WarSclerotic

If Obama comes through with promised assurances, ‘Israel will not attack Iran’ — TV report | The Times of Israel.

Netanyahu set to meet the president on September 27, Channel 10 says, claiming that sources ‘very close’ to PM regard an Israeli strike as ‘less and less likely’

Netanyahu and Obama meet at the White House in 2011. (photo credit: Avi Ohayon/Government Press Office/Flash90)

Israel will not attack Iran this year, provided that President Barack Obama sets out his “red lines” and offers certain other promised assurances to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at a meeting between the two tentatively scheduled for Thursday, September 27, Israeli TV reported Thursday.

Citing sources “very close” to Netanyahu, Israel’s Channel 10 News said an Israeli attack on Iran is becoming “less and less likely.”

The station reported that the two leaders will meet the day after the Jewish High Holiday of Yom Kippur (which falls on September 26), when Netanyahu will be in New York to address the UN General Assembly.

“If Obama gives Israel the promised ‘red lines’ and his personal commitments, Israel will not attack Iran,” the report detailed.

On Monday, after the New York Times reported that the administration was considering setting out certain red lines that, if crossed by Iran in its nuclear drive, would trigger a resort to military force, Netanyahu welcomed the idea. “The greater the resolve and the clearer the red line, the less likely we’ll have conflict,” he said.

US efforts to dissuade Israel from a resort to force appeared to be continuing Thursday, with a visit by Admiral James A. Winnefeld, Jr., the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Winnefeld met with Defense Minister Ehud Barak in Tel Aviv, having arrived in Israel earlier in the week for talks focused on Iran and other defense issues, on a trip that was initially kept secret.

After their talks, Barak said the US and Israel “face the same challenge [on Iran] but the clocks are ticking at different paces.” He said “Israel reserves the right to make sovereign decisions. The US respects this. Israel and Israel alone will take the decisions that affect its future and its security.”

Winnefeld visited an Iron Dome anti-missile battery near Ashkelon Wednesday and, as a guest of IDF Deputy Chief of the General Staff Maj. Gen. Yair Naveh. He also took part in security meetings that addressed “the cooperation between the two armies,” Army Radio said Thursday.

Also Thursday, former MK and minister Tzachi Hanegbi, who in July left the Kadima party to re-join Likud, said in an interview with Makor Rishon that Israel is now “in the most fateful 50 days in Israeli history since the Yom Kippur War.”

Hanegbi, who used to head the Knesset’s Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, said that every decision that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu must make will come at a price. “The practical result of accepting a nuclear Iranian will be a nuclear arms race throughout the entire Middle East,” Hanegbi warned.

Last Thursday, General Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, said rather scathingly that Israel had the power to “clearly delay but probably not destroy Iran’s nuclear program.”

He also warned about the counter-productive consequences of such a strike, and took the highly unusual step of adding, “I don’t want to be complicit if they choose to do it.”

Gantz: War will Knock Lebanon Back by Decades – Defense/Security – News – Israel National News.

Lt. Gen. Gantz in action.

Israel news photo: Flash 90

IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz voiced hope in an interview published Thursday that Iranian leaders will decide to scrap their nuclear arms program of their own accord. He also said that the next war with Lebanon will knock the country back “by decades.”

“We are more prepared than in the past, we are better than we were in the past, and we will do whatever the political echelon decides after this dialog [with Iran] is over,” he said. “A nuclear Iran is not a question of ability, but rather one of decision. This is a global problem. Ultimately, the one who will decide to relinquish the nuclear program is Iran,” the Chief of the Staff said in an interview to Halochem magazine, which is published by the IDF Disabled Veterans Organization.

“Iran is a great nation with tens of millions of residents, universities, economic and scientific capabilities; we can’t take that away from them. I think that is a very rich culture that must decide, ultimately, that this is not the way,” he added. “I think that ultimately, it will make the decision. The Iranian leadership will decide that the price of sticking with its [nuclear] program is more than it is willing to pay.”

Lt. Gen. Gantz also discussed the northern border and called the situation in Syria “acute,” stating that “the central government is fading, losing power… It is difficult to paint a picture of how the Syria of the future will look. We are closely tracking developments and are prepared for any possible aggression from that direction.”

Additionally, Gantz addressed the possibility of chemical weapons falling into the hands of the Hizbullah terror organization. “The danger of a loss of control [over the weapons] is great, but I would stay level-headed regarding this matter,” he said, also warning of the risk of getting pulled into a complex conflict.

The Chief of Staff warned Hizbullah against trying to attack Israeli targets. “Today, the IDF is massively more prepared than in the past to carry out a large-scale, multi-dimensional offensive against Hizbullah,” he said. “I would not recommend that it try our power. That would hurt it to the point that it would understand with whom it is playing with and with what it is gambling.”

He added, “If I needed to choose to be an Israeli citizen or a resident of Lebanon, I would quickly choose to be an Israeli citizen, who will receive not only justice in war but also good protection. Lebanon would be knocked back by decades after the next war; I really would not try us.”

Regarding recent developments in Egypt, the Chief of Staff explained, “That is a state with which we have a peace agreement, and most of the activity that the Egyptians carry out in Sinai, they do with [our] consent. I would not rush to eulogize our peace agreement or to give up on it. It is a strategic asset to both countries.”

With regard to the Hamas terror organization’s control of Gaza, Lt. Gen. Gantz did not rule out the possibility of an offensive to stop the persistent rocket attacks on southern Israel. “I think there will be another offensive campaign in Gaza,” he said. “The State of Israel decided to disengage from Gaza and not to stay there, but that does not mean that we don’t need to go back to visit – if and when there is a need.”

‘Next 50 Days Most Fateful Since Yom Kippur War’ – Defense/Security – News – Israel National News.

Tzachi Hanegbi

Flash 90

“We now stand, in my opinion, before the 50 most fateful days in Israel’s history, since perhaps the Yom Kippur War, in which there were also several dozen fateful days.”

So said the former Head of Knesset’s Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, Tzachi Hanegbi, at a closed meeting of Likud activists in Yafo. A recording of his speech reached daily newspaper Makon Rishon‘s reporter, Ze’ev Kam.

“The prime minister will have to make decisions that will bear a price tag. Allowing Iranian nuclear weapons has a price tag. The practical result will be a nuclear arms race in the entire Middle East,” he explained.

“Today, when we say that we understand the danger of the Iranian threat, and understand that a confrontation bears a price, it is because we want to prevent our sons and grandson from paying unbearable prices,” he said.

Hanegbi, who left Likud for Kadima and is now back in Likud, called on the activists to support Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and to “allow him quiet” and “strengthen his legitimacy” so that he can take the necessary decisions calmly.

‘Next 50 Days Most Fateful Since Yom Kippur War’ – Defense/Security – News – Israel National News.

Tzachi Hanegbi

Flash 90

“We now stand, in my opinion, before the 50 most fateful days in Israel’s history, since perhaps the Yom Kippur War, in which there were also several dozen fateful days.”

So said the former Head of Knesset’s Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, Tzachi Hanegbi, at a closed meeting of Likud activists in Yafo. A recording of his speech reached daily newspaper Makon Rishon‘s reporter, Ze’ev Kam.

“The prime minister will have to make decisions that will bear a price tag. Allowing Iranian nuclear weapons has a price tag. The practical result will be a nuclear arms race in the entire Middle East,” he explained.

“Today, when we say that we understand the danger of the Iranian threat, and understand that a confrontation bears a price, it is because we want to prevent our sons and grandson from paying unbearable prices,” he said.

Hanegbi, who left Likud for Kadima and is now back in Likud, called on the activists to support Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and to “allow him quiet” and “strengthen his legitimacy” so that he can take the necessary decisions calmly.

Barak: US, Israel clocks ticking … JPost – Diplomacy & Politics.

Obama on the fence – Israel Opinion, Ynetnews.

Op-ed: White House policy toward Israel proves friendship cannot compete with interests

Yoaz Hendel

In Hebrew there is a slight difference between in the pronunciation and spelling of “obligation” and “commitment.” There is a big difference when it comes to the nuclear threat. The Obama administration has said everything it had to say in order to convince us that it is committed to Israel’s security. But what it isn’t saying is that it is obligated – because it isn’t.

When Obama speaks of commitment, he is referring to financial aid, security-related cooperation and vetoing anti-Israel UN resolutions. As far as he is concerned, this is an adequate display of the bond between the countries. As far as Israel is concerned, it’s admirable, but does not allay our concerns regarding Iran.

Obama has been walking the Iranian tightrope like an acrobat. Following a brief detachment from reality at the beginning of his term (the Cairo speech, the “new beginning” in relations with the Muslim world and the friendly nuclear talks), it appears that Obama understands that this goat cannot be milked with speeches and catchy slogans. He understands that the Iranian nuclear programis dangerous, and not only to Israel. But from an operational standpoint, he remains many interests away from resolving the crisis. If it were up to Obama, we could continue discussing this remarkable table that has all of the options and solutions on it. If it were up to Obama, the interest of calm would dictate everything.

Obama is not the first to find refuge in the comfortable commitment. Before him was the Republican president, George W. Bush, a friend of Israel, Olmert and Sharon. Bush respected the Israeli prime ministers. He hugged a lot, spoke a lot and did little. He refrained from attacking the nuclear reactor in Syria, and, despite the expectations, he did not attack in Iran either. Friendship cannot compete with interests.

The relationship between Obama and Netanyahu is very bad, as are the results. But it’s nothing personal. Israelis dislike Netanyahu because of his character or actions. When the Americans shy away from him, it is because of interests. When Obama chose not to visit Israel while travelling in the Middle East, he was not yet familiar with Netanyahu. When he was photographed with his feet on the table during a phone conversation with Netanyahu – they were still getting to know each other. When Obama froze, Netanyahu courted him as though he were lovestruck. Obama consciously chose a certain path. Netanyahu, a fan of the US, chose a different path.

This is also true for the Iranian crisis. It is in the US’ interest to delay the decision as much as possible. Due to their military capabilities, the Americans have much more time than Israel’s window of opportunity allows. What will they do when they reach that point? Good question.

In the face of an economic crisis and a crumbling Arab world – the Americans will most likely do nothing. Here is where the Israeli pressure comes into play – the attack dilemma. If, as reported, Obama is advancing from the commitment stage to the obligation stage, then this would constitute a major achievement. If not, Netanyahu and Israelis in general are in for a difficult time.

Iran Crossing Into ‘Zone of Immunity’ | #1 News Site on the Threat of Radical Islam.

The night the Democrats lost control of the Israel message | The Times of Israel.

Proposed changes regarding Jerusalem and the mention of God are met with boos by convention delegates

By Haviv Rettig Gur September 6, 2012, 4:48 am

It all started as a Twitter gimmick by the Republican Party’s Jewish outreach arm.

The Republican Jewish Coalition began tweeting differences between the Democratic Party’s 2008 and 2012 platforms on Monday. By Tuesday morning, Republican activists were shopping those differences to reporters.

The differences were significant enough to justify stories in some Jewish outlets. While the platform still contained strongly pro-Israel language, Democrats had dropped all mention of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, cut the explicit call for Palestinian refugees to return to a future Palestine rather than to Israel, and more.

The story quickly spread to political blogs and from there to major American papers. By Tuesday night, Democrats had a real crisis on their hands.

One indication of the scale of the concern was the surprise and anger among Democratic leaders themselves as they heard about the platform changes, with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and New York Senator Chuck Schumer appearing bewildered and saying they knew nothing about them, and Congressmen Eliot Engel and Howard Berman issuing statements expressing anger and opposition to the new text.

According to CBS News, corroborated by National Jewish Democratic Council head David Harris, President Barack Obama, too, was surprised and upset by the changes, and immediately ordered a voice vote reinstating language into the platform that affirmed Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. (Never mind that the Obama White House formally refuses to name Israel’s capital when asked.)

But the damage was not yet done.

In calling for the voice vote from delegates to reinstate the term “God” — in an excised phrase from 2008 that “gives everyone willing to work hard the chance to make the most of their God-given potential” — and the sentence about Jerusalem as Israel’s capital into the platform on Wednesday, Democratic leaders were taken aback by vociferous shouting of “boos” and “noes” in the half-empty Time Warner Arena in Charlotte.

The vote had to be taken three times before convention chair Antonio Villaraigosa could declare the changes passed.

The “boos” surprised not only Democrats, but reporters as well. CNN and other outlets ran special reruns of the moment in their prime-time news broadcasts from the convention.

Not only had Democrats neglected to place Jerusalem as Israel’s capital into the 2012 platform — apparently for the first time in 40 years — but they appeared on national television to be booing the restoration of the clause.

Democrats were hard at work Wednesday night playing down the incident.

“What I do know to be factually true is that the party platform is one of the strongest on Israel’s security in history,” said David Harris.

He added that the incident was unlikely to impact the election in November. “I find it very hard to believe that the average American Jew is going to look backward 63 days to one minute of television,” he said of the news networks’ coverage.

He contrasted that moment of television with the Democratic Party’s and Obama’s positions supporting unprecedented military assistance for Israel, and taking positions on a large number of social issues — “choice, the social safety net, Medicare” — that are in step with the views of a large majority of Jewish voters.

Harris may be right about the final outcome. But even a pessimist would be hard-pressed to imagine a worse hiccup for Democratic efforts on Israel.

It’s worth recalling that the Democratic convention began with a workshop for Democratic Jewish activists about how to rebuff Republican assaults on Obama’s Israel record.

At that gathering, Ira Forman, former head of the National Jewish Democratic Council and now the Obama campaign’s Jewish outreach director, said a drop of just 10% in Jewish support could translate into as many as 83,500 votes in Florida, a state won by George W. Bush in 2000 by just over 500 votes.

Polls of likely Jewish voters have been few and far between, but a Gallup poll from last month seemed to show precisely that 10% decline from the whopping 78% support President Obama enjoyed from the Jewish community in 2008, according to exit polls at the time.

While Democrats remain confident of winning a large majority of Jews in November come what may, they are increasingly aware that just a small drop — even in voter turnout — could swing the election.

And while Democrats can point to a long list of accomplishments stemming from the Obama White House’s support for Israel — massive US investment in Iron Dome and other systems, a US veto of the unilateral Palestinian declaration of statehood at the UN, and more — Democrats just aren’t in control of the story.

On Wednesday, what began and could have ended as a partisan spat on the opinion pages of Jewish communal papers became, for a moment, the centerpiece of national prime-time television news shows.

Few Jewish voters saw the Republican Jewish Coalition’s tweets or press releases on Monday. But few Jewish voters could have missed the boos and embarrassment from the convention floor Wednesday night.

The Democrats lost control of the story Wednesday. It will take more than a convention workshop to regain their footing and get their own message to millions of Jewish voters.

Democrats change platform to add God, Jerusalem – Yahoo! News.

Waiting for the US on Iran is like Russian roulette | The Jewish Chronicle.

It is no mystery that US President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu are not each other’s first choices for their respective jobs.

Washington and Jerusalem have spent almost four years seeking to dismiss recurring news stories about the friction between these two men and, more importantly, their policies.

Whether or not these differences are media-hyped, they exist and are bound to become wider as the election season advances and Iran’s nuclear programme continues its march to weapons capability.

Recent utterances by US Chief of the US Joint Staffs General Martin Dempsey indicated again that America was not prepared to back Israel in what appears to be a looming pre-emptive strike against Iran’s nuclear installation. Fuelled also by leaked details of a stormy exchange between US ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro and Mr Netanyahu, the air is filled with suspicion and recrimination.

Here, then, is what matters about Israel, Iran and the United States.

First, Israel will not attack unless it feels that the window for a successful military operation is closing.

Second, if Israel were to make this decision, US electoral circumstances would matter little — for Israeli leaders, this is a life-or-death decision which they are not likely to postpone over an electoral calendar.

Third, no US president would risk consigning his name to history as the one who let Iran go nuclear. President Obama is no exception and Republican candidate Mitt Romney’s accusation that he has “thrown Israel under a bus” would be proved false if it came to the crunch. If Mr Dempsey and his colleagues in US intelligence agencies told Mr Obama that Iran was about to cross a critical threshold, it is unlikely that the president would hold off a strike because of an election.

Fourth, given the historical precedent of intelligence failing to predict nuclear breakout in countries such as India, Pakistan, North Korea, Iraq, Syria and Libya, point number three is infinitely less reassuring than at first glance.

Fifth, for Israel, the threshold for a nuclear Iran comes much sooner than for the US. Point three, again, is moot to a large extent because, in all likelihood, the Americans are correct, from their perspective, when they say Iran is one to three years away from a nuclear bomb. Their threshold is weapons assembly, but for Israel and its more limited strike capabilities, crunch time comes sooner.

Sixth, brinkmanship on this matter comes to an abrupt end with the onset of the rainy season over Iranian skies — rhetoric is weatherproof, air raids are not — and might not wait until spring.

For Israel, letting the US electoral cycle come to fruition might mean postponing a decision until April 2013. By this time, it may be too late. For America, postponing until November 7 means ensuring that no foreign policy crises distract the president from a re-election bid in a very tough year.

Israel’s dilemma, then, will become more acute in the coming weeks: showing loyalty to a president Israel’s leaders do not fully trust may deprive it of its ability to steer the ship of history as it wishes. And that is not an option.

Emanuele Ottolenghi is a Senior Fellow at the Foundation for Defence of Democracies in Washington DC