Archive for March 2, 2012

Obama’s Many Messages on Iran: The Ticker – Bloomberg

March 2, 2012

via Obama’s Many Messages on Iran: The Ticker – Bloomberg.

It struck me early in my interview with President Barack Obama on the subject of Iran and Israel, that the president was addressing himself to a large number of far-flung and competing constituencies at once.

During much of our 45-minute conversation, which was held in the Oval Office Wednesday, Obama was directing a series of complicated messages to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who will be visiting the White House Monday for what may turn out to be the single most consequential meeting of Obama’s presidency.

About Jeffrey Goldberg

Jeffrey Goldberg, a national correspondent for the Atlantic, is the author of “Prisoners: A Story of Friendship and Terror.” He was formerly a Washington correspondent and a Middle East correspondent for the New Yorker.

More about Jeffrey Goldberg

It is widely expected that Netanyahu will seek assurances from Obama that, one day in the not-so-distant future, the U.S. will strike Iran’s nuclear facilities, if sanctions fail to dissuade the regime in Tehran to give up its atomic ambitions. Obama, for his part, will be trying to convince Netanyahu not to attack Iran unilaterally, to give sanctions more time to work. One of the ways he will do this is to tell him that the U.S., in his words, “has Israel’s back.” Obama will also, he told me, argue that a premature attack could make the world more sympathetic to Iran. “At a time when there is not a lot of sympathy for Iran and its only real ally (Syria) is on the ropes, do we want a distraction in which suddenly Iran can portray itself as a victim?” he asked.

With Netanyahu he was performing a balancing act; with the Iranians, not quite so much. The president made it as clear as he ever has that a “military component” is one aspect of his famous formulation that “all options are on the table.” And he warned the Iranians (and comforted the Israelis) by noting: “As president of the United States, I don’t bluff.”

He had messages for other constituencies as well. One was his own administration, which has been speaking in multiple, and sometimes discordant, voices, on the question of America’s options vis-à-vis Iran, and on the possibility that Israel would strike Iran soon. Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, last week suggested that Iran was run by “rational” men, which caused jitters among those who believe that Iran’s leaders have systematically made bad choices. Other U.S. officials, including Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, have talked at great length about the dangers and difficulties of a strike on Iran.

Such talk could cause the Iranians to believe that they are safe from U.S. military action. But I predict that such talk will stop now that Obama has said plainly, without equivocating or over-analyzing, that he is committed to keeping Iran from going nuclear.

Another constituency Obama was speaking to: leaders of the Republican Party, who he believes are trying to separate pro-Israel Americans (Jews, mainly, but not only) from the Democratic Party. “Why is it that, despite me never failing to support Israel on every single problem that they’ve had over the last three years, that there are still questions” about his support for Israel? he asked. He then answered: “There is no good reason to doubt me on these issues.” He went on to say, “Some of it has to do with the fact that in this country and in our media, this gets wrapped up with politics. And I don’t think that’s any secret. And if you have a set of political actors who want to see if they can drive a wedge not between the United States and Israel, but between Barack Obama and a Jewish-American vote that has historically been very supportive of his candidacy, then it’s good to try to fan doubts and raise questions.” Contained his answer was a subtle warning to anyone who claims to support Israel: Don’t turn such support into a partisan issue.

And of course, there is another constituency he was talking to: those American Jews themselves, whose sympathy and support he had in 2008 and hopes to have again as he stands for re-election. When he goes before the AIPAC convention Sunday morning, his message will be fairly unequivocal: Like most other presidents before him, he is on Israel’s side.

(Jeffrey Goldberg is a Bloomberg View columnist and a national correspondent for the Atlantic. Follow him on Twitter.)

 

In meeting, Obama to warn Netanyahu against military strikes on Iran – The Washington Post

March 2, 2012

In meeting, Obama to warn Netanyahu against military strikes on Iran – The Washington Post.

By , Friday, March 2, 8:51 PM

President Obama is heading into a critical week in his drive to contain Iran’s nuclear ambitions, as he meets with Israel’s hawkish leader to caution him against military strikes until international economic sanctions have had time to take full effect.

Obama’s meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Monday will come amid public differences between the allies over the intent of Iran’s nuclear program, although not over the principle that Iran must be prevented from developing a weapon with its enriched uranium.

The Oval Office session will provide a chance for both leaders, who have had a tense relationship at times, to clarify their thinking on the need for and the timing of a potential military operation against Iran’s nuclear facilities.

For Obama, there is a political backdrop, as well. With his approval ratings finally rising on the strength of an improving economy, he faces intertwined political threats in an election year: rising gas prices and the possibility of a military confrontation involving an oil-rich Iran. The issue preoccupies the White House but does not resonate as urgently among Israelis.

How Obama intends to convey that message to Netanyahu, who faces political pressures of his own, will entail a measure of public showmanship and private diplomacy.

Israeli leaders are operating on a far shorter timeline for military action. They have concluded, unlike the Obama administration, that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon, and their ability to strike it is hindered by munitions that are less powerful than those in the U.S. arsenal.

As Iran steps up its enrichment of uranium and places more of its installations underground, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak has warned that Iran is approaching what he calls “the zone of immunity,” a milestone after which an Israeli attack would prove far less effective in setting back the Iranian program.

Iranian leaders have said the enrichment program is for civilian power purposes, although international inspectors have uncovered evidence to suggest a military intent. Israel has its own undeclared nuclear program, including a large nuclear weapons arsenal. But Obama has declined to call on Israeli leaders to declare the program, a source of frustration and fear in the Middle East.

In an interview published Friday in the Atlantic magazine, Obama said that “the Israeli government recognizes that, as president of the United States, I don’t bluff.”

But he suggested that any Israeli strike on Iran before international oil and gas sanctions take effect this summer would undermine the tenuous unity the United States and its allies have built to oppose Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Privately, White House officials say any sense of unity would explode with the first Israeli airstrike.

“At a time when there is not a lot of sympathy for Iran and its only real ally [Syria] is on the ropes, do we want a distraction in which suddenly Iran can portray itself as the victim?” Obama said in the interview.

That probably will be the message Obama delivers Sunday when he addresses the American Israel Political Affairs Committee, the Jewish state’s most conservative and politically influential U.S.-based advocacy group.

Obama’s challenge, administration officials and outside analysts say, will be to send a strong signal to Iran that the United States and Israel will do what it takes, including military action, to prevent the Islamic Republic from developing a nuclear weapon.

At the same time, he must make clear to Israel and its most ardent supporters in the United States that he does not favor an Israeli strike at this time, and do so in a way that doesn’t reveal a split with his ally that Iran could exploit.

A Washington Post-ABC News poll in January showed that nearly half of Americans — 48 percent — disapproved of Obama’s handling of the Iranian nuclear issue. But the poll also found that very few respondents, including Republicans, favored a U.S. military operation against Iran over allowing time for diplomatic efforts such as the oil and banking sanctions to take effect.

Most Americans also say that the United States should stay neutral in a conflict between Israel and Iran over the nuclear program.

A Pew Research Center poll published in February found that 39 percent of respondents say the United States should back Israel in such a war, while 51 percent said the country should stay out of it. The results were sharply partisan, with Republicans, by a 2 to 1 margin, saying the Obama administration should support Israel.

U.S. and Israeli officials acknowledge privately that there is diplomatic value in Israel’s public threats of war.

Israel’s anxiety and declared readiness to strike Iran give the Obama administration leverage in persuading Japan, Russia and other relatively rich countries to rally behind sanctions and tighten them as necessary — or risk a military confrontation with potentially devastating consequences for a fragile global economy.

“People really don’t want war,” said an administration official, who like others spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal thinking on Iran. “They really don’t.”

Obama and Netanyahu have had an up-and-down relationship, which the president, in his interview with the Atlantic, described as “very functional.”

Much of the friction has emerged from the administration’s management of the Israeli-Palestinian peace issue — and the Israeli response to its requests. But officials from both countries say that, on matters of military cooperation and intelligence-sharing, the relationship is strong.

Early in his term Obama embraced the long-standing Israeli security policy — used as the standard for acquiring U.S. military aid — of preserving a “qualitative military edge” in the region. U.S. officials from Obama on down have also said repeatedly that, regardless of Israel’s response to the Iranian program, the American commitment to its security is “unshakable.”

Even amid their rough patches, Netanyahu has turned first to Obama in seeking support in times of crisis, whether during the angry aftermath of the deadly Israeli raid on a Turkish flotilla bound for Gaza or amid the Palestinian push for statehood at the United Nations last fall that Obama opposed.

“When the chips are down and there’s a lot at stake, the Israeli prime minister still calls the president of the United States,” said Dennis Ross, a counselor at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy who served as Obama’s senior adviser on Israel and Iran before leaving the National Security Council staff at the end of last year. “There is still a high degree of trust.”

Administration officials say that no formal agreement has been reached with Israel over how a strike would be conducted — or when Obama would be informed about it.

Some officials said the assumption inside the White House and Pentagon is that Israel would not give the United States warning, allowing the administration to deny prior knowledge but also limiting its ability to defend U.S. military assets in the region.

Whether the subject will come up during Obama’s meeting with Netanyahu is unclear. But administration officials say there is some fear that talking about the logistics of an Israeli strike might be seen by the Israeli government as a tacit green light — not a signal Obama wants to send.

Outside analysts say that Israel, known for fiercely protecting its right to make its own national security decisions, might also want to avoid too many specific conversations and agreements that could restrain its ability to act later.

“They’ve always wanted to preserve their own freedom of action,” Ross said. “The more explicitly you begin to seek certain kinds of commitments, the more you are going to be asked to make commitments of your own.”

Instead, Ross and others outside the administration believe Obama and Netanyahu will seek an understanding on the “zone of immunity” concept — that is, when Israel believes it must attack to effectively damage the Iranian program.

U.S. intelligence agencies have yet to conclude that Iran’s leaders have decided to pursue a nuclear weapons, a central point of disagreement with Israeli officials, who argue that, given Iranian advances, the time between that decision and the construction of a workable bomb is likely to be very short.

Israeli officials have told their American counterparts that it is impossible to know the full scope of the Iranian intent and the reaches of its program, even though Western intelligence has exposed Iranian subterfuge before. The Israeli message is: We don’t know what we don’t know.

But Obama told the Atlantic that “our assessment, which is shared by the Israelis, is that Iran does not yet have a nuclear weapon and is not yet in a position to obtain a nuclear weapon without us having a pretty long lead time in which we will know that they are making that attempt.”

“In that context, our argument is going to be that it is important for us to see if we can solve this thing permanently, as opposed to temporarily,” Obama said.

A European Union embargo on Iranian oil and fresh American sanctions against its energy sector are due to kick in this summer, strong diplomatic tools that could push up gasoline prices during the peak summer driving season in the United States.

The price per gallon in the United States has already jumped 47 cents in the past two months, and a new Post-ABC News poll found that Obama gets the most blame for this development.

The sanctions law does give Obama some flexibility in implementing it if he determines that the world oil market to unable to absorb a decrease in supply.

A report released Thursday by the U.S. Energy Information Administration, which will provide much of the data Obama will rely on in making his sanction implementation decisions, said the impending sanctions are already disrupting Iranian oil exports. It also said that “spare oil production capacity is currently quite modest,” meaning it will be difficult to make up for the drop in Iranian supply.

Obama has the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to draw on to make up for significant shortfalls, and any decision to weaken the sanctions against Iran probably would alarm Israel and undermine the administration’s message.

As a second administration official put it, “We’re trying to make the decision to attack as hard as possible for Israel.”

 

Polling analyst Scott Clement contributed to this report.

© The Washington Post Company

Netanyahu faces a tough decision should Obama not give him a green light on Iran

March 2, 2012

Netanyahu faces a tough decision should Obama not give him a green light on Iran – Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News.

How the United States would act were Israel to disregard its position is impossible to determine. In this respect, the decision that Netanyahu must make is much tougher than what faced Olmert in summer 2007.

By Yossi Verter

The prevailing view is that at the summit meeting in Washington on Monday, the cards will be put on the table. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will beseech U.S. President Barack Obama to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities, or at least make a credible threat to strike them. If Obama turns him down, Netanyahu – who waxes effusively in interviews about his loneliness as a leader – will leave the White House as the loneliest person in the world.

Apart from Netanyahu, only one person alive in Israel today has experienced firsthand the excruciating dilemma of reaching a similarly weighty, life-or-death decision: Ehud Olmert, Netanyahu’s predecessor as premier. According to memoirs (including those of former President George W. Bush, and former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice ), Olmert went to the White House in June 2007. This was not a routine visit. At the time, nobody knew that Olmert had demanded of Bush that the United States destroy the nuclear reactor in Syria, whose existence had been discovered a few months earlier, hidden in the desert. Israeli officials possessed information suggesting that the reactor would become operational by the autumn. Rice thought the reactor’s existence should be disclosed to the world, and that a campaign of economic sanctions and diplomatic pressure ought to be launched. Vice President Dick Cheney supported Olmert’s position. Bush equivocated. Olmert returned empty-handed to Israel.

Obama, Netanyahu - Reuters - May 20, 2011 Obama and Netanyahu speak in the Oval Office, May 20, 2011
Photo by: Reuters

A few weeks after the White House meeting, Bush and Olmert talked on the phone. According to the president’s memoirs, Bush informed Olmert in this conversation that he had now taken Rice’s side on the question. The United States, he said, could not attack a sovereign country without the recommendation of the intelligence branches. At the time, America’s intelligence organizations were unable to corroborate Israel’s feeling that the reactor was close to being operational. Bush proposed that Rice leave immediately for Israel, and that she stage a joint press conference with Olmert in which the two would disclose the reactor’s existence to the world.

Bush’s advisers told Olmert’s aides that Olmert had said to the president, “Your strategy is very disturbing to me. I will act on the basis of Israel’s national interest” – whereupon the president apparently turned to his aides and said, “Do you see why I like that guy? He has balls.” In his book Bush writes that Olmert did not ask for a green light for the Israeli strike which, according to foreign sources, it apparently carried out on September 6, 2007. And Olmert never obtained such a green light.

The risks were staggering. Syria could have declared war in response to the aerial raid. Under such a scenario, Hezbollah would probably have joined forces with Damascus. The entire region was in danger of conflagration.

Olmert Bush - GPO - 2.3.12 Former Prime Minister Olmert (left) and former President Bush. No such trust and respect binds Netanyahu and Obama.
Photo by: GPO

Yet, nothing happened. Olmert’s gamble paid off.

Now, as then, an existential threat is posed to the State of Israel. Now, as then, Israel’s prime minister demands of the U.S. president that he act to remove the threat facing Israel. Now, as then, American intelligence forces are not persuaded that circumstances warrant a military act. Now, as then, Israel is liable to find itself in a corner, alone, defended only by its own capabilities. Now, as then, it is clear that no Israeli prime minister will ask for advance authorization from the American head of state for a strike, and that no U.S. president would give his approval for such an operation at this time.

There are also differences. In the Syrian case, the reactor was a secret. Today, everything is out in the open. Today, the price that Israel and the world are liable to pay for such a military strike – a wide-ranging war, international terror strikes, elevated oil prices – is much higher, in view of Iran’s capabilities.

But the most significant difference is the lack of mutual trust between the two country’s leaders. Bush and Olmert enjoyed a rare relationship of congeniality and mutual respect. Had something gone wrong, America would presumably have come to Israel’s assistance, even though it never signaled a green light. Olmert knew this was the case.

No such trust and respect binds Netanyahu and Obama. How the United States would act were Israel to disregard its position is impossible to determine. In this respect, the decision that Netanyahu must make is much tougher than what faced Olmert in summer 2007.

‘It’s a black hole’

“Nobody understands Histadrut politics,” opines MK Eitan Cabel (Labor ), a self-appointed candidate for the position of chairman of the Histadrut labor federation. “There’s nothing like it, certainly not national politics. People think they know what’s going on at the Histadrut, but they haven’t got a clue. It’s a black hole. Had I not served as Labor Party secretary in the past, I also wouldn’t have a clue. Nobody can imagine the depth of the corruption, violence and aggressiveness. Who knows that 70 percent of its members do not come out to vote in elections? Or that the remaining 30 percent who do vote are, by and large, organized? I’m trying to reach the 70 percent. If I succeed in bringing some of these people out to vote, I’ve done my part.”

Relying on some peculiar arguments, the Histadrut labor federation’s election committee this week disqualified both Amir Peretz and Cabel as candidates. Next week, the controversy over their candidacies will be decided, one way or another. Should Cabel be deemed eligible, Peretz says he will withdraw his candidacy and proffer his support to him. Cabel believes he can get people to leave their homes and cast ballots, mainly because he is totally unlike current Histadrut head Ofer Eini, and all that Eini represents. Cabel also hints that he views himself as being quite unlike all that Peretz represents.

Should Peretz be deemed eligible, and Cabel remain ineligible, Peretz will keep his hat in the ring. Should both remain disqualified, the Histadrut chairman elections will resemble, not for the first time, referenda in Syria, such as the one staged this week.

A theory took hold this week in the political arena and in Histadrut circles: Peretz wants to run for the Histadrut slot not because he really wants to head the labor federation. He’s looking ahead to the next Knesset election campaign. Suppose he does not oust Eini, but his Otzma faction wins 20 percent or 30 percent of the Histadrut vote. Such an achievement would bring to his own coffers more than NIS 10 million. And where there is money and there’s a faction – there is a basis for the formation of a new party. With a party of his own, Peretz would not be dependent upon Labor chair Shelly Yachimovich. That would help Peretz, should he discern that Yachimovich is taking steps to liquidate him politically in primaries for the selection of Labor’s next Knesset list.

It’s a gas

Ehud Barak likes to quote something Ariel Sharon told him during Barak’s first days in politics: “When we fought on the battlefield, whoever was lost, was gone, forever. On the political battlefield, you read day after day that this person or that person is gone, that his career is over, that he’s taken a mortal blow. But you always see the same exact people around you.”

Once again, Netanyahu faces a dilemma: Should he come across as a serial capitulator, this time with regard to gas prices, and do the right thing, by making life a bit easier for Israeli drivers? He’s chosen a unique policy path: He isn’t capitulating and he isn’t making anyone’s life easier. As always, his decision was reached at the last minute.

For a week, discussions have been held at the Prime Minister’s Office, in an effort to do something about the unprecedented prices at the gas pumps. PMO director general Harel Locker was given the assignment of devising a solution; he failed. Meanwhile, public pressure mounted, along with media reports and rumblings evinced by Likud MKs who (unlike Netanyahu ) get around the country – and the pressure forced Netanyahu into reaching a decision. Without finding a budgetary source to fill in the gap, he decided on Wednesday to reduce gas prices by 10 agorot per liter.

That’s a decision Netanyahu could have reached on Monday or Tuesday, in an orderly fashion. But in the PMO, an opportunity is never missed to miss an opportunity.

It’s a new Mideast

Next Tuesday, as part of his 11-day, coast-to-coast North America visit, and after he meets with Obama and speaks at the AIPAC conference in Washington, President Shimon Peres will visit Silicon Valley. He will meet with Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, and the two will officially open an international Facebook page for Peres, oriented to young people in the Arab world. That’s as New as the New Middle East gets. The initiative was announced a week ago by Peres’ office. Telephones in the PMO’s started to work overtime. The target: Facebook’s inner sanctum. The goal: organizing a meeting for Netanyahu with Zuckerberg, early next week.

Since Netanyahu is a busy man, he is unable to criss-cross the U.S. like Peres. So the prime minister’s men came up with an idea: Zuckerberg should show his respect for Netanyahu by meeting him in the nation’s capital. Zuckerberg didn’t buy it. Perhaps we can do a video conference, Netanyahu’s aides proposed. That also did not move mountains. The PMO waved a white flag.

So only Peres will meet Zuckerberg. Only Peres will get an international Facebook page. Perhaps some consolation and comfort can be gleaned from this Facebook drama: If, on such a fateful/crucial/dramatic trip, Netanyahu and his staff have had time to deal with Facebook pages and concomitant issues of ego and respect – perhaps circumstances are not so fateful/crucial/dramatic after all.

Israeli PM says world shouldn’t fall into ‘trap’ of renewed nuclear talks with Iran – The Washington Post

March 2, 2012

Israeli PM says world shouldn’t fall into ‘trap’ of renewed nuclear talks with Iran – The Washington Post.

By Associated Press, Updated: Friday, March 2, 8:43 PM

OTTAWA, Ontario — Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu demanded Friday that Iran abandon its uranium enrichment program and dismantle its underground nuclear facility, and he warned the international community not to fall into the “trap” of renewed nuclear talks.

Netanyahu also said he not would set down “red lines” for Israeli or U.S. action — a reference to reports in Israel that the country intended to press the United States to set such demands.

In comments after a meeting with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Netanyahu said Iran could try to evade pressure by entering talks and pursue and exploit the talks, as it has done in the past.

Netanyahu also will meet with President Barack Obama on Monday, and Iran will be a major concern. Obama is expected to try to persuade Netanyahu to postpone any plans his government may have to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities in coming months.

“Right now, Iran is feeling the pressure from the economic sanctions, and it could try to evade that pressure by entering talks,” Netanyahu said.

“I think the international community should not fall into this trap. I think the demands on Iran should be clear: Dismantle the underground nuclear facility in Qom, stop enrichment inside Iran and get all the enriched material out of Iran. And when I say all the material, I mean all the material.”

Iran has said it has begun enrichment work at the Qom site.

Netanyahu said Israel has the right to defend itself against Iran, which he says calls and works for Israel’s destruction.

Obama warned Israel in an interview with The Atlantic magazine published Friday that a premature attack on Iran would do more harm than good.

In his most expansive remarks on the issue thus far, Obama told the magazine that Iran and Israel both understand that “a military component” is among a mix of many options for dealing with Iran, along with sanctions and diplomacy.

That is the most direct threat he has issued during months of escalating tension with Iran over its disputed nuclear development program.

At the same time, Obama has consistently refused to renounce a military option for the United States down the road.

Israeli leaders have strongly hinted that they want to hear clearer terms from Obama for what the United States would do if Iran crosses the threshold from nuclear energy to nuclear weapons. Until now, Obama has said a nuclear Iran is unacceptable but has not spelled out just what the U.S. would do or when.

___

Associated Press writer Rob Gillies in Toronto and Mark S. Smith and Anne Gearan contributed to this report.

Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

© The Washington Post Company

Netanyahu: Israel reserves the right to defend itself against Iran – Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News

March 2, 2012

Netanyahu: Israel reserves the right to defend itself against Iran – Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News.

PM makes first public comments during North American visit, says international community must not allow ‘Iran’s relentless pursuit of nuclear weapons’ succeed.

By Reuters

In his first public comments on a North American visit that will include talks with U.S. President Barack Obama, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Friday Israel reserved the right to defend itself against Iran.

Netanyahu will meet with Obama on Monday to address growing differences over what Washington fears could be an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear sites.

Netanyahu in Canada - Reuters - March 2, 2012 Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu meets with Canada’s Prime Minister Stephen Harper in the Rotunda on Parliament Hill in Ottawa March 2, 2012.
Photo by: Reuters

Netanyahu said the international community should not allow what he called “Iran’s relentless pursuit of nuclear weapons” to succeed.

“As for Israel, like any sovereign country, we reserve the right to defend ourselves against a country that calls and works for our destruction,” he told reporters in Ottawa at the start of a meeting with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

Netanyahu wants Obama to more forcefully declare “red lines” that Iran must not cross in its nuclear program.

In an interview published on Friday, Obama used his sharpest language yet to warn Iran of his willingness to resort to military options if necessary to prevent Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Obama told the Atlantic magazine that “all options are on the table” for dealing with Iran’s nuclear plans and added that the final option was the “military component”.

FM: Israel is prepared to provide humanitarian aid to Syria

March 2, 2012

FM: Israel is prepared to provide… JPost – Diplomacy & Politics.

By JPOST.COM STAFF AND REUTERS 03/02/2012 19:02
In meeting with Bulgarian president, Liberman says it’s “impermissible to resign to daily killing of innocents in Syria”; Int’l Red Cross is not allowed to enter Baba Amr in Homs to provide emergency assistance.

Liberman meets with counterpart Mladenov
By Courtesy

Israel is prepared to provide humanitarian aid to victims of the clashes in Syria at any moment that it is asked, Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman told Bulgarian President Rosen Plevneliev in a meeting in Sofia on Friday.

Liberman said, “it is impermissible to resign to the bloodshed and daily killing of innocent people in Syria.” Earlier Friday, Liberman met with Bulgarian Foreign Minister Nikolai Mladenov.

Meanwhile, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) reported that it was unable to enter the Homs district of Baba Amro on Friday, where it had hoped to bring in aid and evacuate the sick and wounded.

“The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and the Syrian Arab Red Crescent Society (SARC) were not allowed to enter the Baba Amr district of Homs today,” ICRC President Jakob Kellenberger said in a statement issued in Geneva.

“It is unacceptable that people who have been in need of emergency assistance for weeks have still not received any help. We are staying in Homs tonight in the hope of entering Baba Amr in the very near future. In addition, many families have fled Baba Amr, and we will help them as soon as we possibly can.”

Syrian authorities had given the independent agency a “green light” on Thursday to enter in Friday, the statement said without providing further details on what had prevented their humanitarian operation to start.

Putin denies Russia has special relationship with Syrian regime

March 2, 2012

Putin denies Russia has special relationship with Syrian regime.

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin accused the West of worsening the crisis in Syria by helping arm the rebels. (Reuters)

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin accused the West of worsening the crisis in Syria by helping arm the rebels. (Reuters)

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin on Friday said his country had no special relationship with the Syrian regime, adding that it was up to the Syrians to decide who should run their country

With pressure mounting on Moscow to harden its line against Assad, Putin called on both the Damascus regime and opposition rebels to agree a ceasefire but also criticized the West for backing the rebels in the conflict.

“We have no special relationship with Syria,” Putin told foreign news executives late Thursday at a meeting at his suburban Moscow residence ahead of Sunday’s presidential elections in Russia.

Asked whether Assad had a chance to survive the crisis, he added: “I do not know this, I can give no kind of assessments.”

“It’s clear that there are very serious internal problems. The reforms that they (the regime) have offered clearly should have been carried out long ago,” said Putin in comments published on the government website Friday.

Alluding to Assad’s future, he said both sides had to sit down and agree “what reforms there will be and what will be the consequences of these reforms.”

“It is up to the Syrians to decide who should run their country … We need to make sure they stop killing each other,” he said.

Scattered gunfire could be heard on Friday inside Baba Amro district of Homs and sporadic shelling hit nearby districts, activists said. The overall level of combat exchanges seemed to have receded.

At least 17 rebels were put to death with knives after they were chased into nearby fields, one activist told Reuters.

Snow blanketed the city, where hundreds have died and residents lack food, fuel, power, water and telephone links, activists said.

“The Free Syrian Army and all the other fighters have left Baba Amro,” one activist said from Homs. “They pulled out.”

The drama in Homs unfolded without any immediate comment from Syrian officials or the state media, but Taleb Ibrahim, a Syrian analyst close to the government, said the military’s operation in Homs had “broken the back of the armed groups.”

Russia in February outraged the West by vetoing, along with China, a U.N. Security Council resolution condemning the Assad regime for the violence.

Some analysts saw the Security Council veto as a warning from Putin to Western states that Russia would pursue a tough foreign policy if, as expected, he returns to the Kremlin after Sunday’s presidential elections.

But Putin rejected the idea that Moscow was taking sides in what he described as an “armed civil conflict” and accused the West of worsening the crisis by helping arm the rebels and putting pressure on Assad.

“If you are going to only increase supplies of weapons (to the rebels) and step up pressure on Assad, the opposition will never sit at the negotiating table,” he said.

“Our principle is not to encourage the sides in an armed conflict but make them sit down at the negotiating table and agree acceptable terms for a ceasefire and to stop the human losses,” Putin added.

Syria is a major arms client of Moscow, which has kept strong ties with Damascus going back to the alliance between the Soviet Union and Assad’s father and predecessor Hafez al-Assad.

“I don’t know how much weaponry we are selling to Syria,” said Putin. “We have economic interests in Syria but likely no more than Britain or any other European country,” he added.

When Bibi meets Barack

March 2, 2012

Israel Hayom | When Bibi meets Barack.

Yoram Ettinger

On March 5, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will enter the White House, representing the Jewish state, which has been gaining in popularity among Americans. According to a February 2012 Gallup poll, Israel enjoys a 71 percent approval rating among Americans, compared with 68% in February 2011, well above Saudi Arabia’s 42% and the Palestinian Authority’s 19%.

Netanyahu will meet U.S. President Barack Obama, who is eager to secure the support of Israel’s friends in the U.S. in order to boost his frail approval rating of 43%, according to a Feb. 27, 2012 Gallup Poll. Unlike previous visits by Netanyahu, this time Obama will be anxious for warm photo opportunities with Israel’s prime minister.

On March 5, Netanyahu will meet President – as well as presidential candidate – Obama, who is engaged in an uphill re-election battle. Just like all his predecessors, Obama is consumed – domestically and internationally – by re-election. The March 5 meeting will be part of that electoral context, irrespective of Netanyahu’s wishes. Therefore, in order to avoid the appearance and accusal of partisanship, Netanyahu should, also, confer with the credible Republican presidential candidates.

Netanyahu should not be intimidated by – and should not subordinate his agenda to – the assumption that Obama has a lock on re-election. The presidential second-term curse, which has haunted every second-term president since George Washington except for James Monroe, has intensified in recent years. Thus, second-term presidents have reached the pinnacle of their clout upon re-election day, followed by a significant setback to their abilities to govern. Furthermore, Obama’s inability to reach the 50% favorability threshold – even when intra-GOP bickering dominates the news – reflects his vulnerability.

Netanyahu should not be perturbed by White House warnings to refrain from an intense strategic/legislative dialogue with Congress lest it be construed as a rude bypass of the president. Such warnings offend the pillars of U.S. democracy: separation of co-determining and co-equal branches of government, independence of the legislature and checks and balances. Such warnings insult the U.S. constituent, while undermining vital U.S. and Israeli interests. Netanyahu should not tolerate the relegation of Congress – the most authentic representative of the American people and Israel’s most sustained ally in Washington – to a secondary role in the area of national security and foreign policy. While Congress prefers to be preoccupied with domestic matters, it is capable of setting the agenda in any area, including international affairs, in general, and U.S.-Israel relations, in particular.

Netanyahu should not be swayed by the “Palestine Firsters” in the U.S. Administration. U.S.-Israel relations transcend the Arab-Israel conflict and the Palestinian issue. They are based on ancient, shared Judeo-Christian values and contemporary joint interests and mutual threats, irrespective of the Palestinian issue.

Netanyahu should highlight the clear, present and devastating mutual threat to the U.S., as well as to Israel, posed by a nuclear Iran, the seismic Arab street and the surge of Islamic terrorism. All are independent of the Palestinian issue, which has never been the core cause of Middle East unrest, the crown-jewel of Arab policy-making, or the crux of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Netanyahu should not provide a tailwind to American involvement in the Arab-Israeli conflict. The more involved the U.S., the more intensified are Arab expectations and terrorism, and the less likely the attainment of peace. The more involved the U.S. is as an “honest broker,” the less involved it is as Israel’s unique ally, which erodes a mega-billion dollar benefit to U.S. national security, U.S. homeland security and U.S. commercial and defense industries.

Netanyahu should present, to both sides of Pennsylvania Avenue, a series of initiatives, which would dramatically expand the mutually-beneficial, win-win U.S.-Israel defense and commercial cooperation, as a derivative of the dramatically destabilized reality on the Arab street. For instance, amending the 1976 Arms Export Control Act, which constrains strategic cooperation with Israel; the pre-positioning in Israel of advanced U.S. military systems – currently deployed in Europe – could prevent the toppling of a series of pro-U.S. regimes in the Middle East; the establishment of a binational foundation for enhanced cooperation between the respective defense industries; the upgrade of the Port of Ashdod for the benefit of the Sixth Fleet and the renewal of regular visits by the Sixth Fleet to Haifa; etc.

Netanyahu should sustain the can-do and independent image of Israel, refusing to subordinate the independence of military action to presidential pressure, promises or electoral concerns. The only way for Israel to refrain from a military preemption against Iran’s lethal nuclear threat is for the U.S. to undertake such preemption. Considering the failed track record of sanctions and diplomacy – which have played into the hands of Iran – the only way to prevent is to preempt, at all costs.

Syrian rebel leader hints at Israel peace after Assad’s fall

March 2, 2012

Israel Hayom | Syrian rebel leader hints at Israel peace after Assad’s fall.

“If Israel gives up Assad, he’s finished”

In an exclusive interview with Israel Hayom in Paris, a key figure in the Free Syrian Army says, “If Israel decides to abandon Assad, he is finished. The Syrian people would not forget this gesture.”

Boaz Bismuth
Kamal says Syria’s rebels “can’t win alone – we need the international community’s help.”

|

Photo credit: AFP

<< 1 2 3 >>

Syrian rebel connects with IDF spokesman on Facebook

March 2, 2012

Syrian rebel connects with IDF spokesman on Facebook – Israel News, Ynetnews.

Opposition element writes on Yoav Mordechai’s Facebook page rebels don’t want war with Israel, not interested in Golan Heights

Yossi Yehoshua

A surprising connection was formed this week between a Syrian oppositionelement and IDF Spokesman Brigadier-General Yoav Mordechai on the latter’s Facebook page, Yedioth Ahronoth reported Friday.

A Syrian citizen named Abdul Khader wrote the following on Mordechai’s Facebook wall: “We want to get rid of Assadand his regime and modernize Syria by promoting freedom of religion and freedom of thought. We do not want war with you and are definitely not interested in the Golan Heights.”

An Arabic speaker, Mordechai replied: “I thank you for your words. We all wish for peace in our region and the fulfillment of our hopes for security, peace and co-existence.”

Khader later wrote back, “Assad has an interest to keep Israel fearful of the Syrian opposition. But we genuinely want peace.”