September | 2013 | WarSclerotic | Page 10

Archive for September 2013

Top Israeli minister warns against sympathetic response to Iran

September 27, 2013

Israel Hayom | Top Israeli minister warns against sympathetic response to Iran.

U.S. and European diplomats welcome “significant shift” in Iran’s attitude during talks aimed at resolving the nuclear impasse • Next round of talks scheduled for Oct. 15-16 in Geneva • British foreign secretary sees “big improvement” over Ahmadinejad.

The Associated Press and Israel Hayom Staff

Homefront Defense Minister Gilad Erdan

|

Photo credit: Lior Mizrahi

Homefront Defense Minister Gilad Erdan, a member of Israel’s Diplomatic-Security Cabinet, on Friday voiced grave concern over the West’s sympathetic response to remarks made by Iranian President Hasan Rouhani at the U.N. General Assembly this week.

“So far there is no indication that Rouhani, or Iran, are ready to comply with our terms,” Erdan told Army Radio Friday. “Prime Minister [Benjamin Netanyahu] will try to expose the truth, as he has done in the past. Unfortunately, when the centrifuges spin it is not something that can be seen. What we do see is Rouhani’s soft face and the soothing words he says when he suddenly addresses the American people.”

Meanwhile, U.S. and European diplomats welcomed a “significant shift” in Iran’s attitude at talks on Thursday aimed at resolving the impasse over Tehran’s disputed nuclear activities. Iran said it was eager to dispel the notion that it was trying to develop a nuclear weapon and to get international sanctions lifted as fast as possible.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif shook hands and sat next to each other at a meeting of the P5+1 on Thursday. Kerry leaned over to Zarif as the meeting was ending and said: “Shall we talk for a few minutes.” They then had an unexpected one-on-one meeting. It was the highest-level direct contact between the United States and Iran in six years.

Zarif said the meeting with the five permanent U.N. Security Council members and Germany agreed to fast-track negotiations. He said Iran hopes they can reach a deal within a year.

European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton also said the parties had agreed to “go forward with an ambitious time frame.”

They also agreed to hold a new round of substantive talks on Oct. 15-16 in Geneva.

“We agreed to jump-start the process so that we could move forward with a view to agreeing first on the parameters of the end game … and move toward finalizing it hopefully within a year’s time,” Zarif said after the talks ended. “I thought I was too ambitious, bordering on naiveté. But I saw that some of my colleagues were even more ambitious and wanted to do it faster.”

Kerry said he was struck by the “very different tone” from Iran. But, like his European colleagues, he stressed that a single meeting was not enough to assuage international concerns that Iran is seeking to develop nuclear weapons under cover of a civilian atomic energy program.

“Needless to say, one meeting and a change in tone, that was welcome, does not answer those questions,” Kerry told reporters. “All of us were pleased that the foreign minister came today and that he did put some possibilities on the table.”

He said they agree to continue the process and try to find concrete ways to answer the questions that people have about Iran’s nuclear activities.

A senior U.S. official said that in the one-on-one meeting, aides from both sides chatted in a marked departure from past encounters, when the Iranians were tight-lipped. It was one of the signs of a new attitude, though what it means remains to be seen, said the official who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk to the media.

The official also said Zarif presented a number of ideas — many that had come up before — but they were not particularly detailed. The Americans asked Zarif to come back at the Geneva round or earlier with some more detailed proposals.

British Foreign Secretary William Hague remarked that there had been a “big improvement in the tone and spirit” from Iran compared with the previous government under Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle said the meeting had taken place in a “completely different tone, atmosphere and spirit” than what the group was used to and that a “window of opportunity has opened” for a peaceful resolution of the situation. He too insisted that Iran’s words would have to be matched by actions.

“Words are not enough,” he said. “Actions and tangible results are what counts. The devil is in the detail, so it is now important that we have substantial and serious negotiations very soon.”

Rouhani and Zarif, both in New York this week to attend the U.N. General Assembly, have said they are anxious to clinch an agreement quickly that could bring relief from sanctions that have slashed the country’s vital oil exports, restricted its international bank transfers, devalued the currency and sent inflation surging.

Encouraged by signs that Rouhani will adopt a more moderate stance than Ahmadinejad, but skeptical that the country’s all-powerful supreme leader will allow a change in course, U.S. President Barack Obama has directed Kerry to lead a new outreach and explore possibilities for resolving the long-standing dispute.

Rouhani has come across as a more moderate face of the hard-line clerical regime in Tehran and his pronouncements at the U.N. have raised guarded hopes that progress might be possible. But they have also served as a reminder that the path to that progress will not be quick or easy.

He has steadfastly maintained that any nuclear agreement must recognize Iran’s right under international treaties to continue enriching uranium.

The U.S. and its allies have long demanded a halt to enrichment, fearing Tehran could secretly build nuclear warheads. They have imposed sanctions over Iran’s refusal to halt enrichment. Uranium enriched to low levels can be used as fuel for nuclear energy but at higher levels, it can be used to make a nuclear weapon.

Rouhani also insisted that any deal be contingent on all other nations declaring their nuclear programs, too, are solely for peaceful purposes — alluding to the U.S. and Israel.

Those conditions underscored that there is still a large chasm to be bridged in negotiations.

Rouhani has made a series of appearances and speeches since arriving in New York and has held bilateral negotiations with France, Turkey and Japan among others.

On Thursday, he called for worldwide disarmament of nuclear weapons as “our highest priority.”

Speaking at the first-ever meeting of a U.N. forum on nuclear disarmament on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, an organization of mostly developing countries, Rouhani repeated the organization’s long-standing demand that Israel join the international treaty banning the spread of nuclear weapons.

Israel, which has repeatedly accused Iran of aspiring to build a nuclear bomb, is the only Mideast state that has not signed the landmark 1979 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Rouhani appears to be trying to tone down Ahmadinejad’s caustic rhetoric against Israel — a point of friction in relations with the U.S. But Israel is not biting and reacted angrily to his latest remarks.

“Iran’s new president is playing an old and familiar game by trying to deflect attention from Iran’s nuclear weapons program,” said Intelligence, International Relations and Strategic Affairs Minister Yuval Steinitz. “The problem of the NPT in the Middle East is not with those countries which have not signed the NPT, but countries like Iran, Iraq, Libya and Syria which have signed the treaty and brazenly violated it,” he added.

“Unlike Iran, Israel has never threatened the destruction of another country,” he said.

Iran watchers say Rouhani may have limited time to reach a settlement — possibly a year or less — before Khamenei decides negotiations are fruitless.

Categories: Uncategorized

Comments: 3 Comments

Historic Kerry-Zarif meeting signifies ‘change in tone’ in US-Iran relations

September 27, 2013

Israel Hayom | Historic Kerry-Zarif meeting signifies ‘change in tone’ in US-Iran relations.

U.S. Secretary of State Kerry: We had a very constructive meeting; there is still a lot of work to be done • Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif: There has to be a total lifting of all sanctions • Rouhani urges Israel to join Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

News Agencies and Israel Hayom Staff

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif side by side at a P5+1 meeting in New York on Thursday

|

Photo credit: AP

Iran and the United States held their highest-level substantive talks in a generation on Thursday, saying the tone was positive but sounding cautious about resolving the long-running standoff over Iran’s nuclear program.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif met after Zarif held wider talks with the United States and other major powers to address Western suspicions that Iran may be trying to develop atomic weapons.

Diplomats from the major countries described the atmosphere of the wider talks in positive terms, but they, as well as the U.S. and Iranian foreign ministers, stressed the difficulty of resolving a dispute that has eluded solution for a decade.

“We had a very constructive meeting,” Kerry told reporters after the talks at the United Nations, where he and Zarif sat next to one another and shook hands, according to a senior U.S. official, in a gesture that suggested a desire by both sides to explore how to ease their more than three-decade estrangement.

But Kerry added, “Needless to say, one meeting and a change in tone, which was welcome, doesn’t answer those questions yet and there is a lot of work to be done.”

The U.S. wants Iran to address questions about its nuclear program, which Washington and its allies suspect is a cover for developing nuclear weapons. Iran denies that, saying its program is for peaceful, civilian uses.

Zarif, a U.S.-educated diplomat, also sounded a cautionary note and insisted on quick relief from the painful U.S., European Union and U.N. sanctions imposed for Iran’s refusal to suspend its uranium enrichment program.

“I am satisfied with this first step. Now we have to see whether we can match our positive words with serious deeds so we can move forward,” he told reporters.

“Of course as we move forward, there has to be removal of sanctions and in the end game there has to be a total lifting of all sanctions and both bilateral sanctions, unilateral sanctions as well as multilateral sanctions and U.N. sanctions and we hope to be able to move in that direction within a short span of time.”

Kerry said Zarif had put some “possibilities” on the table, but stressed there was more work to be done.

U.S. seeks ‘verifiable’ process

A senior U.S. official said after the meeting that Iran had proposed fully implementing an agreement on its nuclear program within a year. The official added that while Zarif had offered suggestions, “there is a lot more to understand.”

In an interview before Thursday’s meeting, Kerry said the U.S. would not lift sanctions until Iran showed it was not pursuing a nuclear weapons capability.

He told the CBS show “60 Minutes” that one concrete step Iran could take to show it was serious about not seeking nuclear arms would be to open up its Fordo uranium enrichment facility to U.N. inspectors.

“The United States is not going to lift the sanctions until it is clear that a very verifiable, accountable, transparent process is in place, whereby we know exactly what Iran is going be doing with its (nuclear) program,” he said.

Iran’s new President Hasan Rouhani has said he would like to see a deal with world powers in three to six months.

Kerry told CBS it would be “possible to have a deal sooner than that depending on how forthcoming and clear Iran is prepared to be.”

The meeting was a very uncommon encounter between top officials of the United States and Iran, which have been estranged since the 1979 overthrow of the shah and the taking of American hostages at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran.

A State Department official said it was the highest-level “official” meeting between U.S. and Iranian officials since before the Iranian Islamic Revolution, although there had been “informal” interactions at the same level in the past 10 to 12 years.

Kerry and counterparts from the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and Germany described their meeting with Zarif on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly as “a change in tone” from encounters with Iran’s previous, hard line government.

European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton, who chaired the meeting, told reporters it had been “a substantial meeting. Good atmosphere. Energetic.”

She said the two sides had agreed on an “ambitious timetable” to address Western concerns and would meet again in Geneva on Oct. 15 and 16 “to pursue the agenda to carry on from today’s meeting and to hopefully move this process forward.”

Ashton also added a note of caution, saying it was important to focus on “effective work that we do on the ground.”

The New York talks involved the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council — Britain, France, Russia, China, the United States — as well as Germany, known as the P5+1.

Iran’s new president is a moderate cleric who has stepped up efforts to improve Iran’s image abroad during his visit to New York this week and has said Iran will never develop nuclear weapons.

U.S. President Barack Obama on Tuesday cautiously embraced Rouhani’s gestures as the basis for a possible nuclear deal and challenged him to demonstrate his sincerity.

But the failure to orchestrate a handshake between the two leaders, apparently because of Rouhani’s concerns about a backlash from hardliners at home and perhaps Obama’s concerns about the possibility of a failed overture, underscored how hard it will be to make diplomatic progress.

Even without making any real concessions so far, Rouhani has offered a softer, more reasonable tone than his stridently anti-American predecessor Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Meanwhile, the sanctions imposed on Iran have begun to bite severely. Iranian oil exports have fallen by about 60 percent in the past two years as the EU stopped purchases and most Asian buyers drastically cut imports because of the sanctions. Iran is now earning only around $100 million from oil sales a day as opposed to $250 million two years ago.

The six powers said in February they wanted Iran to stop enrichment of uranium to 20%, ship out some stockpiles and shutter a facility where such enrichment work is done. In return, they offered relief on international sanctions on Iran’s petrochemicals and trade in gold and other precious metals.

U.S. officials say that offer remains on the table.

But signaling some of the obstacles that could hamper any new diplomacy, Iran on Thursday sharply criticized the U.N. nuclear watchdog over “baseless allegations” about its atomic activity.

It was an apparent reference to the International Atomic Energy Agency’s concerns, spelled out in a series of quarterly reports, about what it calls the possible military dimensions to Iranian nuclear activities.

The Fordo uranium enrichment facility Kerry referred to is a secret plant buried 299 feet (91 meters) underground, making it difficult to bomb should the West or Israel decide they need to take military action against Iran’s nuclear program.

Rouhani urges Israel to sign nuclear non-proliferation treaty

On Thursday, Sept. 26, Rouhani told a U.N. nuclear disarmament meeting that the Middle East should be a region free of nuclear weapons.

“Almost four decades of international effort to establish a nuclear weapons free zone in the Middle East has regrettably failed. Urgent practical steps toward the establishment of such a zone are necessary. Israel, the only non party to the Non Proliferation Treaty in this region should join there too without any further delay,” said Rouhani.

Israel is widely believed to possess the Middle East’s only nuclear arsenal, drawing frequent condemnation by Arab countries and Iran which say it threatens peace and security.

Rouhani said that pending a world free of nuclear weapons, the countries that do have them should not threaten those that do not.

“Nuclear weapon states should refrain from any threat or use of nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear weapon state under any circumstances,” said Rouhani.

Israel sees a mortal menace in an Iranian bomb it says could be months away from production and says may now be expedited should world powers back off sanctions and readiness for a war of last-resort against Tehran.

Rouhani was speaking on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement. Rouhani asked for a conference to take place to address the issue of issue of nuclear weapons in the Middle East.

“I reaffirm that the NAM state parties to the Non-Proliferation Treaty urge the convening of the conference of the establishment of a zone free of nuclear weapons and all other weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East without any further delay. With the participation of all countries in the region to avoid unwanted consequences,” said Rouhani.

Conversely, Israel and the United States accuse Iran of covertly seeking a nuclear arms capability, something Tehran denies. The election of Rouhani, a relative moderate, as new Iranian president has raised hopes of an easing of tension with the West.

Iran said on Wednesday it wants to jump-start talks with world powers to resolve a decade-long dispute over its nuclear program and hoped for a deal in three to six months.

Categories: Uncategorized

Comments: Be the first to comment

One of history’s greatest deceptions

September 27, 2013

Israel Hayom | One of history’s greatest deceptions.

Dan Margalit

Iranian President Hasan Rouhani’s appearance on the international stage is an extremely important event. The heart wants to believe that Rouhani is eyeing an agreement that would put the brakes on Tehran’s nuclear program, but wisdom seems to indicate that this is one of the largest exercises of fraud in modern history. Democracy’s natural tendency, understandably, is geared toward the first option. But being suspicious of him will be absolutely necessary in the foreseeable future, despite the fact that Washington and Tehran’s foreign ministers met on Thursday night for the first time since 1979.

This does not mean, though, that it is in Israel’s interest to boycott every gesture underlining the difference between Rouhani’s rhetoric and former Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s offensive statements. It is too bad Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ordered the Israeli delegation to leave the assembly hall in New York during the Iranian president’s speech. It would have been better public relations to do otherwise. Israel’s friends in the West, and the Iranians, need to accept Israel’s frank manner of dealing with all the saturating threats.

Although Rouhani’s words may have been appropriate, what about his actions? What reason could the president of a terrorist state possibly give for why he avoided shaking hands with U.S. President Barack Obama, who had welcomed the gesture? Rouhani flew across the ocean and wrote a seductively flattering article about peace. He went on CNN and said what any man with even the tiniest smidgen of integrity would say: that the Holocaust happened and was totally reprehensible. But then, just a few of days later, he denied his comments and had to elucidate his position to the government in Tehran. What happened here?

Was it the salesman’s pitch in two languages? A kind of linguistic Apartheid? Is English excluded from Iranian discourse? Did he condemn the Holocaust in the middle of an English-speaking democracy while uttering something else in Persian? For 65 years, Israelis have gotten used to hearing about difficult translations when Arab leaders were cajoled into saying something that could be interpreted as moderate toward Israel. All of a sudden, there’s no Berlitz Corporation or translators to be found. They have all failed.

The problem is that the democratic world, content with its way and quality of life, people want to hear the nice interpretation of Rouhani’s statements, however erroneous it was. This is the way of the weary world. It does not take preventative military measures, nor diplomatic ones, until the time is too late. The fatigued and frightened nations have laid their impotence bare.

Suspicions are only going to grow. Within a few hours, Rouhani had called on Israel to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Which countries have signed onto that treaty? Iran. Syria. Libya. So what now? Can we really trust them to stand behind their obligations, statements or signatures?

This is a cynical yet predictable attempt by Rouhani to impede negotiations aimed at preventing Iran from acquiring a weapon of mass destruction. We must remain vigilant. Netanyahu will make his speech at the General Assembly just four days from now after his meeting with Obama. He must convey a direct, unequivocal message to the entire forum: The path leading to Iran’s centrifuges does not cross Dimona.

Categories: Uncategorized

Comments: 2 Comments

Rouhani the publicist

September 27, 2013

Israel Hayom | Rouhani the publicist.

Boaz Bismuth

Iran’s campaign to change its image, led by the country’s president/publicist Hasan Rouhani, is now fully underway.

Even though Rouhani sounded very similar during his U.N. General Assembly speech to his predecessor Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (Rouhani’s speech included mentions of Iran’s right to have a nuclear program and enrich uranium, as well as criticism of the U.S.), Rouhani’s words inspired hope around the world. Rouhani knows how to play the exact music that the world wants to hear these days.

The Iranian president, with moderation of course, used the stage in New York to move ahead to the next stage of Iran’s campaign: After Rouhani explained that Iran has the right to a civilian nuclear program (the Persian translation for his overseers is that Iran will become a nuclear threshold state), the Iranian president attacked Israel, saying it poses a global problem: “Israel is the only country in the region that has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.” To us, comparing Israel to Iran may seem ridiculous, but that is not necessarily the case in other places.

An “Obama Doctrine”?

Iran, which is suffering from sanctions and international isolation yet is insisting on continuing its nuclear program, did not let Rouhani to shake hands with U.S. President Barack Obama. Some would say that such a handshake could have been the pinnacle of Iran’s campaign at the U.N., but the Iranians decided that the conditions today are such that they can charge high price for every gesture. Rouhani is perhaps the only current world leader able to get away with not showing up to dine with Obama.

Pundits, including some in Israel, are telling us that Obama, in a brilliant move, is disarming Syria of chemical weapons and Iran of nuclear weapons almost simultaneously after having put his pistol on the table. So we now have, even before the results are in, an apparent “Obama Doctrine.”

However, the reality is opposite. The Iranians clearly understood that the U.S.-Russia agreement in Geneva proved just how little Washington was interested in opening new fronts in the Middle East and that the deal was the product of American weakness, rather than strength.

Iran realized that America’s military option is nothing more than rhetorical. The U.S.-Russia deal also elevated Iran’s status in the region, as Russia arranged for Iran to be the groomsman in the arrangement. Who is more suitable than Iran to play an active role in the search for a diplomatic solution in Syria? Western diplomats say that Iran is putting together a delegation to attend the Geneva 2 conference. Assad, under the protection of a Russian-Iranian umbrella,is now even allowing himself to disparage Obama, saying that the American president is “too hesitant and weak to attack Syria.” Just a month ago, Assad was shaking with fear.

The meeting between Iran and world superpowers on Thursday took place after years of deadlock. An Iranian foreign minister and U.S. secretary of state sat at the same table for the first time in 34 years. This was definitely a historic event. Rouhani promised that an agreement would be reached within three to six months. One can assume that any deal reached in such a short time frame, after all the failures since October 2009, would be bad for Israel. But even if there is no progress, it is highly doubtful that anyone in the world would take on the mission of stopping Iran’s centrifuges.

Iranian media was enthusiastic on Wednesday about the “American change of tone,” as the top headline in the Etemaad newspaper put it, but certainly not about Iran’s change of tone.

In our world, where everything is a matter of perception, it is not surprising that many are excited about Iran’s campaign and the “Obama Doctrine.” But behind all the sweet lips and honey lies reality, which has changed for the worse.

Categories: Uncategorized

Comments: Be the first to comment

The holes in Rouhani’s charm offensive

September 27, 2013

Israel Hayom | The holes in Rouhani’s charm offensive.

Dore Gold

Iranian President Hasan Rouhani’s efforts to change Western perceptions of Iran are already being called a “charm offensive.” Imitating Russian President Vladimir Putin, who wrote an op-ed in The New York Times, Rouhani decided to place an article in one of the other leading American newspapers, The Washington Post. He wrote about Iran’s “peaceful nuclear energy program,” suggesting that its entire purpose was for “generating nuclear power” and “diversifying” Iran’s energy resources.

This was old Iranian argumentation. But he continued with it in an interview on NBC News a day later, saying, “We have never sought, nor will ever seek, nuclear weapons. We solely seek peaceful nuclear technology.” He also took the same message to CNN’s Christiane Amanpour. This week in his speech at the U.N. General Assembly he insisted yet again that the Iranian nuclear program was for “exclusively peaceful purposes.”

Thus Rouhani was not only making a statement about Iran’s future intentions, but he was also rewriting history by saying that Iran had not sought nuclear weapons in the past. In doing so, Rouhani was reopening one of the main debates over the last decade about why Iran was constructing such a vast nuclear infrastructure.

Roughly ten years ago, the U.S. State Department published a power point presentation illustrating the inherent weakness of the arguments the Iranians used to defend their nuclear program. It noted that despite Iran’s enormous oil and gas reserves, Iranian officials claimed that Iran could no longer rely on fossil fuels in the future. Ali Akbar Salehi, who today heads Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization, but in 2003 served as its representative to the International Atomic Energy Organization, added that Iran had to replace the consumption of oil with the use of uranium ore as the primary source for Iran’s energy.

But the State Department study showed that while Iran still had ample oil and gas, which could supply Iran for at least 200 years (in the case of gas), Tehran actually had very limited supplies of uranium ore, especially if it had plans of eventually building seven nuclear reactors for the production of electricity. In fact, if Iran’s domestic supply of uranium ore was inadequate for a nationwide program of electricity production, it was more than sufficient for the production of a respectable number of atomic weapons every year. For the U.S., this was a red flag indicating that the argument that Iran only wanted a civilian program was completely disingenuous and what it really sought was a full scale nuclear weapons program.

Then there was the question of why Iran insisted that it must enrich its own uranium by itself. Tehran actually had only one working reactor for producing electricity at Bushehr, which used uranium fuel that was supplied by Russia. Moscow assured Tehran that the Russian supply of enriched uranium for Bushehr would not be disrupted. So why spend billions on enrichment plants at Natanz and Fordo?

Moreover, many advanced industrial states in the West import enriched uranium rather than build an uneconomical enrichment infrastructure: for example, Finland, Spain, South Korea, and Sweden. Even in the U.S., 92 percent of the uranium used in nuclear power plants during 2010 was of foreign origin.

There must have been an assumption among Iranian leaders that the West was either naive or extremely gullible, for Tehran persisted with its arguments that its nuclear efforts were only for civilian purposes. When Iran began to enrich uranium beyond the 3.5% level in June, 2010 to the 20% level, its spokesmen argued that this too was for civilian purposes; the small Tehran Research Reactor needed this fuel, the West was told, for manufacturing medical isotopes.

But while a year later, Iran already had enough uranium enriched to 20% to meet its demand for medical isotopes for at least seven years, it continued to produce 20% enriched uranium using the medical isotopes argument, which was transparently false. It was clear that the Iranians’ single-minded determination to expand their stock of this uranium was motivated by the fact that the leap from 20% uranium to weapons-grade uranium could be made in half the time it would take to enrich 3.5% enriched uranium to weapons grade level.

There was one area in which Iranian nuclear activities could not be covered up with the excuse that they had some civilian purpose: the manufacture of nuclear warheads for Iranian ballistic missiles, like the Shahab-3, which has the range to strike Israel. In a highly classified briefing in February 2008 given to ambassadors to the IAEA in Vienna, captured Iranian documents detailed how to design a warhead for the Shahab-3.

There was an illustration of the arc of the missile’s flight including the detonation of its warhead at an altitude of 600 meters. According to the IAEA experts a conventional explosion at 600 meters would have no effect on the ground below, but 600 meters would be ideal for a nuclear explosion, like the one caused by the Hiroshima bomb that exploded at that very same altitude.

An IAEA report from May 2011, validated the concerns that were raised during the 2008 briefing. It detailed a military research program that was based on “the removal of the conventional high explosive payload from the warhead of the Shahab-3 missile and replacing it with a spherical nuclear payload.”

Ironically, Rouhani spoke at a military parade in Tehran before heading out to New York. Significantly, on the front of the lead vehicle of a line of trucks transporting Shahab-3 missiles, there appears a banner that reads: “Israel should cease to exist.”

There is no way that this kind of activity can be characterized as being part of a “civilian nuclear program,” no matter how smooth Rouhani’s performance will be during his visit to New York. Tellingly, in recent years, Iran has firmly rejected Western requests to inspects its weapons complex at Parchin, where much of this warhead development is believed to take place. In the last year, anticipating pressures to open up Parchin to inspections, the Iranians undertook a large concealment operation and poured asphalt over areas it thought the IAEA might want to visit.

Rouhani became famous for his remarks in 2005, when he was head nuclear negotiator and national security adviser to former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami, at which time he admitted to having exploited the time of the negotiations with the EU-3 (Britain, France, and Germany) so that Iran could complete its conversion plant in Isfahan, where the fuel that is inserted into the centrifuges is produced. He brilliantly used diplomacy to allow the Iranian nuclear program to advance, while giving the Western powers the feeling that Iran was making concessions at the same time.

This is precisely the sort of formula he will seek now as he launches new negotiations with the Obama administration. Only this time, Iran is far closer to its goal of manufacturing nuclear weapons than it was in 2005. The West will have to be extremely careful to see to it that Iran offers tangible concessions and not just empty generalities about its desire for peace, if its drive for nuclear weapons is to be truly stopped, and the security of the Middle East protected.

Categories: Uncategorized

Comments: Be the first to comment

Obama at the UN — new or old Middle East?

September 27, 2013

Israel Hayom | Obama at the UN — new or old Middle East?.

Yoram Ettinger

U.S. President Barack Obama reintroduced his New Middle East vision during his September 25, 2013 speech at the U.N. General Assembly: “Let me take this opportunity to outline what has been the U.S. policy toward the Middle East and North Africa, and what will be my policy during the remainder of my presidency. …” Obama clarified that his Middle East policy has not fluctuated since his 2008 presidential campaign and his June 2009 Cairo University speech to the Muslim world, notwithstanding the unprecedented geo-political transfiguration of the Arab street during his two terms.

According to Obama, “The world is more stable than it was five years ago.” However, Iraq’s civilian death toll in July 2013 was almost 1,000 — the highest monthly toll since 2008. Egypt has deteriorated from a leadership role in the Arab world into its most unstable period in modern history. Syria, historically an Arab powerhouse has become a battleground among the rogue/terrorist regimes of Assad, the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaida. Jordan’s Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, and disgruntled Palestinians and Bedouins are awaiting the “Syrian lava,” which threatens to sweep the pro-U.S. Hashemite regime. Libya has been transformed from a rogue dictatorship to tribal anarchy and a chief proliferator of military systems to Islamic terrorists. Tunisia has become a fertile ground for Islamist takeover. Yemen features tribal, religious and ideological terrorism, involving U.S. troops and posing a clear and present danger to the House of Saud. Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Kuwait and Oman, the pro-U.S. oil producers, are panicky in view of intensified internal and external lethal threats.

Obama stated that “America’s diplomatic efforts will focus on two particular issues: Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons and the Arab-Israeli conflict … a major source of instability. Resolving them can help serve as a foundation for a broader peace. … Real breakthroughs on Iran’s nuclear program and Israeli-Palestinian peace would have a profound and positive impact on the entire Middle East and North Africa.” However, the Arab Tsunami, engulfing the entire Middle East and North Africa, is totally independent of the Arab-Israeli conflict and the Palestinian issue, which constitute relative tumbleweeds compared with the Middle East sandstorms that threaten vital U.S. interests.

How could the resolution of the 100 year old Arab-Israeli conflict facilitate the resolution of the totally unrelated 1,400-year-old intractable intra-Arab/Muslim conflicts that agitate the imploding Arab street? Moreover, Arab policymakers do not consider the Palestinian issue a crown jewel. They shower the Palestinians with rhetoric, but not with financial or military resources. Furthermore, Arab leaders view the Palestinians as a potentially subversive, destabilizing and treacherous element, based on the Palestine Liberation Organization’s destructive track record in Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Kuwait. Therefore, Palestinian leaders receive red carpet treatment in Western capitals, but are welcomed by shabby rugs in Arab capitals.

Obama introduced a linkage between Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons and the Palestinian issue, aimed at pressuring Israel into further concessions, lest it be blamed for the failure to stop Iran’s nuclearization. However, Iran is galloping toward nuclear capabilities irrespective of Israel’s existence or the Palestinian issue, which is a sideshow for Iran and the Arab countries. Iran’s nuclearization aims to advance its 1,400-year-old goal to dominate the Persian Gulf, where Israel plays no role. A nuclear Iran could severely intimidate the U.S., the mega-obstacle in the way of attaining its historical goal. It would provide a robust tailwind to a chief threat to U.S. interests: Islamic terrorism globally and on the U.S. mainland, which was absent from Obama’s speech. A nuclear Iran would devastate the Saudi and other pro-U.S. Persian Gulf regimes, who dread the “linkage theory,” which subordinates the critical campaign against Iran to the highly complicated, but significantly less critical, Palestinian issue. It thus delays a military pre-emption against Iran, providing the ayatollahs more time to acquire nuclear capabilities.

According to Obama, “President Rouhani received from the Iranian people a mandate to pursue a more moderate course.” But, Rouhani derives his mandate/power from Iran’s supreme leader, Khamenei, who selected him via a fixed election process. Rouhani demonstrated his “taqiyya” (Islam-sanctioned deception) capabilities during his term as Iran’s chief negotiator with the International Atomic Energy Agency, systematically violating commitments made to the IAEA. In September 2002, Rouhani stated: “When we sign international treaties, it means that we are not pursuing nuclear, chemical or biological weapons.” An ally of Hezbollah, Hamas, Syria, North Korea, Venezuela and Cuba and a supporter of Islamic terror organizations, he was an early ally of former Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who led the 1979 Iranian Revolution. He served as national security advisor to Presidents Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani and Mohammad Khatami, and was a planner of the 1994 terrorist attack on the Asociación Mutual Israelita Argentina Jewish community center in Buenos Aires, in which 85 civilians were murdered.

Obama presented a supposed moral equivalence between Israel and the Palestinians. But is there really a moral equivalence between Israel — the only stable, predictable, effective, reliable, democratic and unconditional ally of the U.S. in the seismic Middle East — and the Palestinians, who sided with the Nazis, the Communist Bloc, Khomeini, Saddam Hussein, bin Laden and are currently linked to Russia, China, North Korea, Cuba and Venezuela?! A moral equivalence between Israel — the role model for counterterrorism — and the Palestinian Authority/PLO, the role model of international terrorism, hate education and incitement?!

Twenty years ago, President Shimon Peres introduced the Oslo process with the vision of a peace-driven New Middle East. However, the increasingly tectonic, violent, intolerant, terroristic, unpredictable, treacherous, Islamist and anti-American, conflict-ridden Middle East has overwhelmed the new Middle East. It produced unprecedented Palestinian terrorism, noncompliance and hate education, radicalizing Arab expectations, further eroding the prospects for peace. Will Obama learn from recent history by avoiding — or repeating — the devastating errors committed by Peres?

Categories: Uncategorized

Comments: Be the first to comment

When it comes to stopping Iran, it is now or never

September 27, 2013

Israel Hayom | When it comes to stopping Iran, it is now or never.

Obama gave an optimistic speech at the U.N. Now it is Netanyahu’s turn to talk, and he wants to rein in the excitement over Iran’s conciliatory tone and say: Do not let Iran become North Korea; do not go for a deal at any cost.

Shlomo Cesana

Iranian President Hasan Rouhani laughing at a meeting in Manhattan on Thursday

|

Photo credit: AP

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu arrived in New York this week with the goal of unmasking new Iranian President Hasan Rouhani. He wants to drive home the notion that the winds of change blowing from Iran are a result of Western pressure. Nothing else could be attributed to that. Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is the one who calls the shots and serves as the driving force when it comes to the Islamic Revolution. His directives to go ahead with the nuclear program have not bee amended. Netanyahu knows that. That is why he has been unrelenting.

Contrary to what many people think, the prime minister is not against Western or U.S. diplomacy. If a military confrontation with Iran can be averted and if Iran can give up its military nuclear program through peaceful means, Netanyahu would prefer that course of action. But a quick review of recent history would suggest that Iran will only start talking seriously if a threatening sword is placed against its throat. A clear-cut schedule and a credible action-plan, not unlike what was deliberated on Syria, could bear fruit when it comes to Iran as well.

But, and this is a big but, Netanyahu believes that when it comes to a diplomatic solution, it is now or never. He believes that the expiration date for talks has come and gone. Talks have continued for the past eight years and the Iranians have been taking advantage of them to move ahead with their nuclear program.

Netanyahu will have two opportunities to make his case next week: the first, when he meets U.S. President Barack Obama, who is no longer willing to serve as the world’s policeman and who has exchanged letters with Iran’s leader and who has a problematic track record when it comes to the Middle East. The second opportunity is a much more public venue, when he delivers his address before the U.N. General Assembly.

Netanyahu will try to teach the Americans a history lesson involving a not so distant affair that culminated with another big con job: North Korea. The West held talks with that country as well. Promises were made. Then, one morning, the world woke up to a deafening roar of thunder: the regime had conducted a nuclear test. The North Koreans proved that a radical regime can fool the world. Do not create a new North Korean model, Netanyahu will say.

The premier will also show evidence indicating that the Iranians are already fooling the world. They say they do not want nuclear weapons, Netanyahu will warn. But the International Atomic Energy Agency has already looked into the matter and concluded that they were seeking such weapons, he will continue. He will also note that Iran is sponsoring global terrorism. He will pull no punches.

Determination will lead to action?

Netanyahu will depart for the U.S. on Saturday night. On Monday he will meet with Obama in Washington. Then he will go back to New York and at noon on the following day, Tuesday, he will address the General Assembly. Last year he drew a red line on a bomb diagram. Apparently the Iranians have been very careful not to reach the red lines he delineated. Rather than cross the lines, they fudged them. They developed a new program, a so called red-line detour path. It is based on plutonium reactors that would be active even as the uranium facilities go on with the enrichment activity. So Netanyahu updated his red lines. Instead of three lines there are now four: stopping all uranium enrichment activity; removing the enriched uranium from Iran; shutting down the nuclear facility in Qom; freezing the plutonium-based activity. Israel insists that only the combination of all four steps would effect a meaningful halt to Iran’s nuclear program. Until that happens, the pressure must increase, not decrease.

Behind closed doors Netanyahu has been saying that the events that have engulfed the region over the past several weeks have proven that his doubtful stance was warranted. A rogue nation that develops or acquires weapons of mass destruction might very well use them. Netanyahu insists that only a credible military threat could stop Iran’s nuclearization.

In a recent meeting on Iran, which included both civilian and military officials, the participants were briefed that Iran’s economy has lost some $100 billion over the past 18 months as a result of the Western sanctions. Considering the fact that the annual scope of Iran’s economic activity normally amount to about $450 billion, this is a crushing blow.

The U.S. zigzag — spearheaded by Obama and his Secretary of State John Kerry — has generated consternation among officials in Jerusalem. But there is still a long way to go before the U.S. leaves Israel in the lurch, a scenario mentioned by Yedioth Ahronoth columnist Eitan Haber. Both U.S. and Israeli leaders have already made the same declarations, and the bottom line is that the U.S. will not let Iran have a nuclear weapon. This pledge binds both the president and the U.S. as a whole. However, as we all know, U.S. and Israeli clocks are not identical and they show different times. Israel’s proximity to Iran has made it more vulnerable and more anxious. If Israel feels there is an emerging danger, it would take steps to remove it. This is not a threat, it is a modus operandi. The Americans would not interfere nor would they stop Israel if it decides to act against Iran.

And what about Iran? Iran wants to offset the Western sanctions and to buy time, all the while cleverly advancing toward a bomb. Iran has been sweet-talking its way to that goal. Rouhani and the ayatollahs’ regime have been trying to approach the West using a softer diplomatic language, hoping to convince the world that they are seeking a diplomatic solution to the nuclear standoff.

This conciliatory language is what led to Rouhani’s election in the first place, as he had promised to have the sanctions lifted through words. This approach lies in stark contrast to that of his predecessor, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Now, after Obama and Rouhani have exchanged letters, and after Kerry and his Iranian counterpart Javad Zarif, met and shook hands — when the two attended a meeting alongside the Russian, Chinese, French, German and British foreign ministers — everyone is thinking about their next move.

The U.S. has been trying to allay Israel’s fears: “We will not take Iran’s bait,” is a common refrain in the White House, the Pentagon, the House of Representatives and the Senate. They stress that another diplomatic attempt is being made to stop the nuclear madness.

The U.N. General Assembly has coincided with the a Palestinian Authority donors conference. The Quartet — comprising the EU, the U.N., the U.S. and Russia — is scheduled to convene this week to discuss the Middle East. Chief Palestinian Negotiator Saeb Erekat and Justice Minister Tzipi Livni will also attend the conference, and both are expected to brief the gatherers on peace talks. U.S. special envoy Martin Indyk will deliver a speech at the upcoming J Street conference. So although the Iranian issue is front and center for the prime minister, the Palestinian issue will not be neglected.

Speaking of the Palestinian-Israeli talks, the Americans have set a deadline for a permanent peace accord: May 2014. The two sides are to discuss all the core issue, determine the new borders, decide on the future of the refugees and agree on the status of Jerusalem. This will be the negotiators’ eighth meeting since the talks were resumed. More deadly terrorists are expected to be released in October, pursuant to a government decision stipulating the release of 104 Palestinian prisoners who have been incarcerated since before the Oslo Accords.

The pressure on Israel has continued nevertheless, and it is still required to give some goodies to the Palestinians. This time the Gaza Strip is included.

So where is all this heading? Netanyahu may have answered that question in his recent speech at the state’s official Yom Kippur War memorial service: “It is incumbent upon the nation’s leadership to be sober, so that it does not get caught up in illusions and false hopes. It must have a complete view of the strategic landscape. It must always be ready. Sometimes, it must make a tough decision between what’s bad and what’s worse. And it must ensure the continued existence of the State of Israel.” His rhetoric suggests that an agreement is possible — if the Palestinians do the unthinkable and actually compromise.

Musical chairs

Those in Netanyahu’s inner circle are on their way out, but next week they will all stand next to him. National Security Council Director Maj. Gen. (res.) Yaakov Amidror is expected to leave at the end of October. Former Mossad Deputy Director Yossi Cohen is already being groomed for the job by Amidror at the Prime Minister’s Office. They will both accompany Netanyahu to the United Nations, but more importantly, they will be there at his side when he meets Obama. In Washington, Netanyahu will meet the outgoing Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Michael Oren, who will leave his post by the end of the month. He will also meet with his replacement, Ron Dermer, who used to be his close adviser on foreign policy. He is already preparing for his new job. Prime Minister’s Office Bureau Chief Gil Sheffer will also depart. Former Netanyahu adviser Ari Harow will replace him.

Netanyahu has a very centralized managerial style. He likes to micro-manage every detail. He has very good command of the Iranian issue and other foreign policy matters. When it comes to domestic politics, however, things are not so great, with some people expressing concern over the various pitfalls. He has recently had to deal with people being insulted, with turf and ego wars between the ministers and with party activists applying their own pressure.

The preoccupation with the peace process has resulted in a restless coalition. The recent murders of two soldiers — Tomer Hazan and Gal Kobi — has already prompted seven ministers from Habayit Hayehudi and Likud-Beytenu to sign a letter asking the prime minister to reconsider the upcoming prisoner release. Ministers Yisrael Katz, Naftali Bennett, Ori Orbach, Uri Ariel, Uzi Landau, Sofa Landver and Yair Shamir want to see the murders affect the talks between Livni and Erekat.

There is another letter, which is just as combative. It is signed by six deputy ministers — Zeev Elkin, Ofir Akunis, Danny Danon, Tzipi Hotovely (all from Likud), Rabbi Eli Ben-Dahan and Avi Wortzman (Habayit Hayehudi) — and another 13 MK, including Coalition Chairman and Likud Faction Leader Yariv Levin and another six faction leaders and two deputy Knesset speakers. They want the prime minister to suspend the peace process. “You will soon depart on your way to a meeting with the U.S. president as the representative of Israel, and you will also speak on behalf of the country before the U.N. We call upon you to clarify Israel’s official stance — that the Jewish people have natural, historic and legal rights on their entire homeland and on their eternal capital Jerusalem. Twenty years after the terrible Oslo Accords, it is our belief that a return to the Oslo framework, including the relinquishing of territory to the Palestinian Authority, would be the wrong course of action.”

These letters represent a trend. Ministers and MKs are going out against the very position Netanyahu is advocating on the worlds stage. Danny Danon has done it in the most blatant way (in an op-ed in the New York Times and Haaretz). But he is not the only one. Other politicos and coalition MKs are expressing their views without any hindrances.

Hotovely told a group of Likud activists this week that the “Prime Minister must heed the requests of all the party segments [to nullify the decision to release terrorists]. The Likud Party has set red lines for every concession in the peace process. He who is the helm of the party cannot divorce himself from the what the overwhelming majority of the party wants.” Will Netanyahu listen? We will wait and find out very shortly.

Categories: Uncategorized

Comments: Be the first to comment

US appeasement of Iran drowns Israel’s military option against nuclear Iran or chemical Syria

September 27, 2013

US appeasement of Iran drowns Israel’s military option against nuclear Iran or chemical Syria.

DEBKAfile Special Report September 27, 2013, 11:05 AM (IDT)

John Kerry and Mohamed Zarif at the UN

John Kerry and Mohamed Zarif at the UN

Thursday, Sept.26, will go down in Israel’s history as the day it lost its freedom to use force either against the Iranian nuclear threat hanging over its head or Syria’s chemical capacity – at least, so long as Barack Obama is president of the United States. During that time, the Iranian-Syrian-Hizballah axis, backed by active weapons of mass destruction, is safe to grow and do its worst.
Ovations for the disarming strains of Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani’s serenade to the West and plaudits for the pragmatism of its Foreign Minister Mohammed Zarif flowed out of every window of UN Center in New York this week.
Secretary of State John Kerry, who took part in the highest-level face to face encounter with an Iranian counterpart in more than 30 years, did say that sanctions would not be removed until Tehran produced a transparent and systematic plan for dismantling its nuclear program.

But then, in an interview to CBS TV, he backpedaled. Permission for international inspectors to visit the Fordo underground enrichment facility would suffice for the easing of sanctions starting in three months’ time.
By these words, the US pushed back Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s first demand to shutter Fordo and its equipment for enriching uranium to near-weapons grade, which he reiterated at this week’s Israeli cabinet meeting in Jerusalem.

To Tehran, Kerry therefore held out the promise of a short deadline for starting to wind sanctions down – this coming December.

Tehran’s primary objective is therefore within reach, the easing for sanctions without having to rescind any part of its nuclear aspirations – called “nuclear rights” in Iranian parlance.

The foreign ministers of the five permanent Security Council members and Germany, meeting Thursday with Zarif, arranged to resume formal nuclear negotiations next month in Geneva.
In another chamber of the UN building, the Americans were busy climbing all the way down from the military threat Barack Obama briefly brandished against Bashar Assad’s use of chemical weapons eons ago – on August 31 – before he killed it by passing the decision to the US Congress.
Any suggestion of force against Assad was finally buried at the UN Security Council Thursday, when the United States accepted a formal motion requiring Syria to comply with the international ban on chemical weapons, while yielding to Moscow’s insistence on dropping the penalty for non-compliance incorporated in the original US-British-French draft.

The message relayed to Tehran from both wings of UN headquarters was that it was fully shielded henceforth by a Russian veto and US complaisance against the oft-vaunted “credible military option” waved by Washington. Iran and its close ally, the Syrian ruler Assad, were both now safe from military retribution – from the United States and Israel alike – and could develop or even use their weapons of mass destruction with impunity.

Israel’s Intelligence Minister Yuval Steinitz, who was on the spot, could do little but repeat his government’s demands of Tehran to anyone who would listen, shouted down by the flood of conciliation pouring out for the new Iranian president. There was no escaping the conclusion that the Netanyahu government’s policy – if that is what it could be called – for preventing a nuclear-armed Iran is in tatters.

Iran, instead of facing world pressure to disarm its nuclear program, managed to turn the spotlight on Israel, requiring the world to denuclearize the entire Middle East and force Israel to join the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty.

Given the atmosphere prevailing in the world body these days, it is not surprising that the speech delivered to the assembly by the Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas was rated moderate – even when he called the establishment of the State of Israel a “historic, unprecedented injustice which has befallen the Palestinian people in al-Nakba of 1948” and demand redress.
This perversion of the UN’s historic action to create a Jewish state could only go down as moderate in a climate given over wholly under John Kerry’s lead to appeasing the world’s most belligerent nations and forces, so long as they made the right diplomatic noises.

Categories: Uncategorized

Comments: Be the first to comment

Full text of Mahmoud Abbas’s speech to the UN General Assembly

September 26, 2013

Full text of Mahmoud Abbas’s speech to the UN General Assembly | The Times of Israel.

‘I am confident that the Israeli people want peace,’ PA president declares in NY, while urging the world to put an end to settlement construction

By Times of Israel staff September 26, 2013, 9:12 pm

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas addresses the UN General Assembly, September 26, 2013 photo credit: UN screenshot)

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas addresses the UN General Assembly, September 26, 2013 photo credit: UN screenshot)

The following is the full text of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’s September 26, 2013 address to the UN General Assembly, as prepared for delivery:

Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen, At the outset, I extend my congratulations to H.E. Mr. Vuk Jeremid on his outstandingly successful presidency of the previous session of the General Assembly, and I congratulate Mr. John Ashe upon his assumption of this session’s Presidency and wish him all success.

Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen, I am honored to address you today, and for the first time in the name of the State of Palestine, before the United Nations General Assembly, after your historic decision last 29 November to raise Palestine’s status to that of an observer State. As representatives of your Governments and of your peoples, you have championed justice, right, and peace, and thereby affirmed your refusal of occupation, and stood for principles and ethics and on the side of peoples yearning for freedom. For this, I present you again today with my deepest thanks and gratitude, in the name of Palestine and of its people.

The Palestinian people celebrated this resolution, because they rightly felt that they did not stand alone in the world, but that the world stands with them, and because they realized that the result of your overwhelming vote meant that justice is still possible and that there still is room for hope.

Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen, I assured you last year that our quest to raise Palestine’s status does not aim to delegitimize an existing State – Israel, but to consecrate the legitimacy of a State that must exist, which is Palestine. I have also affirmed in front of you that our quest does not aim to affect the peace process, nor is it a substitute for serious negotiations. To the contrary, our quest is supportive of the path of peace and has revived a comatose process. As we have repeatedly affirmed, and as we have proven in practice, the State of Palestine, which abides by the United Nations Charter, by international humanitarian law and by the resolutions of international legitimacy, will exercise its role and uphold its responsibilities in the international system in a positive and constructive manner, and in a way that reinforces peace.

A new round of negotiations began a few weeks ago thanks to the appreciated, tireless efforts of the President of the United States, Mr. Barack Obama, and of the US Secretary of State, Mr. John Kerry. I affirm before you that we have begun these negotiations and that we shall continue them in good faith and with open minds, strong determination and an insistence on success. I assure you that we shall respect all of our commitments and foster the most conducive atmosphere for the continuation of these negotiations in a serious, intensive manner and provide the guarantees for its success, aimed at reaching a peace accord within nine months.

Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen, As we engage in this new round of negotiations, we must recall and remind that we do not start in a vacuum or from point zero, nor are we lost in a labyrinth without a map, nor do we lack a compass so as to lose sight of the finish line and of the destination. The goal of peace that we seek is defined and the objective of these negotiations is clear to all, and the terms of reference, basis and foundations of the peace process and of the agreement we seek are longstanding and are within reach. As for the goal of peace, it is embodied in redressing the historic, unprecedented injustice that has befallen the Palestinian people in Al-Nakba of 1948, and the realization of a just peace, the fruits of which can be enjoyed by the Palestinian and Israeli peoples, as well as by all the peoples of our region.

The objective of the negotiations is to secure a lasting peace accord that leads immediately to the establishment of the independence of a fully sovereign State of Palestine, with East Jerusalem as its capital, on all of the Palestinian lands occupied in 1967, so that it may live in peace and security alongside the State of Israel, and the resolution of the plight of Palestine refugees in a just agreed upon solution, according to United Nations resolution 194, as called for by the Arab Peace Initiative.

Here, we reaffirm that we refuse to enter into a vortex of a new interim agreement that becomes eternalized, or to enter into transitional arrangements that will become a fixed rule rather than an urgent exception. Our objective is to achieve a permanent and comprehensive agreement and a peace treaty between the States of Palestine and Israel that resolves all outstanding issues and answers all questions, which allows us to officially declare an end of conflict and claims.

The terms of reference and parameters of these negotiations, its goals, and the basis of the agreement we seek are found in your historic decision to raise Palestine’s status, as well as in the countless resolutions of this august body and the resolutions of the Security Council, and in those of the Arab League, of the European Union, of the Non-Aligned Movement, the African Union, and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. In fact, over the years, these parameters have come to form an international consensus.

Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen, Twenty years ago, precisely on 13 September 1993, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), the sole and legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, signed with the Government of Israel a Declaration of Principles Agreement (Oslo Accords), in the presence of our departed leader, Yasser Ararat, and Yitzhak Rabin, the late Israeli Prime Minister, and of former President Bill Clinton on the White House lawn in Washington.

On 15 November 1988, the Palestinian National Council adopted our program for the achievement of peace, thereby taking an extremely difficult decision and making a historical and painful concession. However, as representatives of the Palestinian people, we have long been aware of our responsibilities towards our people and had the necessary courage to accept a two-State solution: Palestine and Israel on the borders of 4 June 1967, establishing a Palestinian State on 22% of the land of historic Palestine. Thus, we did our part to realize a historic settlement, uphold our obligations, and fulfill all that the international community set as requirements from the Palestinian side in order to attain peace.

At the same time that the PLO affirmed its choice of peace as a strategic option and of a solution resulting from negotiations, it firmly repudiated violence and affirmed an ethical, principled rejection of terrorism in all its forms, especially State terrorism, and affirmed our respect of international humanitarian law and United Nations resolutions.As a genuine historical breakthrough, the signature of the Oslo Accords caused an unprecedented political dynamism, fostered great hopes and generated high expectations. The PLO worked with dedication to implement it in order to end the occupation and to realize a just peace.
But after the passage of twenty years, the picture appears dispiriting and bleak, the great dreams shattered, and the goals more modest. As much as we felt in those days that peace was at hand, we realize today how far we are away from it. For the goal of the Accords was not achieved, its provisions not implemented, and its deadlines not respected. And, all the while, the continuation of intense settlement construction, which aims to change the facts on the ground in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, has violated the spirit of the agreement, struck at the core of the peace process, and caused a deep fracture in its cornerstone – that of the two-State solution.

Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen, The start of a new round of negotiations is good news, but it cannot be sufficient grounds for relaxing vigilance or give the international community an exaggerated sense of tranquility. The negotiations we are undertaking with the Israeli Government under the auspices of the United States require that the international community exert every effort to make them succeed, namely by international and regional organizations, as well as by individual States upholding the international consensus on the goal of peace, the objectives of the negotiations, the terms of reference and the basis for a permanent peace agreement. At the same time, the international community is asked to remain alert to condemn and stop any actions on the ground that would undermine negotiations – and I refer here, above all, to the continuation of settlement construction on our Palestinian land, particularly in Jerusalem. There is an international consensus – among the countries of the world, international and regional organizations and the International Court of Justice – on the illegality and illegitimacy of these settlements. The position of the European Union with regard to settlement products is a positive model of what is possible to be done in order to ensure an environment supportive of the negotiations and the peace process. At the same time, it is imperative that the near-daily attacks on the religious sites in Occupied Jerusalem, at the forefront of which is Al-Aqsa Mosque, where the continuation of such attacks will have dire consequences.

Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen, History teaches us – and it is the best teacher – that waging war, occupation, settlements and walls may provide temporary quiet and a momentary domination, but they certainly do not ensure real security nor guarantee a sustainable peace. Such policies may create a specific reality on the ground, but they certainly do not create a right, nor do they provide legitimacy. Such policies may impose a weak stability, but they cannot prevent an inevitable explosion, because such polices in fact fuel inflamed situations to explosion. But above all, such policies are incapable of extinguishing the aspiration of a people for freedom and cannot eradicate their living memory or eradicate their narrative.

Therefore, what is required is to heed the lesson of history, to abandon the mentality of force and occupation, to recognize the rights of others, and to deal on an equal footing and parity to make peace. What is required is to stop relying on exaggerated security pretexts and obsessions in order to consecrate occupation, and to stop contriving demands that push the conflict from its defined political terrain towards the abyss of religious conflict in a region burdened with such sensitivities – a matter that we categorically refuse.

Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen, I am confident that the Israeli people want peace, and that its majority supports a two-State solution. We have always expressed our firm positions and have always explained them at the negotiations table with the Israeli Government and in the meetings and contacts we have intensified in the recent years with a wide spectrum of actors in Israeli society.

Our message stems from the idea that the two peoples, the Palestinian and the Israeli, are partners in the task of peacemaking. This is why we keep reaching out to the Israeli side saying: let us work to make the culture of peace reign, to tear down walls, to build bridges instead of walls, to open wide roads for connection and communication. Let us sow the seeds of good neighborliness. Let us envision another future that the children of Palestine and of Israel enjoy with peace and security, and where they can dream and realize their dreams, a future that allows Muslims, Christians and Jews to freely reach places of worship; and a future in which Israel will gain the recognition of 57 Arab and Muslim
countries and where the States of Palestine and Israel will coexist in peace, in order to realize each people’s hopes for progress and prosperity.

Ladies and Gentlemen, While we discuss the realization of peace between Palestine and Israel as an imperative to achieve a comprehensive peace between the Arab countries and Israel, according to the resolutions of the United Nations; we bear in mind the current volatile reality and unprecedented dynamics gripping our region. Palestine does not interfere in the internal affairs of Arab countries, but we have clearly affirmed our stance beside the demands of the peoples, their choices, and their peaceful popular movements to achieve these demands, along with the programs and roadmaps they have adopted to reach their goals.

Further, while we condemned the crime of the use of chemical weapons in Syria, we have affirmed our rejection of a military solution and the need to find a peaceful political solution to fulfill the aspirations of the Syrian people.

Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen, The overwhelming majority of the Palestinian people were born in Palestine and in exile after the 1948 Al-Nakba. But after the passage of 65 years, they are still its direct victims. Since the start of this year, 27 Palestinian citizens have been killed and 951 have been wounded by the bullets of the occupation, and 5000 fighters for freedom and peace are held captive in occupation prisons. So, does anyone deserve more than the Palestinian people ending this occupation and realizing a just and immediate peace? This year and in the last few years, Palestine refugees continue to pay – despite their neutrality – the price of conflict and instability in our region. Tens of thousands are forced to abandon their camps and to flee in another exodus searching for new places of exile. So, is there anyone more deserving than the Palestinian people to obtain justice, like the rest of the peoples of the world?

Since the beginning of the year, construction continues on thousands of settlement units and construction tenders have been issued for thousands of others on our occupied land, while yet more, large areas of land are expropriated or declared off limits, and 850 homes and structures have been demolished. Palestinians are forbidden from planting their own land and from using the majority of the area of
our country. They are prevented from using the water of their own country to irrigate their crops. The wall and checkpoints continue to tear apart the lives of the Palestinian people and to destroy the economy. The siege grows tighter, along with attacks and oppressive discriminating measures against Occupied Jerusalem, its holy places and its citizens. In Gaza, an unjust blockade continues to be imposed on our people. So, is there anyone more deserving than the Palestinian people to gain freedom and independence now? Since the beginning of the year, 708 terrorist attacks have been perpetrated by settlers against our
mosques and churches, and against olive trees, farming fields and homes and property of Palestinians. Is there any doubt in anyone’s mind that the Palestinian people are the most in need of security?

Is there a nobler mission on the international community’s agenda than realizing just peace in the land of the monotheistic faiths, the nativity of Jesus Christ – peace be upon him, the ascent of the Prophet Muhammad – peace be upon him, and the resting place of Abraham, the father of the prophets, peace be upon him?

Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen, The Palestinian people, as they continue to be steadfast on their land, also continue to build their institutions, to strengthen internal unity, to achieve reconciliation by returning to the ballot box, to wage peaceful, popular resistance to counter the oppression of occupation and settlements and settler terrorism, and continue to adhere to their rights. The Palestinian people do not want to remain “out of place” in the words of Edward Said. Our people wait for a day when its cause ceases to be a fixed item on the agenda of the United Nations. Our people want to have freedom, God’s gift to humanity, and to enjoy the grace of living an ordinary life. For we – as Mahmoud Darwish wrote – “cultivate hope”, and we “shall one day be what we want”: a free sovereign people on the land of the State of Palestine.

Mr. President, I am personally one of the victims of Al-Nakba, among the hundreds of thousands of my people uprooted in 1948 from our beautiful world and thrown into exile. Like hundreds of thousands of Palestine refugees, I have known as a youth the pain of exile and the tragedy of the loss of loved ones in massacres and wars, and the difficulties of building a new life from zero. And we tasted in refugee camps in exile the bitter taste of poverty, hunger, illness and humiliation, as well as rising to the challenge of affirming one’s identity.Our people have walked the path of armed revolution and rose from the ashes of Al-Nakba and collected the shards of its soul and its identity to present its cause to the world and consecrate the recognition of its rights. We have walked a long, difficult path and sacrificed dearly, and yet we affirmed at all times our active quest for peacemaking. I have signed, in the name of the PLO twenty years ago, the Declaration of Principles Agreement, and we have worked faithfully and diligently to implement it, affirming our respect for our
commitments and the credibility of our positions. The successive setbacks did not shake our strong faith in the objective of a just peace, and we shall continue tirelessly and unwaveringly to see it realized. My own hope is to see the day where a just peace reigns so that the generation of Al-Nakba can pass on to its children and grandchildren the flag of an independent State of Palestine.

Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen, Time is running out, and the window of peace is narrowing and the opportunities are diminishing. The current round of negotiations appears to be a last chance to realize a just peace. Merely thinking of the catastrophic and frightening consequences of failure must compel the international community to intensify efforts to seize upon this chance.

Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen, The hour of freedom for the Palestinian people has rung. The hour of the independence of Palestine has rung. The hour of peace has rung. I thank you, Mr. President.

Categories: Uncategorized

Comments: 6 Comments

The West, Rouhani, and Iran’s anti-Semitism

September 26, 2013

The West, Rouhani, and Iran’s anti-Semitism | Gary Weiss | Ops & Blogs | The Times of Israel.

Did he or did he not say there was a Holocaust? And why do we care?

The general sentiment seems to be that if Rouhani acknowledges what happened to the Jews of Europe during World War II, it represents a kind of baby step towards…. well, what exactly? I’m not sure. Surely not a more conciliatory policy toward the West, and definitely not toward what the Iranian regime calls the “Zionist entity.”

The Times today said “The dispute over his comments reflects the extreme delicacy of the Holocaust as an issue in Iranian-American relations.” Uh, no, that’s not what it reflects. It reflects that Iran is unwilling to come clean about the character of the regime. It’s not Rouhani vs. the “hardliners.” It’s Iran vs. the truth.

What western commentators seem to be overlooking is that the Iranian regime, no matter what it says for public consumption, is a practitioner of the crudest forms of anti-Semitism. Holocaust denial is an essential part of the mix, as yeast is to bread.

As the Washington Post’s Pulitzer prize winning columnist Colbert I. King pointed out last year, Iran hosts “the most virulent form of state-sponsored anti-Semitism since Nazi Germany.” He gave a few examples, which I won’t bother repeating here. If you want to learn more about the regime’s Jew-baiting, just Google “anti-Semitism” and “Iran” and be prepared to spend a few hours reading the creepiest kind of filth.

Sure, you’ll never hear the regime admit to this – in the English language. An Iranian parliamentarian had the audacity to tell RT.com in 2010 that “there is no anti-Semitic sentiment in Iran.” In other words, Iranian officials are as willing to lie about their own Jew-hatred as they are about the Nazis’.

The world community has no reason to doubt that Rouhani’s “charm offensive” and his Holocaust obfuscations are little more than an effort to paint lipstick on a pig. The West needs to accept that the Iranian regime is anti-Semitic, and use its statements on the subject, especially in Persian, as a litmus test of the depths of its extremism as well as its sincerity.

We need to recognize that because the Rouhani Holocaust “tangle” is yet another indication of the Iranian regime’s utter lack of trustworthiness as it seeks to convince the West to lift sanctions over its nuclear program.

If Iran won’t admit to its own anti-Semitism, a philosophy embedded in the soul of the regime, how can it be trusted to tell the truth about anything? Rouhani’s predecessor, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, was a bigot, but at least he didn’t insult the world’s intelligence by claiming that he was anything other than a bigot.

Categories: Uncategorized

Comments: 1 Comment

Archives