone from going to heaven is nonsense... so is the underlying belief that killing non-Muslims atones for all sins. And if it deters Muslims, it's a plus. And if it doesn't, it still shows them that people aren't as helpless in the face of their racist violence as their governments often appear to be.

This latest video takes place in Israel where, after a series of bloody terrorist attacks, a dead terrorist had pork dumped on his face by a local.

Kiryat Arba resident has lit the internet on fire over the weekend, after footage surfaced of him placing what he says is a piece of pork on the body of a dead terrorist killed by Israel Police during an attack on Israeli civiilians Friday.

In the video, Magen David Adom (MDA) medics can be seen performing resuscitation on the terrorist. In the interim, the resident succeeds in getting close to the body and placing the piece of meat upon it, sarcastically telling the terrorist to "enjoy" it.

Even the acting mayor of Kiryat Arba, Yisrael Bramson, backed the radical act.

"I was there when it happened," he said. "I think this is a very basic and legitimate response."

"I do not condemn what happened," he added. "They do not need to get their bodies back, you have to throw them into the sea at best."

"The terrorist came to slaughter the Jews and we had to treat him like he meant to treat us."

Bramson added. "The day before I was in the area and saw the intestines of the Jewish boy in a tent of Hazon David, I prefer this to that."

This had been previously done a decade ago.

Residents at Gush Katif, in the Gaza Strip, were the first to claim to have defiled the body of a dead Palestinian with "pigskin and lard". Residents of Efrat, a Jewish settlement near Bethlehem, said they did the same to a Palestinian building worker who tried to blow up their supermarket on Friday, but was shot dead before most of the explosives detonated.

Shlomo Riskin, chief rabbi of Efrat, defended the practice: "If burial in pigskin will deter suicide bombers, then it is incumbent on us to do this. We should do anything to save life."

Indeed. Here's a clip from a movie about the US fight against the Moro Jihadists in the Philippines and the effect of pigskin on morale.
"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69498
    • View Profile


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18302
    • View Profile
Re: I wasn't expecting this , , ,
« Reply #2131 on: October 15, 2015, 06:54:11 AM »
https://www.facebook.com/StandWithUs/videos/10153091183917689/

That wasn't my experience with Muslims from Morocco in Europe.   (mugged in Amsterdam, 1991)

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: I wasn't expecting this , , ,
« Reply #2132 on: October 15, 2015, 07:00:09 AM »

objectivist1

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1048
    • View Profile
Re: I wasn't expecting this...
« Reply #2133 on: October 15, 2015, 07:39:51 AM »
Crafty - here is what is VERY important to understand:

While there are no doubt some Muslims who sincerely believe what this woman is expressing, her sentiments are directly in conflict with Islamic teaching and law.  If she were living in any other country than Israel, she would face death for such comments.  Secondly, I am not convinced, nor should anyone necessarily be - that she is sincere.  Taqiyya - "deception" is an integral, accepted concept of Islam.  It holds that it is not only permissible, but a duty for Muslims to lie to unbelievers to accomplish infiltration and subterfuge.  It is vitally important that one NOT be easily fooled by this tactic.

I repeat - EVERY school of Islamic jurisprudence holds that Jews are subhuman descendants of apes and pigs, and Christians are not much better.  Both deserve death if they refuse to convert to Islam.  This is simply a fact - any Muslims who deviate from this face the death penalty in Islamic countries.  Those who dare to express opinions such as this woman are a very tiny minority of the total Muslim population, and there is NO organized program in any mosque to teach these values that she expresses.  Islam is most definitely NOT a religion of peace.  It is a totalitarian political/ideological system with a god grafted onto it to lend it an air of legitimacy.  It differs from every other religion on the planet in this regard.
"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Almost like the president hates Israel...
« Reply #2134 on: October 15, 2015, 03:50:57 PM »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69498
    • View Profile
Abbas welcomes Israeli blood
« Reply #2135 on: October 20, 2015, 01:13:18 PM »

By Tzipi Hotovely
Oct. 18, 2015 7:10 p.m. ET
1017 COMMENTS

The latest surge of Palestinian terror attacks against Israelis has come in the immediate wake of explicit calls by the Palestinian leadership to “spill blood.” This well-orchestrated campaign of violence follows many years in which Palestinian children have been taught to idolize the murder of Jews as a sacred value and to regard their own death in this “jihad” as the pinnacle of their aspirations.

Such violence has deep roots. It goes back to the rampages at the behest of Haj Amin al-Husseini, a Muslim activist and at one point grand mufti of Jerusalem, in the 1920s, ’30s and ’40s. It continued with the fedayeen Palestinian militants in the 1950s and ’60s, and evolved into the terrorism of the Palestine Liberation Organization and Fatah under Yasser Arafat and now Mahmoud Abbas. Anyone who claims that Palestinian terror against Jews dates only to 1967, or is a response to Israeli settlements, should become more informed of the conflict’s history.

Yet the apathy shown by the international community to the death-culture fostered by Palestinian elites, and the unbalanced manner in which subsequent violence is often treated by the international media—as if there is any kind of symmetry between terrorists and their victims—is doing long-term, and possibly irrevocable, harm to generations of Palestinians.

A few recent examples underscore the depth of the problem.

Mr. Abbas, the Palestinian Authority president, said the following on Palestinian television on Sept. 16: “We welcome every drop of blood spilled in Jerusalem. This is pure blood, clean blood, blood on its way to Allah. With the help of Allah, every martyr will be in heaven, and every wounded will get his reward.”
Opinion Journal Video
Touro Institute Professor Anne Bayefsky on the Obama administration’s rhetoric on Palestinian terrorism at the United Nations. Photo credit: Getty Images.

Two weeks later, on Oct. 1, Palestinian terrorists murdered an Israeli couple, Eitam and Naama Henkin, in cold blood in front of their four children, who ranged from 9 years old to 4 months.

Days later, with the Henkin children still in mourning, PLO official Mahmoud Ismail went on official Palestinian television, PBC, and proclaimed their parents’ murder to be a fulfillment of Palestinian “national duty.” He was one of several Palestinian officials who condoned the murder.

Such statements strike a resonant chord among generations of Palestinian children who have been taught that Jews are the descendants of “barbaric monkeys” and “wretched pigs” (a phrase from a poem repeatedly recited on PBC television, to the applause of children.) They have been taught that “armed conflict” (a common Palestinian euphemism for the murder of Jews) against “the so-called State of Israel” is both a religious duty and an act purportedly legitimized by the United Nations—a falsehood repeated in a number of 12th-grade Palestinian textbooks.

The Palestinian Authority also pays handsome stipends to terrorists and their families, which serve as a powerful incentive to carry out acts of terror.

Is it surprising, then, that Mr. Abbas’s explicit call for “blood on its way to Allah” has resulted in a surge of stabbings and other attacks against Israelis? Is it any wonder that viewers of official television recently were treated to the sight of a Palestinian boy, dressed up in battle fatigues, telling a smiling talk-show host of his wish to become an engineer “so that I can build bombs to blow up all the Jews.”

The unending stream of blood-drenched caricatures and video clips that circulate virally through Palestinian social media is a telling indication of how profoundly the worship of violence is entrenched in Palestinian society. So are the many schools, city squares and sports tournaments named for arch-terrorists.

The cultivation of this culture of death is having devastating effects. As Palestinian terror touches more Jewish families, Israelis, especially of the younger generation, are increasingly resigning themselves to the fact that Palestinian society is guided by a dramatically different set of values.

Israeli society and Jewish tradition sanctify life. Palestinian society glorifies death. Israeli children grow up on songs of peace and the biblical vision of “nation shall not lift up sword against nation.” Palestinian children are taught to hate.

Yet there is no international outcry. No indignation at the exploitation of Palestinian children from all the nongovernmental organizations and U.N. agencies that profess to monitor human-rights abuses.

This is tragic because the international community could make a practical difference. About a third of the Palestinian Authority’s budget is financed by foreign aid. This money is intended to develop Palestinian infrastructure and foster economic growth, but it is being misused by the Palestinian Authority to promote the murder of Jews and to sow destruction within Israel. The international community can wield its influence toward a cessation of incitement.

Turning a blind eye to the enormous harm that the Palestinian leadership is doing to its own people—by raising successive generations of children on blind hatred of the Jews and Israel—is dooming these children to a bleak future. This ought to be a compelling reason for the international community to seriously rethink the strange tolerance it exhibits toward the Palestinian death-culture.

Changing this culture of death is no less important for the Palestinians than for Israel.

Ms. Hotovley is deputy foreign minister of Israel.

objectivist1

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1048
    • View Profile
Robert Spencer Discusses Recent Violence in Jerusalem...
« Reply #2136 on: October 22, 2015, 07:45:44 AM »
As usual - Robert cuts through all the B.S. - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m931wnll2s0

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69498
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69498
    • View Profile
WSJ: Spy vs. Spy and the fraying relationship
« Reply #2139 on: October 22, 2015, 07:12:19 PM »
y Adam Entous
Oct. 22, 2015 9:01 p.m. ET
20 COMMENTS

The U.S. closely monitored Israel’s military bases and eavesdropped on secret communications in 2012, fearing its longtime ally might try to carry out a strike on Fordow, Iran’s most heavily fortified nuclear facility.

Nerves frayed at the White House after senior officials learned Israeli aircraft had flown in and out of Iran in what some believed was a dry run for a commando raid on the site. Worried that Israel might ignite a regional war, the White House sent a second aircraft carrier to the region and readied attack aircraft, a senior U.S. official said, “in case all hell broke loose.”

The two countries, nursing a mutual distrust, each had something to hide. U.S. officials hoped to restrain Israel long enough to advance negotiations on a nuclear deal with Iran that the U.S. had launched in secret. U.S. officials saw Israel’s strike preparations as an attempt to usurp American foreign policy.

Instead of talking to each other, the allies kept their intentions secret. To figure out what they weren’t being told, they turned to their spy agencies to fill gaps. They employed deception, not only against Iran, but against each other. After working in concert for nearly a decade to keep Iran from an atomic bomb, the U.S. and Israel split over the best means: diplomacy, covert action or military strikes.

Personal strains between President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu erupted at their first Oval Office meeting in 2009, and an accumulation of grievances in the years since plunged relations between the two countries into crisis.

This Wall Street Journal account of the souring of U.S.-Israel relations over Iran is based on interviews with nearly two dozen current and former senior U.S. and Israeli officials.

U.S. and Israeli officials say they want to rebuild trust but acknowledge it won’t be easy. Mr. Netanyahu reserves the right to continue covert action against Iran’s nuclear program, said current and former Israeli officials, which could put the spy services of the U.S. and Israel on a collision course.
A shaky start

Messrs. Obama and Netanyahu shared common ground on Iran when they first met in 2007. Mr. Netanyahu, then the leader of Israel’s opposition party, the right-wing Likud, discussed with Mr. Obama, a Democratic senator, how to discourage international investment in Iran’s energy sector. Afterward, Mr. Obama introduced legislation to that end.

Suspicions grew during the 2008 presidential race after Mr. Netanyahu spoke with some congressional Republicans who described Mr. Obama as pro-Arab, Israeli officials said. The content of the conversations later found its way back to the White House, senior Obama administration officials said.

Soon after taking office in January 2009, Mr. Obama took steps to allay Israeli concerns, including instructing the Pentagon to develop military options against Iran’s Fordow facility, which was built into a mountain. The president also embraced an existing campaign of covert action against Iran, expanding cooperation between the Central Intelligence Agency and Mossad, the Israeli spy agency.

Mossad leaders compared the covert campaign to a 10-floor building: The higher the floor, they said, the more invasive the operation. CIA and Mossad worked together on operations on the lower floors. But the Americans made clear they had no interest in moving higher—Israeli proposals to bring down Iran’s financial system, for example, or even its regime.

Some covert operations were run unilaterally by Mossad, such as the assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists, according to U.S. officials.

The first Oval Office meeting between Messrs. Obama and Netanyahu, in May 2009—weeks after Mr. Netanyahu became prime minister—was difficult for both sides. After the meeting, Mr. Obama’s aides called Ron Dermer, Mr. Netanyahu’s adviser, to coordinate their statements. Mr. Dermer told them it was too late; Mr. Netanyahu was already briefing reporters. “We kind of looked at each other and said, ‘I guess we’re not coordinating our messages,’ ” said Tommy Vietor, a former administration official who was there.

In 2010, the risk of covert action became clear. A computer virus dubbed Stuxnet, deployed jointly by the U.S. and Israel to destroy Iranian centrifuges used to process uranium, had inadvertently spread across the Internet. The Israelis wanted to launch cyberattacks against a range of Iranian institutions, according to U.S. officials. But the breach made Mr. Obama more cautious, officials said, for fear of triggering Iranian retaliation, or damaging the global economy if a virus spread uncontrollably.

Israel questioned whether its covert operations were enough, said aides to Mr. Netanyahu. Stuxnet had only temporarily slowed Tehran’s progress. “Cyber and other covert operations had their inherent limitations,” a senior Israeli official said, “and we reached those limitations.”

Mr. Netanyahu pivoted toward a military strike, raising anxiety levels in the White House.

The U.S. Air Force analyzed the arms and aircraft needed to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities and concluded Israel didn’t have the right equipment. The U.S. shared the findings, in part, to steer the Israelis from a military strike.

The Israelis weren’t persuaded and briefed the U.S. on an attack plan: Cargo planes would land in Iran with Israeli commandos on board who would “blow the doors, and go in through the porch entrance” of Fordow, a senior U.S. official said. The Israelis planned to sabotage the nuclear facility from inside.

Pentagon officials thought it was a suicide mission. They pressed the Israelis to give the U.S. advance warning. The Israelis were noncommittal.
Iranian students in a November 2013 demonstration defending their country's nuclear program outside the Fordow Uranium Conversion facility in Iran. ENLARGE
Iranian students in a November 2013 demonstration defending their country's nuclear program outside the Fordow Uranium Conversion facility in Iran. Photo: CHAVOSH HOMAVANDI/AFP/Getty Images

“Whether this was all an effort to try to pressure Obama, or whether Israel was really getting close to a decision, I don’t know,” said Michéle Flournoy, who at the time was undersecretary of defense for policy.

Mr. Obama, meanwhile, was moving toward diplomacy. In December 2011, the White House secretly used then-Sen. John Kerry to sound out Omani leaders about opening a back channel to the Iranians.

At the same time, the White House pressed the Israelis to scale back their assassination campaign and turned down their requests for more aggressive covert measures, U.S. officials said.

The president spoke publicly about his willingness to use force as a last resort to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon—“I don’t bluff,” Mr. Obama said in March 2012—but some of Mr. Netanyahu’s advisers weren’t convinced.

In early 2012, U.S. spy agencies told the White House about a flurry of meetings that Mr. Netanyahu convened with top security advisers. The meetings covered everything from mission logistics to the political implications of a military strike, Israeli officials said.
Warning signs

U.S. spy agencies stepped up satellite surveillance of Israeli aircraft movements. They detected when Israeli pilots were put on alert and identified moonless nights, which would give the Israelis better cover for an attack. They watched the Israelis practice strike missions and learned they were probing Iran’s air defenses, looking for ways to fly in undetected, U.S. officials said.

New intelligence poured in every day, much of it fragmentary or so highly classified that few U.S. officials had a complete picture. Officials now say many jumped to the mistaken conclusion that the Israelis had made a dry run.

At the time, concern and confusion over Israel’s intentions added to the sense of urgency inside the White House for a diplomatic solution.

The White House decided to keep Mr. Netanyahu in the dark about the secret Iran talks, believing he would leak word to sabotage them. There was little goodwill for Mr. Netanyahu among Mr. Obama’s aides who perceived the prime minister as supportive of Republican challenger Mitt Romney in the 2012 campaign.

Mr. Netanyahu would get briefed on the talks, White House officials concluded, only if it looked like a deal could be reached.

The first secret meeting between U.S. and Iranian negotiators, held in July 2012, was a bust. But “nobody was willing to throw it overboard by greenlighting Israeli strikes just when the process was getting started,” a former senior Obama administration official said.

Israeli officials approached their U.S. counterparts over the summer about obtaining military hardware useful for a strike, U.S. officials said.

At the top of the list were V-22 Ospreys, aircraft that take off and land like helicopters but fly like fixed-wing planes. Ospreys don’t need runways, making them ideal for dropping commandos behind enemy lines.

The Israelis also sounded out officials about obtaining the Massive Ordnance Penetrator, the U.S. military’s 30,000-pound bunker-busting bomb, which was designed to destroy Fordow.

Mr. Netanyahu wanted “somebody in the administration to show acquiescence, if not approval” for a military strike, said Gary Samore, who served for four years as Mr. Obama’s White House coordinator for arms control and weapons of mass destruction. “The message from the Obama administration was: ‘We think this is a big mistake.’ ”

White House officials decided not to provide the equipment.

Messrs. Obama and Netanyahu spoke in September 2012, and Mr. Obama emerged convinced Israel wouldn’t strike on the eve of the U.S. presidential election.

By the following spring, senior U.S. officials concluded the Israelis weren’t serious about a commando raid on Fordow and may have been bluffing. When the U.S. offered to sell the Ospreys, Israel said it didn’t have the money.

Former Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak, who championed a strike, said Mr. Netanyahu had come close to approving a military operation against Iran. But Israel’s military chiefs and cabinet members were reluctant, according to Israeli officials.

While keeping the Omani talks secret, U.S. officials briefed the Israelis on the parallel international negotiations between Iran and major world powers under way in early 2013. Those talks, which made little headway, were led on the U.S. side by State Department diplomat Wendy Sherman.

Robert Einhorn, at the time an arms control adviser at the State Department, said that during the briefings, Mr. Netanyahu’s advisers wouldn’t say what concessions they could live with. “It made us feel like nothing was going to be good enough for them,” Mr. Einhorn said.

U.S. spy agencies were monitoring Israeli communications to see if the Israelis had caught wind of the secret talks. In September 2013, the U.S. learned the answer.

Yaakov Amidror, Mr. Netanyahu’s national security adviser at the time, had come to Washington in advance of a Sept. 30 meeting between Messrs. Netanyahu and Obama.

On Sept. 27, Mr. Amidror huddled with White House national security adviser Susan Rice in her office when she told him that Mr. Obama was on the phone in a groundbreaking call with Iran’s president, Hassan Rouhani.

Mr. Amidror had his own surprise. During a separate meeting in the Roosevelt Room, he told several of Mr. Obama’s top advisers that Israel had identified the tail numbers of the unmarked U.S. government planes that ferried negotiators to Muscat, Oman, the site of the secret talks, U.S. officials said.

Mr. Amidror, who declined to comment on the White House discussions, said that it was insulting for Obama administration officials to think “they could go to Oman without taking our intelligence capabilities into account.” He called the decision to hide the Iran talks from Israel a big mistake.

U.S. officials said they were getting ready to tell the Israelis about the talks, which advanced only after Mr. Rouhani came to office. During the Sept. 30 meeting with Mr. Netanyahu, the president acknowledged the secret negotiations. The secrecy cemented Israel’s distrust of Mr. Obama’s intentions, Israeli officials said.

Mr. Samore, the former White House official, said he believed it was a mistake to keep Israel in the dark for so long. Mr. Einhorn said: “The lack of early transparency reinforced Israel’s suspicions and had an outsize negative impact on Israeli thinking about the talks.”

Israel pushed for the U.S. to be more open about the Iran negotiations. Ms. Rice, however, pulled back on consultations with her new Israeli counterpart, Yossi Cohen, who took over as Mr. Netanyahu’s national security adviser, according to U.S. and Israeli officials.
Secretary of State John Kerry, left, huddled with Iranian officials, including Hossein Fereydoun, center, the brother of Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, and Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, right, before addressing a news conference about a nuclear agreement reached in Vienna in July. ENLARGE
Secretary of State John Kerry, left, huddled with Iranian officials, including Hossein Fereydoun, center, the brother of Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, and Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, right, before addressing a news conference about a nuclear agreement reached in Vienna in July. Photo: US State Department/REUTERS

In exchanges with the White House, U.S. officials said, Mr. Cohen wouldn’t budge from demanding Iran give up its centrifuges and uranium-enrichment program. Israeli officials said they feared any deviation would be taken by the U.S. as a green light for more concessions.

In one meeting, Mr. Cohen indicated Mr. Netanyahu could accept a deal allowing Iran to keep thousands of centrifuges, U.S. officials said. Soon after, Mr. Cohen called to say he had misspoken. Neither side was prepared to divulge their bottom line.

In November 2013, when the interim agreement was announced, Mr. Samore was in Israel, where, he said, the Israelis “felt blindsided” by the terms. U.S. officials said the details came together so quickly that Ms. Sherman and her team didn’t have enough time to convey them all. Israeli officials said the Americans intentionally withheld information to prevent them from influencing the outcome.
Listening in

As talks began in 2014 on a final accord, U.S. intelligence agencies alerted White House officials that Israelis were spying on the negotiations. Israel denied any espionage against the U.S. Israeli officials said they could learn details, in part, by spying on Iran, an explanation U.S. officials didn’t believe.

Earlier this year, U.S. officials clamped down on what they shared with Israel about the talks after, they allege, Mr. Netanyahu’s aides leaked confidential information about the emerging deal.

When U.S. officials confronted the Israelis over the matter in a meeting, Israel’s then-minister of intelligence said he didn’t disclose anything from Washington’s briefings. The information, the minister said, came from “other means,” according to meeting participants.

Ms. Sherman told Mr. Cohen, Israel’s national security adviser: “You’re putting us in a very difficult position. We understand that you will find out what you can find out by your own means. But how can we tell you every single last thing when we know you’re going to use it against us?” according to U.S. officials who were there.

Mr. Netanyahu turned to congressional Republicans, one of his remaining allies with the power to affect the deal, Israeli officials said, but he couldn’t muster enough votes to block it.

U.S. officials now pledge to work closely with their Israeli counterparts to monitor Iran’s compliance with the international agreement.

But it is unclear how the White House will respond to any covert Israeli actions against Iran’s nuclear program, which current and former Israeli officials said were imperative to safeguard their country.

One clause in the agreement says the major powers will help the Iranians secure their facilities against sabotage. State Department officials said the clause wouldn’t protect Iranian nuclear sites from Israel.

Michael Hayden, a former director of the CIA, said the U.S. and Israel could nonetheless end up at odds.

“If we become aware of any Israeli efforts, do we have a duty to warn Iran?” Mr. Hayden said. “Given the intimacy of the U.S.-Israeli relationship, it’s going to be more complicated than ever.”

Write to Adam Entous at adam.entous@wsj.com 

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18556
    • View Profile
Obama vs Netanyahu
« Reply #2140 on: October 24, 2015, 06:40:29 AM »
Mark Levin read much of this article the other day and the insights are very interesting indeed.   I don't subscribe to the WSJ but I post this anyway.   Could anyone else post if they are permitted to do so?

http://www.wsj.com/articles/spy-vs-spy-inside-the-fraying-u-s-israel-ties-1445562074?mod=rss_Politics_And_Policy

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69498
    • View Profile
Re: Israel, and its neighbors
« Reply #2141 on: October 24, 2015, 09:11:50 PM »

By Adam Entous
Oct. 22, 2015 9:01 p.m. ET
506 COMMENTS

The U.S. closely monitored Israel’s military bases and eavesdropped on secret communications in 2012, fearing its longtime ally might try to carry out a strike on Fordow, Iran’s most heavily fortified nuclear facility.

Nerves frayed at the White House after senior officials learned Israeli aircraft had flown in and out of Iran in what some believed was a dry run for a commando raid on the site. Worried that Israel might ignite a regional war, the White House sent a second aircraft carrier to the region and readied attack aircraft, a senior U.S. official said, “in case all hell broke loose.”

The two countries, nursing a mutual distrust, each had something to hide. U.S. officials hoped to restrain Israel long enough to advance negotiations on a nuclear deal with Iran that the U.S. had launched in secret. U.S. officials saw Israel’s strike preparations as an attempt to usurp American foreign policy.

Instead of talking to each other, the allies kept their intentions secret. To figure out what they weren’t being told, they turned to their spy agencies to fill gaps. They employed deception, not only against Iran, but against each other. After working in concert for nearly a decade to keep Iran from an atomic bomb, the U.S. and Israel split over the best means: diplomacy, covert action or military strikes.

Personal strains between President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu erupted at their first Oval Office meeting in 2009, and an accumulation of grievances in the years since plunged relations between the two countries into crisis.

This Wall Street Journal account of the souring of U.S.-Israel relations over Iran is based on interviews with nearly two dozen current and former senior U.S. and Israeli officials.

U.S. and Israeli officials say they want to rebuild trust but acknowledge it won’t be easy. Mr. Netanyahu reserves the right to continue covert action against Iran’s nuclear program, said current and former Israeli officials, which could put the spy services of the U.S. and Israel on a collision course.
A shaky start

Messrs. Obama and Netanyahu shared common ground on Iran when they first met in 2007. Mr. Netanyahu, then the leader of Israel’s opposition party, the right-wing Likud, discussed with Mr. Obama, a Democratic senator, how to discourage international investment in Iran’s energy sector. Afterward, Mr. Obama introduced legislation to that end.

Suspicions grew during the 2008 presidential race after Mr. Netanyahu spoke with some congressional Republicans who described Mr. Obama as pro-Arab, Israeli officials said. The content of the conversations later found its way back to the White House, senior Obama administration officials said.

Soon after taking office in January 2009, Mr. Obama took steps to allay Israeli concerns, including instructing the Pentagon to develop military options against Iran’s Fordow facility, which was built into a mountain. The president also embraced an existing campaign of covert action against Iran, expanding cooperation between the Central Intelligence Agency and Mossad, the Israeli spy agency.

Mossad leaders compared the covert campaign to a 10-floor building: The higher the floor, they said, the more invasive the operation. CIA and Mossad worked together on operations on the lower floors. But the Americans made clear they had no interest in moving higher—Israeli proposals to bring down Iran’s financial system, for example, or even its regime.

Some covert operations were run unilaterally by Mossad, such as the assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists, according to U.S. officials.

The first Oval Office meeting between Messrs. Obama and Netanyahu, in May 2009—weeks after Mr. Netanyahu became prime minister—was difficult for both sides. After the meeting, Mr. Obama’s aides called Ron Dermer, Mr. Netanyahu’s adviser, to coordinate their statements. Mr. Dermer told them it was too late; Mr. Netanyahu was already briefing reporters. “We kind of looked at each other and said, ‘I guess we’re not coordinating our messages,’ ” said Tommy Vietor, a former administration official who was there.

In 2010, the risk of covert action became clear. A computer virus dubbed Stuxnet, deployed jointly by the U.S. and Israel to destroy Iranian centrifuges used to process uranium, had inadvertently spread across the Internet. The Israelis wanted to launch cyberattacks against a range of Iranian institutions, according to U.S. officials. But the breach made Mr. Obama more cautious, officials said, for fear of triggering Iranian retaliation, or damaging the global economy if a virus spread uncontrollably.

Israel questioned whether its covert operations were enough, said aides to Mr. Netanyahu. Stuxnet had only temporarily slowed Tehran’s progress. “Cyber and other covert operations had their inherent limitations,” a senior Israeli official said, “and we reached those limitations.”

Mr. Netanyahu pivoted toward a military strike, raising anxiety levels in the White House.

The U.S. Air Force analyzed the arms and aircraft needed to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities and concluded Israel didn’t have the right equipment. The U.S. shared the findings, in part, to steer the Israelis from a military strike.

The Israelis weren’t persuaded and briefed the U.S. on an attack plan: Cargo planes would land in Iran with Israeli commandos on board who would “blow the doors, and go in through the porch entrance” of Fordow, a senior U.S. official said. The Israelis planned to sabotage the nuclear facility from inside.

Pentagon officials thought it was a suicide mission. They pressed the Israelis to give the U.S. advance warning. The Israelis were noncommittal.
Iranian students in a November 2013 demonstration defending their country's nuclear program outside the Fordow Uranium Conversion facility in Iran. ENLARGE
Iranian students in a November 2013 demonstration defending their country's nuclear program outside the Fordow Uranium Conversion facility in Iran. Photo: CHAVOSH HOMAVANDI/AFP/Getty Images

“Whether this was all an effort to try to pressure Obama, or whether Israel was really getting close to a decision, I don’t know,” said Michéle Flournoy, who at the time was undersecretary of defense for policy.

Mr. Obama, meanwhile, was moving toward diplomacy. In December 2011, the White House secretly used then-Sen. John Kerry to sound out Omani leaders about opening a back channel to the Iranians.

At the same time, the White House pressed the Israelis to scale back their assassination campaign and turned down their requests for more aggressive covert measures, U.S. officials said.

The president spoke publicly about his willingness to use force as a last resort to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon—“I don’t bluff,” Mr. Obama said in March 2012—but some of Mr. Netanyahu’s advisers weren’t convinced.

In early 2012, U.S. spy agencies told the White House about a flurry of meetings that Mr. Netanyahu convened with top security advisers. The meetings covered everything from mission logistics to the political implications of a military strike, Israeli officials said.
Warning signs

U.S. spy agencies stepped up satellite surveillance of Israeli aircraft movements. They detected when Israeli pilots were put on alert and identified moonless nights, which would give the Israelis better cover for an attack. They watched the Israelis practice strike missions and learned they were probing Iran’s air defenses, looking for ways to fly in undetected, U.S. officials said.

New intelligence poured in every day, much of it fragmentary or so highly classified that few U.S. officials had a complete picture. Officials now say many jumped to the mistaken conclusion that the Israelis had made a dry run.

At the time, concern and confusion over Israel’s intentions added to the sense of urgency inside the White House for a diplomatic solution.

The White House decided to keep Mr. Netanyahu in the dark about the secret Iran talks, believing he would leak word to sabotage them. There was little goodwill for Mr. Netanyahu among Mr. Obama’s aides who perceived the prime minister as supportive of Republican challenger Mitt Romney in the 2012 campaign.

Mr. Netanyahu would get briefed on the talks, White House officials concluded, only if it looked like a deal could be reached.

The first secret meeting between U.S. and Iranian negotiators, held in July 2012, was a bust. But “nobody was willing to throw it overboard by greenlighting Israeli strikes just when the process was getting started,” a former senior Obama administration official said.

Israeli officials approached their U.S. counterparts over the summer about obtaining military hardware useful for a strike, U.S. officials said.

At the top of the list were V-22 Ospreys, aircraft that take off and land like helicopters but fly like fixed-wing planes. Ospreys don’t need runways, making them ideal for dropping commandos behind enemy lines.

The Israelis also sounded out officials about obtaining the Massive Ordnance Penetrator, the U.S. military’s 30,000-pound bunker-busting bomb, which was designed to destroy Fordow.

Mr. Netanyahu wanted “somebody in the administration to show acquiescence, if not approval” for a military strike, said Gary Samore, who served for four years as Mr. Obama’s White House coordinator for arms control and weapons of mass destruction. “The message from the Obama administration was: ‘We think this is a big mistake.’ ”

White House officials decided not to provide the equipment.

Messrs. Obama and Netanyahu spoke in September 2012, and Mr. Obama emerged convinced Israel wouldn’t strike on the eve of the U.S. presidential election.

By the following spring, senior U.S. officials concluded the Israelis weren’t serious about a commando raid on Fordow and may have been bluffing. When the U.S. offered to sell the Ospreys, Israel said it didn’t have the money.

Former Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak, who championed a strike, said Mr. Netanyahu had come close to approving a military operation against Iran. But Israel’s military chiefs and cabinet members were reluctant, according to Israeli officials.

While keeping the Omani talks secret, U.S. officials briefed the Israelis on the parallel international negotiations between Iran and major world powers under way in early 2013. Those talks, which made little headway, were led on the U.S. side by State Department diplomat Wendy Sherman.

Robert Einhorn, at the time an arms control adviser at the State Department, said that during the briefings, Mr. Netanyahu’s advisers wouldn’t say what concessions they could live with. “It made us feel like nothing was going to be good enough for them,” Mr. Einhorn said.

U.S. spy agencies were monitoring Israeli communications to see if the Israelis had caught wind of the secret talks. In September 2013, the U.S. learned the answer.

Yaakov Amidror, Mr. Netanyahu’s national security adviser at the time, had come to Washington in advance of a Sept. 30 meeting between Messrs. Netanyahu and Obama.

On Sept. 27, Mr. Amidror huddled with White House national security adviser Susan Rice in her office when she told him that Mr. Obama was on the phone in a groundbreaking call with Iran’s president, Hassan Rouhani.

Mr. Amidror had his own surprise. During a separate meeting in the Roosevelt Room, he told several of Mr. Obama’s top advisers that Israel had identified the tail numbers of the unmarked U.S. government planes that ferried negotiators to Muscat, Oman, the site of the secret talks, U.S. officials said.

Mr. Amidror, who declined to comment on the White House discussions, said that it was insulting for Obama administration officials to think “they could go to Oman without taking our intelligence capabilities into account.” He called the decision to hide the Iran talks from Israel a big mistake.

U.S. officials said they were getting ready to tell the Israelis about the talks, which advanced only after Mr. Rouhani came to office. During the Sept. 30 meeting with Mr. Netanyahu, the president acknowledged the secret negotiations. The secrecy cemented Israel’s distrust of Mr. Obama’s intentions, Israeli officials said.

Mr. Samore, the former White House official, said he believed it was a mistake to keep Israel in the dark for so long. Mr. Einhorn said: “The lack of early transparency reinforced Israel’s suspicions and had an outsize negative impact on Israeli thinking about the talks.”

Israel pushed for the U.S. to be more open about the Iran negotiations. Ms. Rice, however, pulled back on consultations with her new Israeli counterpart, Yossi Cohen, who took over as Mr. Netanyahu’s national security adviser, according to U.S. and Israeli officials.
Secretary of State John Kerry, left, huddled with Iranian officials, including Hossein Fereydoun, center, the brother of Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, and Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, right, before addressing a news conference about a nuclear agreement reached in Vienna in July. ENLARGE
Secretary of State John Kerry, left, huddled with Iranian officials, including Hossein Fereydoun, center, the brother of Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, and Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, right, before addressing a news conference about a nuclear agreement reached in Vienna in July. Photo: US State Department/REUTERS

In exchanges with the White House, U.S. officials said, Mr. Cohen wouldn’t budge from demanding Iran give up its centrifuges and uranium-enrichment program. Israeli officials said they feared any deviation would be taken by the U.S. as a green light for more concessions.

In one meeting, Mr. Cohen indicated Mr. Netanyahu could accept a deal allowing Iran to keep thousands of centrifuges, U.S. officials said. Soon after, Mr. Cohen called to say he had misspoken. Neither side was prepared to divulge their bottom line.

In November 2013, when the interim agreement was announced, Mr. Samore was in Israel, where, he said, the Israelis “felt blindsided” by the terms. U.S. officials said the details came together so quickly that Ms. Sherman and her team didn’t have enough time to convey them all. Israeli officials said the Americans intentionally withheld information to prevent them from influencing the outcome.
Listening in

As talks began in 2014 on a final accord, U.S. intelligence agencies alerted White House officials that Israelis were spying on the negotiations. Israel denied any espionage against the U.S. Israeli officials said they could learn details, in part, by spying on Iran, an explanation U.S. officials didn’t believe.

Earlier this year, U.S. officials clamped down on what they shared with Israel about the talks after, they allege, Mr. Netanyahu’s aides leaked confidential information about the emerging deal.

When U.S. officials confronted the Israelis over the matter in a meeting, Israel’s then-minister of intelligence said he didn’t disclose anything from Washington’s briefings. The information, the minister said, came from “other means,” according to meeting participants.

Ms. Sherman told Mr. Cohen, Israel’s national security adviser: “You’re putting us in a very difficult position. We understand that you will find out what you can find out by your own means. But how can we tell you every single last thing when we know you’re going to use it against us?” according to U.S. officials who were there.

Mr. Netanyahu turned to congressional Republicans, one of his remaining allies with the power to affect the deal, Israeli officials said, but he couldn’t muster enough votes to block it.

U.S. officials now pledge to work closely with their Israeli counterparts to monitor Iran’s compliance with the international agreement.

But it is unclear how the White House will respond to any covert Israeli actions against Iran’s nuclear program, which current and former Israeli officials said were imperative to safeguard their country.

One clause in the agreement says the major powers will help the Iranians secure their facilities against sabotage. State Department officials said the clause wouldn’t protect Iranian nuclear sites from Israel.

Michael Hayden, a former director of the CIA, said the U.S. and Israel could nonetheless end up at odds.

“If we become aware of any Israeli efforts, do we have a duty to warn Iran?” Mr. Hayden said. “Given the intimacy of the U.S.-Israeli relationship, it’s going to be more complicated than ever.”

Write to Adam Entous at adam.entous@wsj.com



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69498
    • View Profile

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18556
    • View Profile
Re: Israel, and its neighbors
« Reply #2145 on: October 25, 2015, 07:26:05 PM »
CD thanks for finding and posting the WSJ article.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69498
    • View Profile
Re: Israel, and its neighbors
« Reply #2146 on: October 25, 2015, 08:32:03 PM »
Yip! :-D

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69498
    • View Profile
WSJ: A boy's discovery about the Temple Mount
« Reply #2147 on: October 26, 2015, 09:30:23 AM »

By Jerold S. Auerbach
Oct. 25, 2015 4:49 p.m. ET
61 COMMENTS

A 10-year-old Russian boy, Matvei Tcepliaev, recently made an extraordinary discovery in Jerusalem. Working as a volunteer in the Temple Mount Sifting Project, he found a 3,000-year-old seal—engraved limestone about the size of a thimble, with a hole at one end so it could be hung from a string—from the time of King David.

The artifact was nestled in the hundreds of tons of earth and rock that had been illegally excavated from below the Temple Mount in the late 1990s by the Muslim Waqf, a trust that retains authority over the contested site. The Temple Mount is sacred ground for Jews, Muslims and Christians, but Jewish historical claims are denied by many Muslims.

The sifting project in Emek Tzurim National Park in Jerusalem, started in 2005 and has uncovered several historically significant objects, but the seal may be the most important. Dating from the era of King David’s conquest of Jerusalem and the building of the Jewish First Temple by his son and successor, Solomon, the seal confirms the ancient Jewish presence in Jerusalem—more than a millennium before the Muslim Dome of the Rock was built above the ruins of the ancient temples.

If it is ironic that the Muslim excavation, undertaken to build an underground mosque, ultimately confirmed Jews’ historical claims, it is no less ironic than the fact that the Waqf came to rule the site at Israel’s instigation.

Following Israel’s extraordinary victory over its Arab foes in the Six-Day War in June 1967, which included capturing the entire city of Jerusalem, Israeli Col. Motta Gur proclaimed: “The Temple Mount is in our hands.” Joyous Israeli soldiers gathered at the Western Wall below and sang Hatikva, the national anthem. Shlomo Goren, a brigadier general and future chief rabbi of Israel, exultantly blew his shofar.

But Defense Minister Moshe Dayan had other ideas about Jewish sovereignty on the Temple Mount. A secular Israeli, he relied on a rabbinical consensus that Jews were forbidden to set foot on the Mount lest they risk desecrating the unknown site of the Holy of Holies, the inner sanctuary of the Jewish temple that housed the Ark of the Covenant.

After declaring that “we have reunited the city, the capital of Israel, never to part it again,” Dayan met with Muslim leaders inside the Dome of the Rock. An agreement was reached: The Waqf ban on Jews visiting the Temple Mount would be ended—even if many preferred to continue to observe the rabbinical prohibition—but Jews wouldn’t be allowed to pray there.

Shakespeare, not the Bible or Quran, proclaimed: “What’s past is prologue.” Dayan’s concession prepared the way for conflict on the Temple Mount that continues today. The Palestinians’ Second Intifada erupted in September 2000 after Likud leader Ariel Sharon visited the Temple Mount—not to pray but to assert the legitimacy of a Jewish presence at the most ancient Jewish holy site. He was widely castigated for asserting a historical truth.

A similarly tragic scenario is now unfolding in Jerusalem, and throughout Israel, as Palestinians attack Jews with bullets, knives and rocks. Although Secretary of State John Kerry absurdly attributed the bloody rampage to Palestinians’ frustration with Israeli settlement-building, informed observers note that the outbreak of violence has been stoked by false rumors that Israel is on the verge of rewriting the Temple Mount rules, including allowing Jews to pray there.

This may or may not be a prelude to a third intifada. What is clear is that for years the Muslim Waqf has continued to oversee excavations below the surface of the Temple Mount, with callous disregard for what archaeologists could learn about the Mount’s Jewish history in antiquity.

That policy is of a piece with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’s dismissal of any Jewish connection to the Temple Mount. “Al-Aksa is ours and so is the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. They have no right to desecrate them with their filthy feet,” Mr. Abbas told activists at an Oct. 14 meeting in his Ramallah office, the Jerusalem Post reported.

Not that Jews ever doubted their religious roots at Temple Mount, but now they have a 10-year-old boy to thank for providing them with a three-millennia-old artifact that refutes modern propaganda designed to rewrite history. Just as the seal was used long ago as evidence of authority, so today it puts a stamp of approval on Jewish claims to their history at the holiest site in Jerusalem.

Mr. Auerbach is a professor emeritus of history at Wellesley College in Wellesley, Mass. 

objectivist1

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1048
    • View Profile
"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18556
    • View Profile
Iran Deal doomed to fail
« Reply #2149 on: October 28, 2015, 06:12:32 PM »

 





"I wonder why Hillary Clinton went along with all this"

No matter.  Liberal Jews will vote for her no matter what.

Anyway finally someone with some honesty from the Left though as usual it is too late:

******Dennis Ross: Critics were right about Obama, Iran and Israel

By Jennifer Rubin October 28 at 11:45 AM    

  President Obama shakes hands with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas during a news conference in the West Bank city of Ramallah in 2013. (Majdi Mohammed/Associated Press)

Dennis Ross, former senior adviser to President Obama, arguably should have come out strongly against the Iran deal — and advised Hillary Clinton (he served in her husband’s administration) that the administration was not leveling with the American people. His interview with the Times of Israel is revealing.

Remember that the president says the deal blocks Iran’s pathway to the bomb. No, says Ross: “One of my main concerns is what happens after year 15, when they basically can have as large a program as they want, and the gap between threshold status and weapon status becomes very small.” Well, at least the deal staved off trouble for the time being. Er, not exactly: “The more you make it clear that for any misbehavior they pay a price, and it’s the kind of price that matters to them, the more likely they are to realize the firewall is real, and the less likely they are to ever test it.” But the deal does not do that; to the contrary, it prevents graduated sanctions since imposition of any sanctions frees Iran from the deal. Sure, but Iran’s behavior in the meantime shows that it won’t exploit the deal and pursue its own religious zealotry. Not at all: “We’re already seeing them ratchet it up in Syria. Everyone is focusing on what the Russians are doing, but Iran is adding significant numbers of Revolutionary Guard forces to the ground, it’s not just Hezbollah forces. I think this is a harbinger of things to come.”

Too bad then that Ross did not unequivocally oppose the deal and urge Democrats to do the same. Now he is willing to admit it virtually guarantees that Iran will get a bomb; it has not specified means for imposing penalties without overthrowing the deal; and Iran’s behavior is worse than ever. That seems to be exactly what critics of the deal have said all along.

Ross also confirms Obama critics’ accusation that Obama is reflexively partial to the Palestinians. “It tends to look at Israel through a lens that is more competitive, more combative, that sees Israel more in problematic terms,” he explains. He adds that since Obama “looks at the Palestinians as being weak, there is this reluctance to criticize them. ‘They’re too weak to criticize’ is what I say in the Obama chapter. And if they are too weak to criticize, they are too weak to be held accountable, too weak to be responsible. They’re too weak to have a state. Well, if you want the Palestinians to have the responsibility of a state, you have to hold them responsible.” In perhaps the most damning portion of his interview, Ross lets on that Obama’s contrarianism toward the George W. Bush administration represented a deliberate attempt to alienate Israel:

When the president comes in, he thinks we have a major problem with Arabs and Muslims. And he sees that as a function of the Bush administration — an image, fairly or not, that Bush was at war with Islam. So one of the ways that he wants to show that he’s going to have an outreach to the Muslim world is that he’s going to give this speech in Cairo. So he wants to reach out and show that the US is not so close to the Israelis, which he thinks also feeds this perception. That’s why there’s an impulse to do some distancing from Israel, and that’s why the settlement issue is seized in a way.

In sum, Ross (not to mention the former Israeli ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren) confirms a good deal of what Obama apologists deny. It turns out the Iran deal really does not stop Iran from getting the bomb. It turns out Obama was guilty of the bigotry of low expectations, never really wanting to hold the Palestinians to account. And from the get-go, he sought to shove Israel away from the United States. It was not Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s “fault” that the relationship deteriorated. It was by design.

I wonder why Hillary Clinton went along with all this. And I wonder why Ross (and other responsible Democrats) waited this long, allowing this much damage to U.S. national security and the U.S.-Israel relationship to occur before speaking up. I suppose partisan loyalty and naked political ambition trump all other considerations.