WarSclerotic

‘Planned number of Iron Domes can’t offer full… JPost – Defense.

By Ariel Jerozolimski/The Jerusalem Post)

Former defense minister Amir Peretz said on Saturday that the number of Iron Dome rocket-defense batteries Israel plans to purchase will not enough to fully protect the country.

While it is reasonable to acquire a total of only 13 batteries, as Israel currently plans to do, Peretz said, “If we want complete coverage we will need to get to between 20-26 batteries.”

Peretz also warned against using the Iron Dome system to defend military and strategic sites instead of population centers.

“With all due respect, the bases were not meant to be covered by the Iron Dome,” Peretz said. “There’s no way that bases will be preferred over civilians.”

Last year, the United States warned Israel that it would have to review funding for the anti-rocket system if it were deployed to protect bases instead of civilians.

Turning to the Iranian nuclear threat, Peretz said that a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities would be better if an outside actor such as the US carried it out instead of Israel.

“We should prefer an outside actor does it because Israel doesn’t need to be confronted by the whole Muslim world,” Peretz said.

“We know that a minute after an attack, it will be comfortable for the Western countries to point a blaming finger at Israel. If it’s an American actor, the crisis will be smaller. We need to think about the day after.”

Western world is blind – Israel Opinion, Ynetnews.

Op-ed: Despite Muslim murderousness, West refrains from admitting Islam is the problem

Shaul Rosenfeld

Many in Israel and in the West have condemned the Toulouse murders and killer’s monstrosity in recent days, and some even expanded the scope of denunciation to include Mohammed Mareh’s jihadist sources of inspiration and the hotbeds of fundamentalist Islamic incitement. Yet still, almost everyone is staying away from pointing the finger at Islam as a whole, a religion that like an interminable production line gives rise to such phenomena, organizations and murderers.

These terror attacks, in Israel and abroad, are aimed at killing as many people as possible, at times while executing children; the Islamic terror industry knows no boundaries and cannot be satisfied. In 2010 alone, according to official figures, Islamic terror and violence slaughtered no fewer than 29,832 people. The actual numbers are likely much higher.

Yet in the West, which has turned double standards into a vocation and the rolling of one’s eyes into an art form, people are looking helplessly at the numbers and horrors. Not only do they fail to even imagine that something in Muslim culture may encourage this horrifying violence, they focus on identifying the “real culprits”: Western colonialism, Israeli occupation, American imperialism or Western support for corrupt, greedy Arab leaders.

And so, a terror endorser like Professor Tariq Ramadan from Oxford enjoys wonderful Western hospitality and is an honorable guest at almost any relevant academic forum in the West. Moazzam Begg, known as the Taliban’s most well-known supporter in Britain, receives Amnesty’s patronage, and Iqbal Sacranie is knighted after warmly endorsing Ayatollah Khomeini’s religious edict against Salman Rushdie.

Meanwhile, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf became President Barack Obama’s envoy to the Persian Gulf, even though he claimed that US policy contributed to the September 11 attacks and does not view Hamas as a terrorist organization.

Blame Israel

At this time, almost any terror group on earth originates from the Muslim world, with some Muslims not shying away from executing children, in Itamar or Toulouse. Nonetheless, we see an amazing alliance flourishing between the finest members of Western and Israel’s elites – which seemingly espouse equality, democracy, human rights, and women’s and minority’s rights – and the finest Islamic zealots, who crudely trample all of these values.

Given such atmosphere, it is only natural for an intellectual like Noam Chomsky to curry favor with well-renowned Lebanese humanist Hassan Nasrallah and slam Israel, or for an eminent feminist like Judith Butler to gleefully endorse a boycott of Israel. At the same time, she travels to the kingdom of freedom and progress in Ramallah and Jenin in order to share with local Arabs her insights on women’s rights, while outside the lecture hall the subjects of her lecture walk around wearing veils, burqas or hijabs.

In the West and in Israel, there is nothing new about this hypocrisy or blindness. In the same spirit, Jean Paul Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir were able to wholly deny the horrific acts of Stalin and Mao Zedong, even when evidence showing otherwise was piling up. When intellectual elites are the ones to distinguish the sons of light from the sons of darkness, leftist icon Sartre can become the flag bearer of the sons of light, while a man like Albert Camus, who dared to condemn the crimes of Soviet communism, is slammed as a son of darkness.

In this day and age, when anyone who praises the violent and repressive Islamic religion and culture is assured of dubious glory, we won’t see a local Camus rising anytime soon. For the time being, we shall have to settle for the likes of David Grossman and Amos Oz, who will resort to holy literary fury in order to explain why blame lies almost entirely with the Jewish state, and not with our Muslim neighbors, heaven forbid.

Lieberman: Next month’s talks are Iran’s last chance | The Times of Israel.

Iran seeks Islamic revolutions everywhere, foreign minister tells Singapore’s Jewish community

Blog: Obama is Fooling Lots of People on Israel.Neil Snyder

As speculation grows regarding an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear installations, Israel’s audacious, deeply controversial raid of June 7 1981 on Iraq’s nuclear reactor is often cited as a precedent. The diplomatic files on Britain’s reaction to the raid have recently been released and some of the revelations in these documents are startlingly pertinent.

The bombing raid on the Osirak reactor, later known as Operation Babylon, was regarded in Israel as a great success. The then prime minister, Menachem Begin, described it as a “supreme act of self-defence” and claimed that Iraq would have acquired up to five nuclear bombs within four years, had they not attacked.

The reaction in Washington was mixed. The Reagan administration initially condemned the operation. Britain’s ambassador to the US, Sir Nicholas Henderson, was with the US defence secretary, Caspar Weinberger, when news of the raid broke and Weinberger remarked that Begin “had taken leave of his senses”. President Reagan, though, showed more understanding. Saddam Hussein, according to the Israelis, had claimed that Iraq’s nuclear plant was designed to produce weapons for use against the Jewish state; Reagan had received a letter from Begin justifying the raid on those grounds, and accepted this explanation. It later emerged that there was no substance to the allegation, but even so, some were quick to express private satisfaction. Richard Burt and Richard Perle, officials in the State Department and the Pentagon, had both told Henderson that Israel’s attack was “a blow on behalf of non-proliferation”.

The British government, however, was unequivocal in its condemnation. Margaret Thatcher was very popular within Anglo-Jewry, partly because of her admiration for the local community and her outspoken support for Soviet Jews. She was viewed as a strong friend of Israel, while the Foreign Office was perceived as a hostile institution. Yet she outflanked the Foreign Office in rejecting Israeli claims of self-defence. Indeed, several weeks after Operation Babylon, Mrs Thatcher told the Iraqi trade minister, Hassan Ali, that the attack had been “totally wrong and contrary to international law”. Moreover, she claimed that the Israeli allegations regarding Saddam’s ambitions to target the Jewish state were untrue.

The prime minister took an even stronger line in her correspondence with a leading friend of Israel within the Conservative Party. She claimed that Iraq, unlike Israel, had acceded to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and had agreed to subject its nuclear facilities to inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Not only was Mrs Thatcher convinced that Iraq’s nuclear reactor was being used solely for peaceful purposes, she insisted that Israel’s refusal to accede to the NPT, and its attack on Osirak was “a setback to the cause of non-proliferation” and later sent a telegram to Saddam congratulating him on achieving the “valuable objective” of a unanimous UN Security Council resolution condemning Israel’s attack.

One leading Tory supporter of Israel was convinced that Mrs Thatcher had been unduly influenced by Foreign Office Arabists. Plus ca change… Today, Foreign Secretary William Hague has been condemned by leading members of Conservative Friends of Israel for being “under the thumb of pro-Arabist” officials in the Foreign Office. However, Hague has been more sympathetic towards Israel’s predicament over Iran than Mrs Thatcher was over Iraq. He has been a leading proponent of the sanctions campaign and although he has stated that an Israeli attack would be “unwise”, it appears that his main concern surrounds the timing and success of an operation, rather than its legitimacy. After all, Britain itself has not ruled out the use of force against Tehran.

From a Western perspective, one could argue that Israel’s attack on Osirak posed more problems than would a similar operation against Iran today. There were good reasons why Mrs Thatcher was appalled by the raid. Through most of her premiership, she shared Foreign Office concerns that Moscow would gain ground in the Arab world by exploiting regional instability. Britain’s moderate Arab allies were both incensed and alarmed by the Israeli strike and King Hussein of Jordan, a friend of the West, was furious with the Reagan administration for its soft response. The Soviet Union, meanwhile, fully exploited Washington’s support for Israel by posing as a strong advocate of the Palestinian and Arab cause. In the Cold War atmosphere of 1981, there were fears that Arab countries would turn to Moscow for support. Few tears would be shed today, though, by Arab leaders if Iran’s nuclear facilities were attacked.

Following Operation Babylon, a British official wrote that Iraq’s capability had been put back perhaps three to four years, adding that this would “not make anyone sleep much better at night”. In a similar vein, many analysts believe that an Israeli strike against Iran may at best cause only temporary damage. Either way, an Israeli operation now appears inevitable. Perhaps we should leave the final word to Begin. On being asked whether Israel would take action against other countries with nuclear ambitions, he replied that Israel was dealing with Iraq first. “The others we’ll deal with another time.” Israel attacked a Syrian nuclear installation in 2007. Will it do the same with Iran in 2012?

Dr Azriel Bermant is Assistant Editor at the Margaret Thatcher Foundation

via Lessons from Israel’s Operation Babylon – World – DNA.

Israel will strike Iran before November.

piero scaruffi

Posted: Mar 24, 2012

piero scaruffi is an author, cultural historian and blogger who has written extensively about a wealth of topics, ranging from cognitive science to music.

Report: Iran planned to bomb Israeli ship in Suez Canal – Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News.

Egyptian paper Al-Ahram reports that two Egyptian citizens admitted they received instructions from Iranian agents to attack an Israeli ship, in exchange for 50 million Egyptian pounds.

By Avi Issacharoff

Iran had planned to bomb an Israeli ship while it crossed the Suez Canal, the prosecution in Egypt’s state security court said, the Egyptian newspaper Al-Ahram reported on Saturday.

According to the report, two Egyptians who were recently arrested admitted that they had received instructions from Iranian agents to plan an attack on an Israeli ship in the Suez Canal. Iran reportedly offered the two men 50 million Egyptian pounds to carry out the act.

	The Suez Canal.
	Photo by: Nir Kafri

In the past, Hezbollah terror cells that planned terror attacks, including in the Suez Canal, were found in Egypt. Moreover, Israeli officials have recently warned that Iran is setting up terror infrastructure on Egyptian soil to ready the ground for an operation.

Haaretz reported last week that a high-ranking official in Jerusalem said that Iranian military experts have been active in Sinai and the Gaza Strip.

Several terror groups are now at large in Sinai, the source explained: local Bedouin, who are adopting the ideology of the Global Jihad; groups supported by Iran, who are trying to recruit and train militants not only in Sinai but throughout Egypt; and Palestinian organizations. Joining them are Global Jihad militants from Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen and Saudi Arabia, said the official, adding that Israel and Egypt have a common interest in combating these terrorist elements.

He explained that “many Palestinian organizations use the Sinai peninsula as a convenient area for activity,” and added that Libya has meanwhile been transformed into a huge arms depot, from which weapons are transferred to Egypt and then the Gaza Strip.

Jeffrey Goldberg Replies on Israel, Iran, and ‘Bluffing’, Round 2 – James Fallows – International – The Atlantic.

Mar 23 2012, 9:45 PM ET

This follows our first round of Q-and-A exchange, and my second-round question earlier today. Jeffrey Goldberg replies, in a message sent on early Friday afternoon but that I saw (while on the road) only now. This is it for a while, but there is a lot to digest here.
___
Dear Jim,
That’s quite a lot of writing from a Tasmanian truck stop. Imagine what you achieve if you were parked at an American truck stop. Or an Iranian truck stop, for that matter.

There’s a lot to unpack here, so I won’t, though I agree with most of what you’ve written. Let me try briefly to answer the crucial question about Israel’s two principal leaders, Benjamin Netanyahu and his defense minister, Ehud Barak: “What version of reality are they seeing that lets them think this way?”

By “this way,” you mean, of course, the thought that a preemptive strike on Natanz and other Iranian nuclear facilities will a) work in some meaningful way; b) protect Israel in the long-term, or medium-term, at least; c) not cause a regional war; d) not cause blowback against Israel’s foremost ally, the U.S.; e) not cause catastrophic death-by-counterstrike in Israel.

Let me start with a), which slides into b). When the Israelis attacked the Osirak reactor in Iraq in 1981, they said they hoped to delay Iraq’s nuclear program by a year. In fact, it stopped forever (though it’s not clear if the Israeli strike was the principal reason why — though it certainly didn’t hurt). I mention this only to note that Israeli leaders privately say they’d be happy to buy a year. But: They think they’ll buy more than a year. They have drilled on this for years (and according to American military sources, they’ve drilled successfully on this) and they believe they can set back the Iranian program for several years. Moreover, they are somewhat convinced — and I am most definitely not — that an attack could set in motion an uprising against the regime. (I tend to think that this is the weakest best-case scenario of all, because I assume that the regime would use an Israeli strike as an excuse to come down hard on every semi-dissident not already in jail, and I assume many Iranians won’t be happy with an Israeli strike, even those who are unhappy with the regime.) The Israeli leaders believe that every year they buy against the Iranian program is another year that would allow the regime to collapse. I, too, believe it will collapse. It’s the “when” that’s the problem.

As to c), the Israeli leaders believe that — and this is obvious — the Arabs will quietly applaud the Israeli strike, and certainly, in the event of a technically successful strike, not line up with Iran (quite the opposite — Persian Gulf officials have told me compromise with Israel on other matters is at least slightly more likely if Iran is neutralized as a threat). They also believe, and this makes a certain amount of sense, that the Iranians may choose to cover-up a strike, or partially cover-up a strike, which is to say the following. Many facilities are not located in the center of cities (though one very important one is in Tehran). The attack will happen on a moonless night. The Iranians will have some ability to control what their own people hear about the strikes, and of course they will control access to these sites. They may choose, this line of thinking goes, to hush-up the strike, in the manner of the Syrians after the Israeli strike in 2007, or at most announce that the Zionists unsuccessfully attempted to strike at their facilities, and then fire a few missiles at Tel Aviv. Again, this seems to me to be a plausible scenario, but not likely.  But you asked me how the political echelon was thinking, and this is what they’re thinking (the army, I’m led to believe, is planning for a worst-case scenario).

On d), the Israelis actually believe that the Iranian regime is semi-rational, if not reasonable (the argument I heard from hardliners is that Hitler pursued an unreasonable goal, the murder of all Jews, in a rational way). The Iranian leadership is interested in its own survival. If Israel strikes Iran, the regime will believe that America had a direct hand in the attack. But Iranian leaders will also think hard about lashing out directly against America, because they know that America can actually bring about an end of the regime if it chose to, through a punishing bombardment that destroys Iran’s military infrastructure. So I think the Israeli leadership is counting on a rational, regime-protecting response from the ayatollahs. And one more thing: Not to overstate it, but some Israelis in leadership positions believe that they would actually be helping the U.S. by neutralizing an Iranian threat. Again, maybe, but certainly not something a prudent person would bank on.

As to e), the threat of a deadly counterstrike, Ehud Barak is on record saying that he thinks Israeli casualties in a combined Iranian/Hezbollah missile strike might top 500, or hit the low 1000s, but not be devastating. I find this aspect of the conversation Strangelovian. But the truth is, Israel has fairly good missile defenses, and its Air Force could handle Hezbollah in Lebanon. And Iran’s missile force is not overwhelming.

But (and here’s the key point): It doesn’t matter. Not much of the preceding conversation matters. What people don’t understand is that Netanyahu and many other Israelis view the Iranian regime, which is committed ideologically to Israel’s destruction and seems to be seeking a weapon of mass destruction, as an extinction-level threat. The entire ethos of Israel is: “In every generation, someone rises up who wants to murder the Jewish people, but this time, we’re not going down without a fight.” That’s in the DNA of the military and the political leadership. I asked President Obama if he thought Israeli leaders had overlearned the lessons of the Holocaust. He reminded them, through the interview, that they were running a modern state which has a need for a reality-based foreign policy, but he also acknowledged the awesome power of history to shape a worldview, and he treated that history very respectfully. This is a roundabout way of saying that if Israeli leaders see on the horizon an eliminationist anti-Semite who may be moving to acquire a nuclear weapon, they will try to stop him. This is why I think they are not bluffing. The problem with much of the analysis of Israel’s actions in this area is in the mirror-imaging: Many people outside Israel wonder why the country would take the military, political and diplomatic risks associated with attacking Iran’s nuclear program. But what they don’t remember is that the worst thing, from Israel’s perspective, has already happened: The murder, 70 years ago, of one out of every three Jews on the planet.

By the way, just so we’re clear, I think this is a precipitous way to think, and I think very definitively that 2012 isn’t 1938, and not only because of the existence of a nuclear-armed Jewish state. But I certainly understand the mentality.

I hope this is helpful.

Best,
Jeff

James Fallows – James Fallows is a national correspondent for The Atlantic and has written for the magazine since the late 1970s. He has reported extensively from outside the United States, and once worked as President Carter’s chief speechwriter. His latest book, China Airborne, will be published in May.

Iran Set To Exploit Lefty Israel Protests – NYPOST.com.

By BENNY AVNI

Last Updated: 11:48 PM, March 23, 2012

Posted: 11:22 PM, March 23, 2012

Iran helping Assad to put down protests, o… JPost – Middle East.

By REUTERS/Shaam News Network/Handout