Archive for May 2010

Israel braces for Turkish, Hizballah, Hamas reprisals. Greece halts joint drill

May 31, 2010

DEBKAfile, Political Analysis, Espionage, Terrorism, Security.

DEBKAfile Special Report May 31, 2010, 1:45 PM (GMT+02:00)

Tags: Israel-Greece Pro-Hamas flotilla Turkey

Turkish Chief of Staff Gen. Ilker Basburg

DEBKAfile‘s military sources report Israeli concerns that Turkey may not confine itself to strong diplomatic retaliation for the Israel Navy’s seizure Monday, May 31, of the Marmora, the Turkish vessel leading the flotilla for breaking the Gaza blockade and resort to military action along with the Iranian-backed Hizballah and Hamas. A statement from Ankara threatened “unprecedented and incalculable” reprisals, following which the Turkish chief of staff Gen. Ilker Basbug was recalled urgently to Ankara from a visit toEgypt. Greece has since halted its joint exercise with Israel in protest against the naval action.
DEBKAfile reports from Ankara that the Turkish government is planning to continue pounding the Israeli blockade with more flotillas and have them escorted by Turkish warships and fighter jets. Israel merchant vessels moored outside Ashdodport have been instructed to sail into port and take shelter in case of missile attacks from the Gaza Strip against Ashdod and Ashkelon.
Monday morning, Israeli warplanes headed west over the Mediterranean in support of the still ongoing Israeli commando operation aboard the Turkish Marmora, the scene of violent clashes between Israeli troops and the 600 “peace activists,” some of them armed. Ankara later reported 15 dead aboard the vessel.
Israeli army spokesman, Col. Avi Beneyahu, called the incident “an act of terror on the high seas.” Far from being a humanitarian mission, the flotilla was sponsored personally by Turkish prime minister Recep Erdogan to break the Israeli blockade on Gaza and permit arms supplies and terrorist to reach the Strip unrestricted. It aimed at provoking a widely publicized international incident with fatalities and showing Israel using strong-arm tactics against unarmed peace-lovers.

Its leaders and the nations involved therefore refused to heed warnings that the vessels would be prevented from entering Gaza Port and rejected Israeli offers to ferry their aid cargo overland to the Gaza Strip. Population within missile range of Gaza advised to take shelter in secured areas.
An estimated 19 activists were killed battling with Israeli troops, and dozens injured. Ten Israeli soldiers were wounded, two critically. They were all ferried to Israeli hospitals by helicopter.

The pro-Hamas passengers were described as mobbing the Israeli commandos as they were dropped onto the Marmara’s deck, using knives and iron bars to beat them and shooting with a sidearm snatched from a soldier and at least two other pistols recovered empty from two of the bodies.

Israeli security forces are preparing for the Lebanese Hizballah and Palestinian Hamas to go back to shooting missiles and rockets against Israeli towns, in support of the seaborne attack on Israeli commandos. The police are also on special alert in and around Israeli Arab communities, after Hamas prime minister Ismail Haniyah called them out on a general strike, and the Holy Places, especially in Jerusalem.

Egypt will face pressure to end its joint embargo on Gaza with Israel at the Arab League Council meeting urgently Tuesday, June 1.  Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas demanded the session.
Demonstrations against Israel were staged in Syrian and Lebanese towns. Jordan hands stiff complaint to head of Israeli diplomatic mission in Amman.

Barak: Organizers of Gaza aid flotilla to blame for deadly clashes

May 31, 2010

Barak: Organizers of Gaza aid flotilla to blame for deadly clashes – Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News.

Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon says activists had weapons aboard the ships; Netanyahu mulls canceling U.S. trip in wake of Gaza flotilla deaths

By Barak RavidDefense Minister Ehud Barak said Monday that the organizers of the Gaza aid flotilla were to blame after at least 10 activists were killed when Israel Navy commandos stormed the ship.

Defense Minister Ehud Barak

Defense Minister Ehud Barak

Photo by: Archive

In a press conference hours after the incident, Barak said that Israel was prepared to accept the consequences of its actions and would continue to protect its autonomy.

Barak voiced regret for the deaths, but called the flotilla a political provocation by and said the sponsors of the flotilla were violent supporters of a terror organization.

Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi, meanwhile, said the soldiers were forced by violent activists to respond with live fire.

Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon said earlier Monday that the organizers of the Gaza aid flotilla have connections to international terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Al-Qaida, and called the aid convoy a violent and provocative attempt to break the blockade on Gaza.

Ayalon, speaking at a press conference at the Foreign Ministry, said that Israel found weapons aboard the Gaza flotilla, which were used against IDF troops.

The deputy foreign minister said that the Gaza flotilla did not heed Israel’s calls to halt its movement toward Gaza on Monday morning, and stressed that no sovereign country would have allowed such a provocation to take place.

“We couldn’t allow the opening of a corridor of smuggling arms and terrorists,” said Ayalon.

The deputy foreign minister told reporters that Israel does not want to fight with any country, but that the incident on the Gaza flotilla is not yet over.

Meanwhile. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is considering the cancellation of his imminent trip to the United States, in wake of the deaths of at least 10 people after Israel Navy troops boarded a flotilla of ships heading to the Gaza Strip carrying aid.

Netanyahu was due to head to Washington at the invitation of President Barack Obama.

The Israeli military said at least 10 people were killed after its troops came under fire while intercepting the convoy as it headed for the Gaza Strip.

Trade and Industry Minister Benjamin Ben-Eliezer voiced regret Monday morning for deaths aboard the Gaza-bound ships.

“The images are certainly not pleasant. I can only voice regret at all the fatalities,” Ben-Eliezer told Army Radio.

Dancing With Devils

May 31, 2010

Dancing With Devils | FrontPage Magazine.

One of the great unresolved questions of recent history is why so many members of the Western left have become so besotted with, and apologetic for, ruthless totalitarian regimes. There have always been Western leftists who have idolised brutal regimes — be it the Soviet Union, communist Cuba or Islamist Iran —and preferred them to their own countries in the free and prosperous West.

Others have documented this phenomenon, such as Paul Hollander in various classic works, including Political Pilgrims: Travels of Western Intellectuals to the Soviet Union, China and Cuba, 1928-78 (1981) and Anti-Americanism(1995).
Here, in his recent book United in Hate, Jamie Glazov makes an attempt at exploring and explaining the Left’s love affair with terror and tyranny.
Glazov is very well qualified to do so, and not only because he has a PhD in history, specialising in US and Russian foreign policy. His personal story contributes much to this book. His parents were Soviet dissidents who fought against communist tyranny and oppression.
They managed to escape to the US in 1972. Their initial taste of glorious freedom was soon soured when they learned that there were Western academics and intellectuals who actually hated them and the message they had to share. These Western apologists for Soviet murder and genocide wanted nothing to do with the Glazovs, and sought to denounce and demonise them in the strongest terms.
Back in the Soviet Union they had risked their lives to campaign for the millions who were being tortured and killed in the Gulag slave labour camps and psychiatric hospitals simply because of their political and religious beliefs. Yet in America they were being viciously attacked by an intelligentsia that loathed America while idolising communist barbarism.
It was a shock the young Glazov never really recovered from, and here he seeks to assess and understand this most bizarre feature of Western life. And with the onset of militant Islam, he sees the whole scenario again being played out before his eyes.
The first half of this important book covers the earlier cases of Western fascination with, and blindness to, totalitarian nightmare states. The Soviet Union, Castro’s Cuba and Mao’s China were all objects of wide-eyed leftist veneration and adoration.
Glazov reminds us of the words of the US ambassador to the Soviet Union, Joseph Davies, uttered during the height of Stalin’s murder of millions. He waxed eloquent in his love of Stalin with these words: Stalin’s “brown eye is exceedingly wise and gentle. A child would like to sit on his lap and a dog would sidle up to him.”
French writer Jean-Paul Sartre could say this about another murderous thug, Fidel Castro: “Castro is at the same time the island, the men, the cattle and the earth. He is the whole island.” And Father Daniel Berrigan, another longstanding apologist for tyrants, could say this of Hanoi’s prime minister Pham Van Dong: he is an individual “in whom complexity dwells: … a face of great intelligence, and yet also of great reserves of compassion …”
Or consider the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, who after capturing power in 1979 managed to carry out 8,000 political executions in the following three years. They made the nation a place of torture, repression and dictatorship. Yet plenty of Western leftists fell at their feet in worship.
German writer Günter Grass, who was shown a “prison” which the Sandinistas wanted political pilgrims to see — not the actual prisons where inmates were beaten, starved, tortured and killed — came back with euphoric exhilaration: “The humane way in which sentences are carried out!”, he gushed, along with other sentimental mush.
Of course, the Soviets had done just the same with the Gulag decades earlier, to fool gullible Westerners who came over for a look. Western left-wingers were just as ignorant and easily deceived in the 1930s or ’50s as they were in the ’80s.
And they still are. The second half of this book looks at Islamic terrorism, and its Western apologists. There are plenty of leftists in the West who are convinced that Islamic terrorism either does not exist, or is all America’s fault.
Again, Glazov offers plenty of examples. The September 11 atrocity provides plenty of quotes. Norman Mailer called the suicide-hijackers “brilliant.” He excused the attack by saying, “Everything wrong with America led to the point where the country built that tower of Babel which consequently had to be destroyed.”
Susan Sontag assured us that the terrorist attack was the result of “specific American alliances and actions.” Film-maker Oliver Stone affirmed that 9/11 was a “revolt” and said the ensuing Palestinian celebrations were comparable to those seen in the French and Russian revolutions.
Christian leader Tony Campolo could argue that 9/11 was a legitimate response to the medieval Crusades. German composer Karlheinz Stockhausen described the 9/11 attacks as “the greatest work of art for the whole cosmos.” On and on the apologists for terror and tyranny go. And then there is the inherent anti-Semitism in so much of this as well.
For many left-wingers, Israel is always the enemy, and the Muslim and Arab populations can do no wrong. Consider the remarks of Mike Wallace concerning Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has called for the annihilation of Israel: “He’s an impressive fellow this guy. He really is. He’s obviously smart as hell. … You’ll find him an interesting man.”
These leftists offered more support for Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein than they did for George W. Bush. Film-maker Michael Moore denounced the US while extolling the terrorists: “The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not ‘insurgents’ or ‘terrorists’ or ‘The Enemy.’ They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow — and they will win.”
Glazov devotes a chapter to seeking to examine the psychological makeup of these leftists whose romance with tyranny and terror seems so hard to fathom. They are alienated from their own homelands, although seldom realise it. They espouse a secular religion, a secular utopian vision which speaks much of humanity but is happy to see individual humans crushed in the attempt to create their coercive utopia.
The West-hating Left seems to be a permanent feature of modern Western life. Now that the communist revolution has lost its momentum, other causes must be found. The Islamist cause nicely does the trick. The same enemies are there, such as America, freedom and affluence.
As this book reminds us, we really have two enemies to contend with: murderous totalitarian ideologies of every stripe, and their Western leftist support base. It is an insidious alliance of which we all must be aware. This book does a fine job of making that very clear indeed.
Bill Muehlenberg is a commentator on contemporary issues, and lectures on ethics and philosophy. His website, CultureWatch is at:www.billmuehlenberg.com

One of the great unresolved questions of recent history is why so many members of the Western left have become so besotted with, and apologetic for, ruthless totalitarian regimes. There have always been Western leftists who have idolised brutal regimes — be it the Soviet Union, communist Cuba or Islamist Iran —and preferred them to their own countries in the free and prosperous West.Others have documented this phenomenon, such as Paul Hollander in various classic works, including Political Pilgrims: Travels of Western Intellectuals to the Soviet Union, China and Cuba, 1928-78 (1981) and Anti-Americanism(1995).Here, in his recent book United in Hate, Jamie Glazov makes an attempt at exploring and explaining the Left’s love affair with terror and tyranny.
Glazov is very well qualified to do so, and not only because he has a PhD in history, specialising in US and Russian foreign policy. His personal story contributes much to this book. His parents were Soviet dissidents who fought against communist tyranny and oppression.They managed to escape to the US in 1972. Their initial taste of glorious freedom was soon soured when they learned that there were Western academics and intellectuals who actually hated them and the message they had to share. These Western apologists for Soviet murder and genocide wanted nothing to do with the Glazovs, and sought to denounce and demonise them in the strongest terms.
Back in the Soviet Union they had risked their lives to campaign for the millions who were being tortured and killed in the Gulag slave labour camps and psychiatric hospitals simply because of their political and religious beliefs. Yet in America they were being viciously attacked by an intelligentsia that loathed America while idolising communist barbarism.
It was a shock the young Glazov never really recovered from, and here he seeks to assess and understand this most bizarre feature of Western life. And with the onset of militant Islam, he sees the whole scenario again being played out before his eyes.The first half of this important book covers the earlier cases of Western fascination with, and blindness to, totalitarian nightmare states. The Soviet Union, Castro’s Cuba and Mao’s China were all objects of wide-eyed leftist veneration and adoration.Glazov reminds us of the words of the US ambassador to the Soviet Union, Joseph Davies, uttered during the height of Stalin’s murder of millions. He waxed eloquent in his love of Stalin with these words: Stalin’s “brown eye is exceedingly wise and gentle. A child would like to sit on his lap and a dog would sidle up to him.”
French writer Jean-Paul Sartre could say this about another murderous thug, Fidel Castro: “Castro is at the same time the island, the men, the cattle and the earth. He is the whole island.” And Father Daniel Berrigan, another longstanding apologist for tyrants, could say this of Hanoi’s prime minister Pham Van Dong: he is an individual “in whom complexity dwells: … a face of great intelligence, and yet also of great reserves of compassion …”
Or consider the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, who after capturing power in 1979 managed to carry out 8,000 political executions in the following three years. They made the nation a place of torture, repression and dictatorship. Yet plenty of Western leftists fell at their feet in worship.
German writer Günter Grass, who was shown a “prison” which the Sandinistas wanted political pilgrims to see — not the actual prisons where inmates were beaten, starved, tortured and killed — came back with euphoric exhilaration: “The humane way in which sentences are carried out!”, he gushed, along with other sentimental mush.
Of course, the Soviets had done just the same with the Gulag decades earlier, to fool gullible Westerners who came over for a look. Western left-wingers were just as ignorant and easily deceived in the 1930s or ’50s as they were in the ’80s.
And they still are. The second half of this book looks at Islamic terrorism, and its Western apologists. There are plenty of leftists in the West who are convinced that Islamic terrorism either does not exist, or is all America’s fault.
Again, Glazov offers plenty of examples. The September 11 atrocity provides plenty of quotes. Norman Mailer called the suicide-hijackers “brilliant.” He excused the attack by saying, “Everything wrong with America led to the point where the country built that tower of Babel which consequently had to be destroyed.”
Susan Sontag assured us that the terrorist attack was the result of “specific American alliances and actions.” Film-maker Oliver Stone affirmed that 9/11 was a “revolt” and said the ensuing Palestinian celebrations were comparable to those seen in the French and Russian revolutions.
Christian leader Tony Campolo could argue that 9/11 was a legitimate response to the medieval Crusades. German composer Karlheinz Stockhausen described the 9/11 attacks as “the greatest work of art for the whole cosmos.” On and on the apologists for terror and tyranny go. And then there is the inherent anti-Semitism in so much of this as well.
For many left-wingers, Israel is always the enemy, and the Muslim and Arab populations can do no wrong. Consider the remarks of Mike Wallace concerning Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has called for the annihilation of Israel: “He’s an impressive fellow this guy. He really is. He’s obviously smart as hell. … You’ll find him an interesting man.”
These leftists offered more support for Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein than they did for George W. Bush. Film-maker Michael Moore denounced the US while extolling the terrorists: “The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not ‘insurgents’ or ‘terrorists’ or ‘The Enemy.’ They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow — and they will win.”
Glazov devotes a chapter to seeking to examine the psychological makeup of these leftists whose romance with tyranny and terror seems so hard to fathom. They are alienated from their own homelands, although seldom realise it. They espouse a secular religion, a secular utopian vision which speaks much of humanity but is happy to see individual humans crushed in the attempt to create their coercive utopia.
The West-hating Left seems to be a permanent feature of modern Western life. Now that the communist revolution has lost its momentum, other causes must be found. The Islamist cause nicely does the trick. The same enemies are there, such as America, freedom and affluence.As this book reminds us, we really have two enemies to contend with: murderous totalitarian ideologies of every stripe, and their Western leftist support base. It is an insidious alliance of which we all must be aware. This book does a fine job of making that very clear indeed.
Bill Muehlenberg is a commentator on contemporary issues, and lectures on ethics and philosophy. His website, CultureWatch is at:www.billmuehlenberg.com

Finally some love from the White House?

May 31, 2010

The Region: Finally some love from the White House?.


The issue at the upcoming meeting between Netanyahu and Obama will not be a final diplomatic solution, but rather the PM’s negotiating posture.

The Region: Finally some love from the White House?
Photo by: Ariel Jerozolimski

Why was Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu suddenly invited to meet with US President Barack Obama this week? I can think of three reasons.

One is the Obama administration’s realization that its harsh policy toward Israel was mistaken and yielded no diplomatic benefit. In the memorable words of one top official, it had “screwed up the message.”

The idea that pressuring and distancing the US from Israel would bring some Arab compromise on peace or support for US policy was disappointed.

A second aspect, and a very important one, is the knowledge that this policy is very unpopular among Americans in general and American Jews in particular. Indeed, polls show that it is the administration position most disliked by the American public. With November elections coming up, the White House wants to cut its losses.

The third reason relates to substantive issues. The White House wants to hear from Netanyahu about his views and plans regarding negotiations with the Palestinians. The Obama administration is eager for progress on indirect talks, hopeful on moving to direct talks (which Netanyahu very much wants to do) and is also looking at longer-range possibilities.

MY VIEW is that Netanyahu should stress the following: Israel wants peace and is willing to agree to a two-state solution. But here’s what we want in return, so go to the Palestinians and see what they are willing to give in exchange for an independent state.

At this point, he explains the need to recognize Israel as a Jewish state; demilitarization of any Palestinian state (which I would call “nonmilitarization,” meaning that it keeps existing security forces but doesn’t build separate, conventional armed forces); that any agreement will permanently end the conflict and all Palestinian claims; and that all refugees must be resettled in the state of Palestine.

Netanyahu can quote Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s statement of November 25, which endorsed Israel’s demand for recognition as a Jewish state and the retention of blocs including the largest Jewish settlements: “We believe that through good-faith negotiations the parties can mutually agree on an outcome which ends the conflict and reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps, and the Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israeli security requirements.”

He must also explain in detail what Israel wants in terms of security guarantees. And Netanyahu needs to point out that there is no sense having a “two-state solution” that is more unstable, anti-American and conducive to promoting radical – especially Iranian – ambitions than the status quo.

To a lesser extent, he can discuss his views on the details of borders, Jerusalem, settlements and other issues. But this can also be left for the future.

His main task, though, is to break the pattern in which only Palestinian demands are considered and debated. In this context, the question is only what will Israel give, never what it will get in return.

This is a reasonable set of demands and one that the Palestinian Authority would be able to meet if it were a “normal” political entity seeking a permanent two-state solution.

Unfortunately, the leadership – and even more those who stand behind it in Fatah – would like to see Israel disappear and get everything. But that’s a lesson that the Obama administration has to learn for itself.

The current PA strategy is to pretend to cooperate but ensure that, in effect, the talks are sabotaged. It hopes at some point next year to go to the US and Europe and claim that since Netanyahu won’t make a deal, they should recognize a unilateral Palestinian declaration of independence or force Israel to accept a Palestinian state with no concessions by the PA. This probably won’t work, though there are enough hints to the contrary to persuade the PA that this kind of strategy is its best bet.

The point for Netanyahu, then, is to express his total cooperation with peace efforts. If the PA refuses direct negotiations and rejects reasonable offers, he must show that this will not be Israel’s fault.

Another approach suggests that Netanyahu should offer some kind of interim solution in which the PA would become a de facto state leaving Jerusalem, borders and most other issues for the future. I think this would be a disastrous error, in essence giving the PA what it wants first without it having to make any compromises. No matter what time limit or conditions are put on the plan, once there is a Palestinian state, recognized by the West and a full member of the UN, all such limitations would disappear.

Remember the issue here is not what a final diplomatic solution would look like, but what negotiating posture Netanyahu will take in his White House visit.

TWO OTHER points must be mentioned. Netanyahu will show appreciation for the US efforts on sanctions, but what longer-range strategy does he advocate? Probably, here, he will learn more about US views on containment and strategy if and when Iran gets nuclear weapons, as well as on further unilateral sanctions. He is going to have to listen and evaluate what this approach means, especially in considering whether or not the IDF should attack Iranian facilities at some point in the future.

Finally, Netanyahu is going to have to use all his smoothness and charm to educate his interlocutors about what the Middle East is really like without ever hinting that he is being patronizing or arrogant. That’s a tall order but if any Israeli can do it, Netanyahu can.

In contrast to the last visit, where he was received quite rudely, this one is set to be a public love fest. Eventually, we will find out whether it was that way privately as well.

The writer is director of the Global Research in International Affairs Center and editor of Middle East Review of International Affairs and Turkish Studies. His blog can be read atwww.rubinreports.blogspot.com

ANALYSIS / The media-assisted psychological war between Israel

May 31, 2010

ANALYSIS / The media-assisted psychological war between Israel – Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News.

Israel is very troubled by the increasingly close operational ties between Syria and Hezbollah and by the flow of advanced weapons into Lebanon.

Israel is currently waging a war of nerves with the members of the radical axis of the Middle East: Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas. Against that backdrop, reports have been stepping up of improved rocket-firing capability of the members of that axis and the possibility of an Israeli response.

Hezbollah youth holding Katyushas near Nasrallah portrait

The danger that a regional war will break out shortly has decreased somewhat, according to intelligence officials, but that also means the cold (er ) war is being waged elsewhere.

There’s an arms race and competition over operational plans, intelligence gathering and deterrence – and of course, there’s media-assisted psychological warfare.

You’ve got to be naive to believe there’s no connection between Friday’s (London ) Times report about Hezbollah’s secret arms depots in Syria and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s warning to European officials about the same exact topic just a few days earlier.

Sunday’s Haaretz report about satellite photographs of Syrian military installations, which are available online via Google Earth, is also related.

Israel is very troubled by the increasingly close operational ties between Syria and Hezbollah and by the flow of advanced weapons into Lebanon.

Since Syria continues to deny all accusations of involvement in the matter, one way to prove it is to work through the media.

Invisible hands make sure to bring up-to-date satellite photos to reporters with a reliable record in the West.

The officials take care of the follow-up – both Israelis, like Netanyahu last week, and those from other countries.

Witness the worried statements about Hezbollah’s arms made by senior American officials and others over the past two months.

UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which has helped bring a quiet to Israel’s northern border since August 2006, failed miserably regarding anything connected to the weapons being smuggled from Iran and Syria to Lebanon.

The factual discrepancies, conflicting reports and mutual threats are expected to continue throughout the summer, even if no conflagration breaks out.

In the meantime, Syria and Hezbollah are benefiting from the shift in world attention to issues like the aid flotilla to Gaza, even if they have no direct link to it.

In addition, there has been a steady drip to the media of information concerning Iran and the progress of its nuclear program.

In this case, the Western press has been functioning for years as a conduit to put intelligence information in the hands of intelligence agencies in countries fighting the prospect of a nuclear Iran.

On Sunday, Britain’s Sunday Times reported that Israel would be deploying three submarines equipped with nuclear capable cruise missiles in the Persian Gulf, near the Iranian coastline. Over the past year, Israeli submarine movement has been recorded in the Suez Canal, but from there to a permanent presence in the Persian Gulf is a long way to go – and not just geographically speaking.

Nonetheless, if the combination of Israel, Iran and the nuclear bomb continues to sell papers abroad, one can hope that it also helps a little bit when it comes to Israel’s deterrent capability.

US retreat can’t soften blow of Obama-backed NPT resolution

May 31, 2010

US retreat can’t soften blow of Obama-backed NPT resolution.


PM will seek clarification and reassurances during White House visit. It may be too late

NEW YORK – Egypt came into the monthlong NPT conference swinging, and hit Israel square on the jaw. Worst of all, a sucker punch seemed to come from Israel’s longtime ally, the United States.

But although the US on Friday signed onto a 28-page final resolution singling out Israel and pressing it to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty, backroom diplomacy – with an eye on Iran – forced America’s hand. Ultimately, the American signature reflects the US desire to reach an agreement on Iran; unlike his predecessor, President Obama’s diplomatic strategy favors international consensus, which failed at the last two NPT review conferences, held in 2005 and 2000.

“The greatest threat to proliferation in the Middle East and to the NPT is Iran’s failure to live up to its NPT obligations,” Obama said in a statement on Friday night. “Today’s efforts will only strengthen the NPT as a critical part of our efforts to ensure that all nations meet their NPT obligations or face consequences.”

Huddled at the United Nations during the month of May, American diplomats walked a narrow tightrope, seeking a tougher stance against Iran, even as Egypt and other Arab states pushed for the implementation of a 1995 resolution that would establish a nuclear-free Middle East.

Egypt came into the conference ready with a proposal to hold an international conference within the next year that would jump-start negotiations toward a weapons-free zone. The conference became a flashpoint and a deciding factor in the outcome of the NPT Review Conference.

“If we can’t get a deal on the Middle East in the next few days, the NPT review conference will probably collapse,” a Western diplomat told Reuters last week.

The cost of the American compromise? A declaration that pressures Israel to sign the NPT and open its nuclear facilities to inspection; appoints a special UN envoy on nuclear weapons in the Middle East; and establishes an international conference, albeit one two years from now, and not next year as the Egyptians wanted.

As if to soften the jab, American officials immediately retreated from their support for the resolution and appeared to soften their stance by setting conditions for the conference to take place. Indeed, the American statements raise the possibility that the conference may not happen at all.

In a statement on Friday night, US National Security Adviser Gen. James Jones said he had “serious reservations” about the 2012 conference, and said Middle East peace and compliance with nonproliferation obligations “are essential precursors” to a nuclear-free Middle East. He defended Israel, calling the resolution’s failure to mention Iran “deplorable.”

Indeed, Jones said the United States “will insist that the conference operate only by consensus by the regional countries,” and that the US would ensure the conference takes place only “if and when all countries feel confident that they can attend.”

Obama, in his statement concerning the conference, reiterated that “comprehensive and durable peace in the region and full compliance by all regional states with their arms control and nonproliferation obligations are essential precursors for its establishment.”

But from Israel’s perspective, the final document is still a deep blow.

“This resolution is deeply flawed and hypocritical,” the Prime Minister’s Office said in a statement. “It singles out Israel, the Middle East’s only true democracy and the only country threatened with annihilation. Yet the terrorist regime in Iran, which is racing to develop nuclear weapons and openly threatens to wipe Israel off the map, is not even mentioned in the resolution.”

On Tuesday, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu will visit the White House, seeking clarification and reassurances. It may be too late.

‘Strike may halt Iran\’s nuke program’

May 31, 2010

‘Strike may halt Iran\’s nuke program’.


Desperate housewives count days, not rockets

May 31, 2010

Desperate housewives count days, not rockets.

Israel prepares for yet another war

May 31, 2010

ESR | May 31, 2010 | Israel prepares for yet another war.

By Alan Caruba
web posted May 31, 2010

I don’t know when the next war against Israel will begin, but I am sure that it will be blamed on Israel, not the people launching the rockets or even possibly crossing the border in an armed attack.

I am fairly sure that the war will come some time this summer, possibly July or August. In the end, the decision will be Iran’s, not Syria’s, its sock puppet and stalking horse. Syria has provided Hezbollah, based in Lebanon, an estimated 1,000 Iranian-made ballistic missiles, all aimed at Israel.

The Egyptians underestimated Israeli intelligence in 1967 and, as a result, experienced a preemptive strike that buried their bad intentions in six days. It was the third time Arabs had waged war against Israel and lost. The boys from Hezbollah should draw a lesson from that, but they won’t.

The last time the Israelis had to deal with Hezbollah aggression from Lebanon was in 2006. The conflict lasted 34 days.  It is widely agreed that the Israeli Defense Force performed poorly and, not surprisingly, the most criticism came from the Israelis themselves. That, you can be sure, is not a mistake that will occur again.

Part of the problem at the time was the then-Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, who has since been replaced by Benyamin Netanyahu. If “Bibi” gets any intelligence regarding an attack, he will not wait around for it to start.

Frankly, some fairly odd goings-on are going on. You may recall that in March Netanyahu received one of the nastiest receptions ever accorded an Israeli Prime Minister by Barack Obama. Only the Dalai Lama fared worse, being ushered out the White House back door.

One might reasonably assume that the president is no fan of Jews after having spent twenty years in the pews listening to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright say bad things about them. Indeed, Obama has many close ties with anti-Semites. Even so, current U.S. interests likely trump his personal bias.

In recent days, Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, has been in Israel, officially to celebrate his son Zack’s bar mitzvah. Emanuel has family ties to Israel. He also carried invitation to Netanyahu for a chat on June 2. This invitation suggests that there’s something going on in Hezbollah-land that requires consultation with its declared enemy, Israel.

Then, of course, there are the Syrians. They have moved the number of their army units to the Israeli border and have been supplying arms to Hezbollah ever since the last war.

Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been saying ever more crazy things of late. He even lectured the United Nations on the coming of the Twelfth Imam, a Shiite spook whose return will require massive worldwide death and destruction. More recently Mahmoud got into a fight with Russia over the proposed UN sanctions. Iran is running out of friends even if its oil is not.

The Israelis have been practicing war games that include long distance flights, the purpose of which may have something to do with dropping some very big bombs on places with Persian names.

While all this is going on, the United States is currently significantly building up its fighting strength in the Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf regions. Carrier Strike Group 10, led by the USS Harry S. Truman, pulled up anchor on May 21st and headed to the Middle East. That will put two carrier groups in the area. More vessels, including guided-missile cruisers and destroyers will be there as well.

There is some considerable irony that President Obama who campaigned loudly against George W. Bush’s military actions in Iraq is now going the same route in anticipation of providing support in the event of an attack on Israel and/or the need to support an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Obama is on record saying he will not accept a nuclear Iran.

No matter how it plays out, the Middle East is going to turn into a shooting gallery again. The Iranians, Syrians, and Palestinians in Hezbollah and Hamas are living testimony to why all those people demanding that Israel make peace with them are clueless or worse

Iranian Guards general assassinated in Damascus – French sources

May 30, 2010

DEBKAfile, Political Analysis, Espionage, Terrorism, Security.

DEBKAfile Special Report May 30, 2010, 8:37 PM (GMT+02:00)

Exclusive Al Mezzeh district, Damascus

The death of Khalil Sultan, a high-ranking general of the IRGC’s al Qods external terror branch, at his home in the exclusive Damascus district of Al Mezzeh Sunday, May 16 is now revealed by French intelligence and Syrian exile sources in Paris to have been assassination by an unknown hand.

The authorities in Damascus said at the time that the general, whom they described as a rich Syrian businessman, sales agent for the Iranian Kordo automobile manufacturers, was killed in the course of a robbery.
In fact, according to debkafile‘s intelligence sources, Sultan ran Iranian Revolutionary Guards’ covert operations in Damascus and Beirut under deep cover. The gang which burst into his luxury villa and gunned him down with automatic rifles removed only documents and laptops, but did not touch valuables, cash or gold.
As Tehran’s top operative for disposing of anti-Iranian elements in Syria and Lebanon, he worked in conjunction with Bashar Assad’s intelligence branches. Their most recent joint project was the roundup of Iranian-Arab exiles from Ahwaz who live in Syria.
Western sources disclose that his death caused deep shock in top Syrian and Iranian government and security circles. His assassins’ success in reaching this top secret agent in the most closely-guarded neighborhood of the capital, seat of Syrian government institutions and domicile of senior officials, has caused Syrian intelligence and the regime as a whole deep embarrassment – particularly after a long series of hits against high-profile Hizballah and Hamas operatives in the Syrian capital’s most secure districts – like the case of Hizballah commander Imad Mughniyeh.

The victim was close to the al Qods Brigades chief Gen. Qassem Suleimeni, who is entrusted with the Islamic Republic’s most hush-hush clandestine operations. French sources stress, on the other hand, that he was also a personal friend of the Iranian general who recently defected to the West. They name him as Gen. Reza Baba Hossein, the first time, debkafile‘s sources note, that an Iranian general has been publicly named as a defector to the West.
Sultan’s duties and diverse connections suggest three possible parties may have wanted him dead:

1. More than one foreign element had an interest in sabotaging Iran’s covert activities in Syria and Lebanon and the intelligence partnership between Tehran and Damascus.
2. Syrian opposition exiles in Paris point the finger at their Sunni compatriots who are involved in activities for weakening Iranian and Shiite influence in their country.
3. Sultan’s friendship with the defecting general may have aroused Tehran’s suspicion that he abetted his friend’s escape – or even had contacts in Western intelligence himself – in which case, Iranian intelligence would have no qualms about signing his death warrant.