Archive for May 2010

Report: Israel to deploy nuclear submarines off Iran coast

May 30, 2010

Report: Israel to deploy nuclear submarines off Iran coast – Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News.

Sunday Times quotes IDF official saying the 3 German-made long range submarines will gather intelligence, act as deterrent and potentially land Mossad agents.

Dolphin submarine

Israel is to deploy three submarines equipped with nuclear cruise missiles in the Persian Gulf, the Sunday Times reported on Sunday.

According to the Times report, one submarine had been sent over Israeli fears that ballistic missiles developed by Iran, and in the possession of Syria and Hezbollah, could be used to hit strategic sites within Israel, such as air bases and missile launchers.

Dolphin, Tekuma, and Leviathan, all German-made Dolphin class submarines of the 7th navy Flotilla, have been reported as frequenting the Gulf in the past, however, according to the Sunday Times report, this new deployment is meant to ensure a permanent naval presence near the Iranian coastline.

A flotilla officer told the Times that the deployed submarines were meant to act as a deterrent, gather intelligence and potentially to land Mossad agents.

“We’re a solid base for collecting sensitive information, as we can stay for a long time in one place,” the officer said.

The flotilla’s commander, identified only as “Colonel O,” was quoted by the Times as saying that the submarine force was “an underwater assault force. We’re operating deep and far, very far, from our borders.”

The submarines could be used if Iran continues its program to produce a nuclear bomb. “The 1,500km range of the submarines’ cruise missiles can reach any target in Iran,” a navy officer told the Times.

Apparently responding to the reported Israeli activity, an Iranian admiral told the Times: “Anyone who wishes to do an evil act in the Persian Gulf will receive a forceful response from us.”

Last July, defense sources reported that an Israeli submarine had sailed the Suez Canal to the Red Sea last month, describing the unusual maneuver as a show of strategic reach in the face of Iran.

Israel has long kept its three Dolphin-class submarines, which are widely assumed to carry nuclear missiles, away from Suez so as not to expose them to the gaze of Egyptian harbormasters.

American Jews and Israel

May 30, 2010

American Thinker: American Jews and Israel.

By Eileen F. Toplansky

//
As a nightmare scenario of escalating anti-Semitism plays out, commentators struggle to cope with the indifference of so many Jews to the threat. In the June 10, 2010 New York Review of Books, Peter Beinart pens an article entitled “The Failure of the American Jewish Establishment.” Peter Beinart is Senior Political Writer at The Daily Beast. He was also The New Republic’s managing editor from 1995 to 2007. In the Review of Books he writes that far too many Jewish students on college campuses are “not more vigorously rebutting campus criticism of Israel.” Beinart throws down the gauntlet and claims that unless leaders of groups like AIPAC and the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations do not change course, more American Jewish youths will simply turn their backs on Israel.

Aye, there’s the rub. Instead of discussing the Daily Alerts put out by the aforementioned Conference, which are easily available through the Internet; instead of explaining how Jewish students on college campuses are under attack by racist groups as well as radical university professors; instead of truly reaching out to the beleaguered Jewish student who is searching for ways to combat the blatant anti-Semitism, Mr. Beinart blames organized Jewish American groups as well as Israel herself.

In fact, the problem is that far too many college students are not being taught history without it being politicized. In 1995, David McCullough gave an acceptance speech for the National Book Foundation Medal for Distinguished Contribution to American Letters. His talk, entitled “Why History,” centered on the widespread crisis concerning the lack of judicious study of American history. The problem has become far more critical. Our students do not even know the basics of American history, let alone international history.

Few students understand the background of Palestine or Israel. Fewer students have any idea of the incessant jihadist calls for death to Israel, Jews, and Western democracy. Instead, they are becoming more and more conditioned to hearing attractive Muslim female students describe conditions of Palestinians while conveniently ignoring the facts that any credible historian can attest to. The fact that the U.N. continues to keep Palestinians in refugee camps, aka terrorist training camps — the fact that Israel has, time and again, offered land to its avowed enemies only to have as its rewards rockets shot into Israeli towns — the fact that alleged peace partners Jordan and Egypt aid and abet terrorists to bring in rockets, mortars, and guns — why doesn’t Beinart expose the shameless neglect on the part of university history departments, newspapers, and liberal media outlets that show a snippet of an event without ever exposing the cause and effect of Israel’s reactions?

Groups like CAMERA, MEMRI, HonestReporting, Daniel Pipes, and JIHAD WATCH work assiduously to counter the obvious anti-Semitic chant of most of the world. And yet, how many young people are informed about these sites? How many professors cite these organizations to their young charges? In fact, in too many American universities, the situation has now become toxic for Jewish students. At Rutgers, for example, labor relations students are told that they can apply for jobs in Palestine! At the University of Berkeley, Irvine, students are subjected to guerrilla theatre as reenactments are made of IDF soldiers mowing down Palestinian people! The university presidents do not interfere, citing freedom of expression! And the lone Jewish student walks away appalled and scared. Political correctness informs lectures, and English composition texts display out-of-context essays which neglect to inform the students about the nefarious deeds of CAIR. Pictures are inserted that mislead students. Yet year after year, this is what is foisted upon students with nary a peep from department heads who often are misinformed or uninformed. It is so easy to take the Palestinian perspective because the Palestinians have been rendered the underdog. How many school administrators and political officials publicize and protest this one-sided pandering? Why doesn’t Beinart take them to task?

How is it that the world yawns when Israelis are booed at sports events, when singers boycott Israel, when the U.N. appoints the basest of the base to its Human Rights unit? Where is the outcry from the power brokers? Yet Mr. Beinart expects 18-year-olds to shoulder the responsibilities of these daily battles? Middle Eastern Studies programs, once the jewel of genuine multicultural studies, have become the tools of propaganda and distortion by terrorist-leading pundits.

Israel and her defenders are aghast at the daily incitement for the annihilation of Jews. It hearkens back to the days of Nasser, who vowed to push every Jew into the Mediterranean…which hearkens back to the Pharaoh, who did, indeed, drown every Hebrew male child in the Nile. As Emma Lazarus said, “[A] study of Jewish history is all that is necessary to make a patriot of an intelligent Jew,” but when history texts are poisoned by the likes of Finkelstein, Khalidi, and Edward Said, are we not asking a herculean task of students? What is the obligation that society owes to its young?
There is a smarmy tone to Beinart when he diminishes the genuine concerns of Benjamin Netanyahu, who sees clear parallels between the Palestinian bid for statehood and Nazism. Yet history speaks to the fact that Hitler had indeed met with the Mufti who had organized Muslim Bosnians to fight alongside the Nazis. When Egypt had the Gaza Strip and Jordan had the West Bank, it is odd that there was never any interest in setting up an independent Palestinian country. But be that as it may, Israel has time and again acceded to Palestinian demands — in fact, Gaza is now judenfrei — and still the Palestinians make a mockery of the responsibility that is supposed to come with statehood.

How should Israelis react? With the exception of a few brave Muslim voices, what have the Israelis received from their Arab neighbors but a reign of treachery and death? When Israel built the dividing fence to stop the horrific suicide/homicide bombing of its civilians, it received nothing but intense world condemnation. When Israeli athletes were being murdered at the 1972 Munich Olympics, did the other athletes organize a massive boycott and remain adamant that the games would not continue until the Israeli athletes were released? When 95% of the West Bank was offered to Arafat to build this so-called independent Palestinian country, what happened? “Jihad, and jihad, and jihad” came from the lips of the murderer Arafat. This is not wallowing in victimhood; it is the recitation of far too many anti-Jewish events.

Why are the Palestinians the only ones whose plight is pictured on television? What about the survivors of suicide bombs, whose lives have been shattered, whose hopes have been dashed? Pierre Rehov has interviewed and filmed captured failed suicide bombers who are jailed in Israeli prisons; the bombers vow that if given a chance, they would continue to blow up Jews. Some of these suicide bombers were Israelis, born and educated in the country. Is it any wonder that Israeli Jews have a justified suspicion of the Arabs living among them?

Mr. Beinart finds Israelis at fault because they may harbor suspicions that Israeli Arabs publicly mourn on Israeli Independence Day, citing it as their Nakba. How then, Mr. Beinart, does one deal with a fifth column in a country? Caroline Glick documents the perfidy among Israeli Arabs, both Muslim and Christian, as they spy for Hezbollah. One Israeli Arab was a former member of the Knesset! Routinely, Hezbollah flags are flown at Israeli Arab political events and protests. According to Glick, the Israeli government has “failed to adopt any consistent measures” concerning Israeli Arab leaders, who routinely reject the country’s right to exist.

The abridged rights that Beinart speaks of do not come close to the outright prejudice, bigotry, and racism that all of Israel’s neighbors have towards Jews. And these countries do not engage in verbal discussions about how to be democratic. The amazing thing is that Israel is still concerned about being democratic, that Israel still wants to retain the higher ethical ground. But with anti-Israel world opinion and destructive invective being publicized, how can an American Jewish student counter all this?

And to cite Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International as objective groups is quite an irony. Furthermore, how is it in 2005 that Palestinians themselves feared for their lives if the Palestinian Authority were to come to power? Why isn’t this making the front pages among the media?

Too many pundits seem to agree with Mr. Beinart, who writes that the “drama of Jewish victimhood … strikes most of today’s young American Jews as farce.” Why not ask the student who was recently beaten up by a member of the Muslim Students Association because he was a member of the Jewish fraternity Zeta Beta Tau? Why not ask the female Jewish student who was afraid of asking her professor a question about the Middle East because she had seen him at a rally where he called for the dissolution of the State of Israel? The students do not see victimization of Israel as a farce. They are the latest victims of an insidious hatred that is dominating news outlets, heads of states, and campus posters. They are frightened, not neglectful.
Beinart nonchalantly dismisses the fact that “Israel faces threats from Hezbollah and Hamas” and “is understandably worr[ied] about a nuclear Iran.” But, Beinart continues, “the dilemmas that [Israel] faces … are not the dilemmas of the Warsaw Ghetto. The year 2010 is not, as Benjamin Netanyahu has claimed, 1938.” How, then, should it be viewed? Why is an existential threat to be dismissed? If Beinart feels this way, why shouldn’t the young American Jew harbor these ideas? I thought history was supposed to warn us? Whose side is he trying to enlighten? In a recent interview with Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic, Beinart states that his “spiritual connection to the land of Israel is, in all honesty, weaker. Perhaps that’s why I don’t feel the sense of potential loss at giving up Hebron … My love of Israel isn’t about the land.”

Well, now we have it — Mr. Beinart nonchalantly makes no claim about the land, so therefore, what’s the big deal about giving it to the enemy? And he expects Jewish students to engage in passionate defense about Ha-eretz (the land) when it isn’t important to him? Whom is he fooling? He and other writers engage in some late-night musings about the “bonds of [Jewish] peoplehood” but hold themselves to a different standard when it comes to Israel’s security as a country bounded by secure borders.

When nations swear to exterminate you, what exactly should you do? Beinart waters down the very real concerns that Israelis have. Time and again, they have been lied to by the Arab nations they have negotiated with. They have buried far too many of their young, and yet they are still held to a double standard. No other country in the world is under daily attack in the media, in the courts of law, at the United Nations, and now by the President of the United States. Yet Beinart is implying that Israel is not living up to its “precepts of liberty, justice and peace taught by the Hebrew prophets.” Frankly, what is amazing is that the Israelis do live up to these precepts, even when surrounded by the most dastardly of enemies both from within and without its borders.

Nasrallah, again

May 30, 2010

Nasrallah, again.


Last week’s drill made plain to the Israeli public what is at stake. The government needs to do more to communicate the dangers internationally.

During most of last week, Israel was uniquely preoccupied with large civil defense drills. These exercises encapsulate our existential predicament. No other society faces the dangers that Israel does and none, therefore, needs to make the effort that we must to perfect defensive preparations. The fact that assorted rescue teams had to rehearse responses to nonconventional attacks attests loudly to the nature of our enemies and their menace.

If a shred of a doubt lingered about the necessity of practicing skills to contend with whatever is unleashed upon us, Hizbullah chief Hassan Nasrallah drove home the point. He sought to portray Israel’s defensive drills as the sinister camouflaging of offensive maneuvers, and simultaneously surpassed the excesses of his previous bellicose tirades.

He began the latest harangue by serving notice on Israel that its entire territory is now vulnerable to rocket attack (thereby admitting that he and the Lebanese government have utterly contravened the terms of Security Council Resolution 1701 via massive arms running).

Next, Nasrallah threatened to attack Israel’s main international airport. Soon thereafter he screamed that all Israel’s sea ports were in his gun sights and that not a single vessel would be safe if conflict erupted.

Nasrallah has never been a master of understatement, but in recent months the frequency, intensity and arrogance of his outbursts has escalated. His invective quotient has appreciably amplified since Hizbullah was co-opted into the Lebanese governing coalition under Prime Minister Saad Hariri.

WITH ITS formal accession to the establishment, Hizbullah can no longer be dismissed as a rogue militia. Hariri, whose father, Rafik, was assassinated by Syrian cohorts in 2005, has, sadly, now become Syria’s obsequious lackey. Tolerating Hizbullah is part of the package that accords him Damascus’s “protection.”

Israel has repeatedly stressed that it holds Beirut responsible for Hizbullah aggression, warning that Lebanon won’t escape punishment should Nasrallah again attack Israel. In their heart of hearts, Lebanon’s masses know that he again risks putting them in harm’s way. To deflect domestic criticism, Nasrallah speaks of retaliation against Israeli air and sea ports.

Under the watchful eye of the Syrians, Hariri unsurprisingly prefers to sidestep all that. In an op-ed published in the Los Angeles Times last week (reprinted in Thursday’s Jerusalem Post), he managed to ignore the rearming of Hizbullah by both Syria and Iran. He feigned innocence, or made excuses, by arguing that “desperate people will do desperate things.”

Essentially, Hariri is now condoning the actions of the Teheran/Damascus axis, while diverting attention from the fact that he has ushered one of the world’s most treacherous terrorist organizations into the heart of Lebanon’s governance, effectively becoming Hizbullah’s puppet.

Hariri was forced to go to Bashar Assad, cap in hand, pleading to turn over “a new page.”

The founder of Lebanon’s erstwhile anti-Syrian front – launched with much fanfare on March 14, 2005 – now embraces the very despots he accused of murdering his father. He has of late been pleading Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s case as well.

Hariri’s capitulation underscores more than personal vicissitudes. It marks the effective end of the March 14 Alliance and with it of the tattered remains of Lebanese independence. Syria withdrew its troops from Lebanon in 2005, yet its stranglehold on its neighbor has only tightened, with Hizbullah actively abetting Syrian hegemony.

While the international community clamors for the establishment of a Palestinian state, it acquiesces with quiet equanimity in the destruction of another Arab state’s sovereignty. The world too readily overlooks this, just as it systematically disregards the frightening and explosive arsenal it has allowed Hizbullah to amass despite UN blandishments and big-power guarantees.

There is mind-boggling global silence about the fact that Israelis are forced to practice life-saving drills while threats on their lives are jeeringly broadcast from Lebanon. This is a tinderbox waiting to detonate.

In the event of renewed conflict, Israel would doubtless once more find itself cynically censured. Whether anyone overseas wants to give Israel a hearing on not, our government must do its utmost to at least alert the international community –diplomatic, media and legal – about what is shaping up here. Nasrallah’s rhetoric only underlines the urgency.

Last week’s drill made plain to the Israeli public what is at stake. The government needs to do more to communicate the dangers internationally.

Report: Hezbollah operating Scud missiles from Syria, Netanyahu claims

May 29, 2010

Report: Hezbollah operating Scud missiles from Syria, Netanyahu claims – Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News.

Lebanese militants have long-range missiles at secret base outside Damascus, prime minister tells Italian counterpart Silvio Berlusconi.

Scud missile in Iraq, March 30, 2006 Scud missile in Iraq, March 30, 2006
Photo by: AP

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Saturday told his Italian counterpart Silvio Berlusconi that Lebanese militants were operating long-range Scud missiles from bases inside Syria, according to Israeli media reports.

Netanyahu made the claims during a meeting of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development in Paris this weekend, Channel 2 news reported.

The prime minister’s comments follow a report in the London Times on Friday claiming that new satellite images prove the existence of Hezbollah arms bases on Syrian soil. The bases are stocked with Syria-made weapons, including surface-to-surface missiles, the newspaper said.

According to The Times, the Hezbollah base was detected near the town of Adra, northeast of Damascus, adding that evidence indicated that militants have their own living quarters, armory, and a fleet of supply vehicles used to ferry weapons into Lebanon.

A security source told the British daily that Hezbollah was “allowed to operate this site freely”, adding that they “often move the arms in bad weather when Israeli satellites are unable to track them”.

Lebanon and Syria have recently said they fear a possible attack by Israel after President Shimon Peres accused Syria in April of supplying Hezbollah with the long-range Scud missiles, which are capable of hitting major Israeli cities. Damascus has repeatedly denied the charge and accused Israel of fomenting war.

Some U.S. officials have expressed doubt that any Scuds were actually handed over in full to Hezbollah, although they believe Syria might have transferred weapons parts.

“We obviously have grave concerns about the transfer of any missile capability to Hezbollah through Lebanon from Syria,” a senior U.S. President Barack Obama administration official said last Friday, following a meeting between Obama and Lebanon Prime Minister Said Hariri.

Netanyahu: Israel not obligated by NPT resolution

May 29, 2010

Netanyahu: Israel not obligated by NPT resolution – Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News.

Prime minister’s office dismisses international call for Middle East nuclear talks as ‘deeply flawed and hypocritical’.

By Barak Ravid and Haaretz Service

Israel has no obligation to act on a resolution passed at a UN conference on Friday that singled out Israel over non-proliferation, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office said on Saturday.

At the conclusion of a month-long conference in New York, the 189 signatories of the international nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT) called for an international conference in 2012 with the aim of establishing a nuclear-weapon-free Middle East.

“As a non-signatory state of the NPT, Israel is not obligated by the decisions of this Conference, which has no authority over Israel,” the prime minister’s office said in a statement. “Given the distorted nature of this resolution, Israel will not be able to take part in its implementation.”

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
Photo by: Olivier Fitussi

Israel, which operates a policy of ‘nuclear ambiguity’ but is widely believed to have an arsenal of atomic warheads, has not signed the NPT and is not required by international law to comply with the conference’s resolutions.

The resolution also called on Israel, along with two other non-signatories, India and Pakistan, to join the treaty.

On Friday, U.S. President Barack Obama said he strongly opposed efforts to single out Israel on non-proliferation and would oppose actions that jeopardize Israel’s national security.

The United States announced it “deeply regrets” the resolution.

U.S. National Security Adviser General James L. Jones called the decision to single out Israel “gratuitous”.

In the run-up to Friday’s conference vote, Israeli diplomats worked intensively to soften the wording of the resolution. After it was passed on Friday, Netanyahu, on a visit to Toronto, consulted by telephone with senior ministers to formulate an official response.

The prime minister office’s statement called the resolution “deeply flawed and hypocritical” for focusing on Israel while ignoring the Iran. An NPT signatory, Iran claims its nuclear program is for civilian purposes but is accused by Israel of seeking an atomic bomb.

“[The resolution] singles out Israel, the Middle East’s only true democracy and the only country threatened with annihilation,” the statement said. “Yet the terrorist regime in Iran, which is racing to develop nuclear weapons and which openly threatens to wipe Israel off the map, is not even mentioned in the resolution.”

The statement also claimed that several NPT signatories, including Libya, Iran, Syria and Iraq, have violated the treaty with secret nuclear programs.

“That is why the resolution adopted by the NPT Review Conference not only fails to advance regional security but actually sets it back,” the statement said.

In 2008 Israeli warplanes bombed a site in Syria that the U.S. later said was a clandestine nuclear reactor. Libya agreed to dismantle its nuclear program in 2003, while unproved allegations that Iraq was building a bomb formed part of justifications for a U.S. invasion of the country in 200

Column One: Netanyahu, Obama’s newest prop

May 28, 2010

Column One: Netanyahu, Obama’s newest prop.


Netanyahu must not permit Obama’s public relations campaign to divert him from this mission.

The Democratic Party is feeling the heat for US President Barack Obama’s hostility towards Israel. In an interview with Channel 10 earlier this month, Democratic Party mega-donor Haim Saban characterized the Obama administration as ideologically aligned with the radical Left and harshly criticized its treatment of Israel.

Both Ma’ariv and Yediot Aharonot reported this week that Democratic congressmen and senators are deeply concerned that the administration’s harsh treatment of Israel has convinced many American Jews not to contribute to their campaigns or to the Democratic Party ahead of November 2’s mid-term elections. They also fear that American Jews will vote for Republican challengers in large numbers.

It is these concerns, rather than a decision to alter his positions on Israel specifically and the Middle East generally, that now drive Obama’s relentless courtship of the American Jewish community. His latest move in this sphere was his sudden invitation to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to visit him at the White House for a “warm reception” in front of television cameras next Tuesday.

It is clear that electoral worries rather than policy concerns are behind what the White House has described as a “charm offensive,” because since launching this offensive a few weeks ago, Obama not changed any of his policies towards Israel and the wider Middle East. In fact, he has ratcheted up these policies to Israel’s detriment.

TAKE HIS goal of ridding the world of nuclear weapons. On Friday, the UN’s monthlong Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference is scheduled to adopt a consensual resolution before adjourning. According to multiple media reports, Israel is set to be the focus of the draft resolution that will likely be adopted.

The draft resolutions being circulated by both Egypt and the US adopt Egypt’s demand for a nuclear-free Middle East. They call for a conference involving all countries in the region to discuss denuclearization. The only difference between the Egyptian draft and the US draft on the issue is that the Egyptians call for the conference to be held in 2011 while the US calls for the convening of the conference in 2012-2013. The draft resolution also calls for all states that are not members of the NPT – Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea – to join the NPT as non-nuclear powers.

So while Iran is not mentioned in the draft resolution – which must be adopted by consensus – in two separate places, Israel’s purported nuclear arsenal is the target of an international diplomatic stampede.

In 2005, Egypt circulated a draft resolution that was substantively identical to its current draft. But in stark contrast to today’s conclave, the NPT review conference in 2005 ended without agreement, because the Bush administration refused to go along with Egypt’s assault on Israel.

Particularly in light of Iran’s nuclear weapons program and the Iranian regime’s expressed goal of destroying Israel, the Bush administration preferred to scuttle the conference rather than give any credence to the view that Israel’s purported nuclear arsenal is a greater threat to global security than Iran’s nuclear program – which, as in today’s draft, wasn’t mentioned in Egypt’s resolution five years ago. The Obama administration has no problem going along with Cairo.

Obama’s willingness to place Israel’s nuclear program on the international agenda next to Iran’s is par for the course of his utterly failed policy for contending with Iran’s nuclear program. After his diplomatic open hand policy towards Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was met with a clenched fist, Obama’s attempt to convince the UN Security Council to pass “smart sanctions” against Iran has been checkmated by Iran’s nuclear deal with its newest strategic allies, Turkey and Brazil.

That deal, which facilitates rather than impedes Teheran’s nuclear weapons program, has ended any prospect that the Security Council will pass an additional sanctions resolution against Iran in the near future. But then, in order to secure the now weakened Russian support for his sanctions resolution, Obama exempted Russia from the sanctions and turned a blind eye to continued Russian and Chinese nuclear proliferation activities in Syria, Turkey and Pakistan. Furthermore, Obama agreed to make most of the remaining provisions non-binding.

In the meantime, and in spite of the fact that his sanctions bid is in shambles, Obama has asked congressional Democrats to stall their sanctions bills for another month. So, too, Obama prevailed on his Democratic colleagues in Congress to exempt Russia and China from their sanctions bills.

AS PART of the administration’s attempt to woo American Jews back into the Democratic Party fold despite its anti-Israel policies, last week a group of pre-selected pro-Obama rabbis was invited to the White House for talks with Obama’s chief of staff Rahm Emanuel and with Dan Shapiro and Dennis Ross, who hold the Palestinian and Iran dossiers on Obama’s National Security Council, respectively. According to a report of the meeting by Rabbi Jack Moline that has not been refuted by the White House, the three men told the Democratic rabbis that the administration has three priorities in the Middle East. First Obama seeks to isolate Iran. Second, he seeks to significantly reduce the US military presence in the Middle East, particularly in Iraq. And third, he seeks to resolve the Palestinian conflict with Israel.

These priorities are disturbing for a number of reasons. First, isolating Iran is not the same as preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. By characterizing its goal as “isolating” Iran, the administration makes clear that preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons is not its goal. Moreover, as Iran’s deal with Brazil and Turkey makes abundantly clear, Iran is not isolated. Indeed, its foreign relations have prospered since Obama took office.

In his write-up of the meeting, Moline indicated that Ross and Emanuel view Obama’s rejection of Israel’s right to build homes for Jews in Jerusalem as motivated by his goal of isolating Iran. So in the view of Obama’s Jewish advisers, his preferred method of isolating Iran is to attack Israel.

Add that to his third priority of establishing a Palestinian state by the end of next year and you have a US president for whom bashing Israel is his first and third priorities in the Middle East.

When one factors in his willingness to put Israel’s purported nuclear arsenal on the international chopping block, it is clear that there is no precedent for Obama’s hostility towards Israel in the history of US-Israel relations.

THIS BRINGS us to Obama’s meeting next Tuesday with Netanyahu. Obama’s continued commitment to his anti-Israel policies indicates that there are two possible scenarios for next week’s meeting. In the best case, the meeting will have no substance whatsoever. It will be nothing more than a public display of presidential affection for the Israeli premier.

The more likely scenario is that Obama will use the meeting as an opportunity to pressure Netanyahu not to attack Iran’s nuclear installations; not to attack Hizbullah’s and Syria’s missile depots, launchers and silos; and to extend the prohibition on Jewish building in Judea and Samaria beyond its September deadline and expand the prohibition to Jewish home construction in Jerusalem.

Regarding the latter scenario, it can only be hoped that Netanyahu has learned from his previous experiences with Obama. In December, in the hopes of alleviating US pressure, Netanyahu announced an unprecedented 10-month ban on Jewish building in Judea and Samaria. For his efforts, Netanyahu was rewarded with an escalation of American pressure against Israel.

After he pocketed Netanyahu’s concession on Judea and Samaria, Obama immediately launched his poisonous assault on Israeli rights to Jerusalem.

Likewise, Netanyahu’s willingness to outwardly support both Obama’s effort to appease Iran and his efforts to pass anti-Iran sanctions in the Security Council gained Obama a year and a half of quiet from Jerusalem. During that time, Iran has moved within months of the bomb and the US has abandoned its goal of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

This experience has one clear lesson: If Obama seeks policy concessions from Israel during their meeting, Netanyahu must reject his entreaties. In fact, it may even be counterproductive for Netanyahu to abstain from responding in the hopes of buying time.

If on the other hand, Obama avoids discussion of substantive issues and devotes his meeting with Netanyahu to a discussion of Michelle Obama’s war on obesity, Netanyahu should consider what Obama did to the family of slain Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl while the president signed the Daniel Pearl Press Freedom Act last week.

Pearl was decapitated in 2002 by jihadists in Pakistan. Among other things, his killers claimed he had no right to live because he was Jewish. At the ceremony, Obama barred Pearl’s father, Judea Pearl, from speaking. In so doing Obama reduced Daniel Pearl’s family to the status of mere props as Obama vapidly and reprehensibly proclaimed, “Obviously, the loss of Daniel Pearl was one of those moments that captured the world’s imagination because it reminded us of how valuable a free press is.”

This appropriation of Pearl’s murder and denial of what it represented served Obama’s purpose of pretending that there is no jihad and that radical Islam is not a threat to the US. And by silencing Pearl’s father, the president turned him into an unwilling accomplice.

Netanyahu should take two lessons from Obama’s behavior at the ceremony. First, Netanyahu must do everything he can to avoid being used as a prop. This means that he should insist on having a joint press briefing with Obama. He must also insist on having a say regarding which journalists will be included in the press pool and who will be permitted to ask the two leaders questions.

Second, Netanyahu must not become Obama’s spokesman. As part of his unsuccessful bid to convince Obama to change his policies towards Israel, Netanyahu and his advisers have gone on record praising Obama for his support for Israel. These statements have stymied attempts by Israel’s US supporters to pressure Obama to change those policies.

The Israeli official who has been most outspoken in his praise for Obama and his denial that Obama’s policies are hostile towards Israel has been Ambassador Michael Oren. Oren has repeatedly praised Obama for his supposedly firm support for Israel and commitment to Israel’s security – most recently in an appearance on Fox News on Wednesday. Moreover, according to eyewitness reports, in a recent closed-door meeting with American Jews, Oren criticized the Republican Party for attacking Obama for his animosity towards Israel.

This quite simply has to end. As foreign officials, Israeli diplomats should not be involved in US partisan politics. Not only should Israeli officials not give Obama undeserved praise, they should not give Republicans undeserved criticism.

At the end of the day, American Jews have the luxury of choosing between their loyalty to the Democratic Party and their support for Israel. And in the coming months, they will choose.

The government of Israel has no such luxury. The government’s only duty is to secure Israel and advance Israel’s national interests in every way possible. Netanyahu must not permit Obama’s public relations campaign to divert him from this mission.

caroline@carolineglick.com

Diplomats: Missing equipment from Iran lab may be nuclear cover-up

May 28, 2010

Diplomats: Missing equipment from Iran lab may be nuclear cover-up – Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News.

UN nuclear inspectors revisiting Iranian labortatory discover some apparatus has disappeared which was believed to be used in Iran’s secret nuclear weapons program.

By The Associated Press Tags: Iran Iran nuclear IAEA

UN nuclear inspectors who were revisiting an Iranian laboratory to follow up on activities that could be linked to a secret nuclear weapons program recently discovered that some equipment believed used in the experiments has disappeared, diplomats said Friday.

Iran nuclear plant in Bushehr Technicians measuring parts of Iran’s Bushehr nuclear power plant in this undated photo.
Photo by: AP

One of the diplomats told The Associated Press that senior officials within the International Atomic Energy Agency – the UN nuclear watchdog – were concerned that the removal was an attempted cover-up.

Two others confirmed that some apparatus had gone missing. One said it was too early to draw conclusions, suggesting it could have been taken to another site for nothing more than maintenance. The three spoke on condition of anonymity because information surrounding the Iran nuclear probe is confidential.

At issue is pyroprocessing, a procedure that can be used to purify uranium metal used in nuclear warheads.

Iran in January confirmed to the agency that it had carried out pyroprocessing experiments, prompting a request from the nuclear agency for more information – but then backtracked in March in comments at a closed meeting of the IAEA’s governing board.

In fact there is not pyroprocessing R&D activity and the question raised has been a misinterpretation by the Agency inspectors, said an excerpt of the Iranian statement made available this week to the AP.

The experiments prompted IAEA experts to revisit the site – the Jabr Inb Jayan Multipurpose Research Laboratory in Tehran – where they found some of the equipment removed to an undisclosed site, said the diplomats. One of the two said the electrolysis unit used in separating out impurities from uranium metal was among the apparatus that had been removed. Another said chemical apparatus used in the process were now missing.

IAEA officials said the agency would have no comment. Attempts to get Iranian comment were not immediately successful, with Vienna-based Iranian officials not answering their cell phones.

Any Iranian pyroprocessing work, even on an experimental basis, would add to suspicions that Tehran is interested in developing nuclear weapons – even though it insists it is solely interested in the atom as an energy source.

The UN Security Council is currently considering a fourth set of sanctions in response to the Islamic Republic’s refusal to halt uranium enrichment – which can create both nuclear fuel and the fissile core of warheads. It is also concerned about Tehran’s belated revelation earlier this year of a secret enrichment site under construction and its refusal to answer IAEA questions based on foreign intelligence and linked to suspicions of hidden nuclear weapons work.

U.S. yields to Arab demand to pressure Israel on nukes

May 28, 2010
  • Published 21:13 28.05.10
  • Latest update 21:13 28.05.
  • Haaretz.Com.0
In attempt to rescue Non-Proliferation Treaty talks, U.S. backs down on clause in final draft which urges Israel to sign the NPT and put its nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards. By Reuters Tags: Israel news Iran IAEA UN

The United States accepted Arab demands to pressure Israel over its atomic program to rescue talks on shoring up a global anti-nuclear arms pact, Western envoys said on Friday.

But they said Iran or Syria might still block a final declaration now agreed by most of the 190 signatories of the 1970 nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, who have been trying for a month to strengthen the troubled pact.

Either or both could block the declaration because NPT meetings make decisions through consensus. If agreed, this would be the first deal at an NPT review meeting since 2000.

“We have a deal that everyone can live with,” a Western diplomat told Reuters. “Now the question, is will Iran do the right thing? Will they go against something the entire Arab

League and everyone else here is ready to support?”

Syrian delegates also refused to commit themselves to supporting the final declaration.

The final draft urges Israel, which did not participate in the conference, to sign the NPT and put its nuclear facilities under U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards. The United States fought hard to delete that clause but backed down to save the conference, delegates said.

Delegates were to hold a final session later on Friday to adopt the declaration, which contains plans for further disarmament, strengthening global non-proliferation efforts and ensuring access to technology for peaceful uses.

The NPT is intended to stop the spread of atomic weapons, though it allowed the United States, Britain, France, China and Russia to keep their arsenals while calling on them to

negotiate on disarmament.

Analysts say the treaty has been under pressure due to Iran’s and North Korea’s nuclear programs and the failure of the five official nuclear states to disarm.

The latest draft calls for U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to organize a meeting of all Mideast states in 2012 on how to make the region free of nuclear and other weapons of

mass destruction (WMD).

Sticking Points

The creation of a WMD-free zone would eventually force Israel to declare and abandon its atomic bombs. U.S. officials say such a zone could not be created without Mideast peace.[1]

The Jewish state, which like nuclear-armed India and Pakistan never signed the NPT, is presumed to have a sizable nuclear arsenal but neither confirms nor denies its existence.

The Obama administration changed U.S. policy by joining Britain, France, Russia and China in backing a Mideast nuclear conference while encouraging Israel to participate.

“We’ve got a strong draft that would strengthen all three pillars of the NPT — disarmament, non-proliferation and peaceful use of nuclear energy,” a diplomat said.

Britain’s chief delegate, Ambassador John Duncan, told Reuters the draft text was “unprecedented” in its scope.

The 2005 NPT review collapsed after participants could not agree on a WMD-free zone in the Middle East and in the face developing nations’ annoyance with the United States for failing to meet previous disarmament pledges.

Chief Iranian delegate Ali Asghar Soltanieh accused the United States and the other nuclear powers of rejecting calls for a precise deadline for disarmament and other demands.

If these issues were not addressed in the declaration, he said Iran was prepared to act alone and vote against it.


North Korea Sinking Of South Korean Frigate Raises Arab Fear Of Nuclear Iran

May 28, 2010

North Korea Sinking Of South Korean Frigate Raises Arab Fear Of Nuclear Iran | Eurasia Review.

By Riad Kahwaji, CEO, INEGMA

The sinking of the South Korean frigate Cheonan last March 26 by a North Korean torpedo has prompted some Arab Gulf officials to wonder whether this would be a scenario that they would likely face with a nuclear-armed Iran in the future. North Korea, now equipped with nuclear arms, appears to have grown bolder in its provocations of its U.S.-allied neighbor in the south and other parts of East and Southeast Asia. An international team of investigators concluded that the warship was sunk by a North Korean torpedo. Seoul’s reaction has thus far been mild compared to its loss of 46 sailors in the incident. South Korea’s retaliation has been restricted to few steps: Cutting off trade ties with Pyongyang; barring North Korean ships from entering the South’s waters; seeking a U.N. Security Council resolution condemning the attack; and demanding an apology from the Northern communist state.

Many analysts plus Arab as well as Western officials have traditionally drawn a comparison between the approach used by North Korea to build its nuclear capabilities and the one adopted now by Iran. Both have embraced a strategy of clandestine nuclear activities and exploiting the loopholes in the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) system to advance the nuclear programs. North Korea has been the main supplier of ballistic missiles technology to Iran, which today builds medium-range missiles. Both countries are under some form of international sanctions and isolation. However, Iran, an Islamic Republic, has much more resources than its North Korean ally, especially oil and gas, which has made it more immune than Pyongyang to effective international isolation or sanctions. And both authoritarian regimes share strong animosity to the United States and the West.

Iran’s Arab Gulf neighbors to the West have traditionally felt threatened and intimidated by their large Persian neighbor. Although they did not have any direct military conflict with Iran, they however supported Iraq in the 1980-88 war with Iran. Iranian naval boats have often had skirmishes with Arab Gulf fishermen. Iran has ongoing border disputes with a number of these states and is accused by the United Arab Emirates (UAE) of occupying three of its islands (Greater and Smaller Tunb and Abu Mousa). The U.S.-allied Arab Gulf States have voiced concerns over Iran’s nuclear program and objected to Tehran acquiring nuclear weapons. Some Iranian officials and politicians make statements questioning the sovereignty of some of the Arab Gulf States, and even threatened to attack them if the U.S. or Israel carried out any military strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities. The sectarian tension in Iraq and Lebanon has also strained ties between the predominantly Shiite Muslim Iran with the predominantly Sunni Muslim Arab States.

“Iran without a nuclear bomb is now trying to dominate Arab countries and harass them on many fronts (Iraq, Lebanon and Palestinian territories) and in Gulf waters without care to Arab or international reaction, so imagine how Tehran would behave when it possesses nuclear weapons,” said one Arab official who asked not to be named. “What could Arab countries or even the United States do if submarines or gunboats of a nuclear-capable Iran attack and sink a Saudi or UAE frigate? Nothing more than simple words of condemnation,” he added. Another Arab Gulf politician said that Tehran would not differ much than Pyongyang in its behavior with its neighbors and the international community when it becomes a nuclear power. “Iran would likely become the absolute power-broker and dominator in the region because nobody, even the U.S., would be in the mood of escalating a military conflict with a nuclear power especially in an area rich with energy resources like the Gulf,” he said. Although Tehran has continuously asserted that its nuclear program was for peaceful uses, the United States, Israel and the West believe it conceals a military program. Most Arab people and officials believe Iran is seeking to build a nuclear arsenal.

Observers believe if Iran acquires nuclear weapons, some Arab countries would try to do the same to achieve an effective balance of power with Iran as well as Israel – another regional nuclear power. The Gulf states are now watching Pyongyang’s neighbor’s South Korea and Japan especially– to see whether they can rely on the U.S. and/or international community to deter future hostile North Korean actions. This issue raises an important question: Can non-nuclear states stand up to nuclear states who bully their neighbors?

This article was produced by INEGMA, the Institute for Near East and Gulf Military Analysis based in Dubai and reprinted with permission.

Only a drill?

May 28, 2010

Jerusalem Post | Breaking News from Israel, the Middle East & the Jewish World.

Editor's Notes: Only a drill?