WarSclerotic

Interview: Can Israel Block a Deal With Iran? | Middle East Voices.

October 7, 2013 By Susan Yackee

–

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has sought to reassure the Israeli people that his positions regarding Iran’s nuclear program have not changed.

–

He told an audience at Israel’s Bar-Ilan University that the international community should tighten rather than relax economic sanctions against Iran until Tehran completely ends its suspected nuclear weapons program. Israel sees Iran’s nuclear activities as a military threat and has said it would attack the country’s nuclear sites if necessary.Iran has long insisted its nuclear program is peaceful. This stance has been reiterated most recently by Iran’s newly-elected president, Hassan Rouhani, at his September 24 address before the United Nations General Assembly, described by many observers as a ‘charm offensive.

–

’Elliott Abrams, a senior fellow for Middle Eastern Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, has authored an article, published in Foreign Affairs, about Israel’s influence in steering the international response to Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

VOA’s Susan Yackee spoke with him about his analysis.

Elliott Abrams

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 –

Yackee: You ask, can Israel prevent a deal with Iran. Can It?

Abrams: The only way it can absolutely prevent a deal is by striking Iran militarily. That is, it can argue against what it views as a bad deal, publically and privately, but it can’t actually prevent it.  It has no veto power except to use its own military.

Yackee: You raise the ‘good cop-bad cop’ scenario. Should Israel play the bad cop to make any deal with Iran more restrictive?

Abrams: Yes, Israel in a sense has been doing that for a couple of years, that is – one of the things that has motivated the United States, England, France and Germany to push for a negotiated deal, a tough negotiated deal to have sanctions on Iran, I think has been [due to the] political and moral pressure from Israel.

Israel won’t be alone in this. It’s not the only country concerned about avoiding a bad deal. I know, for example, the French have been a little bit worried that the United States might be tempted to go for a bad deal just to create what appears to be a solution to this. So Israel will have some allies in Washington, London and in other capitals as well, in and out of government.

Yackee: You suggest Israel may call for increased sanctions against Iran. Is the international community likely to agree to that since Iran has shown some signs of improving its tone?

Abrams: ‘I think it’s tough to see that happening. That is, I think it’s tough to see Israel persuading the P5+1 – Europeans for example – to increase sanctions right now in the face of this charm offensive by Rouhani. What they might be able to achieve by demanding more sanctions is that they at least prevent the lifting of sanctions until Iran has actually performed, that is – no more sweet talk – but ‘what have you actually done in your nuclear program?’ So perhaps that is in a sense a tactic on the part of Israel: Ask for more than you might get but see what you can get.

Yackee: Does the possible adjustment in U.S. relations with Iran that we appear to see put Israel is a worse situation than it hes been?

Abrams: Yes, I think the problem for Israel is that the United States, if I can put it this way, appears to many Israelis to be falling for the charm offensive. Israel a year ago, for example, had an Iran under [President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad, who was widely reviled in the West, who had given a horrendous series of speeches at the U.N., and Israel’s statement that it might ‘pull the trigger’ was viewed by many in the West as not so illogical. Today they are in a worse position because of this charm offensive. Everybody is talking about diplomacy, and this leaves the Israelis somewhat isolated in saying that ‘this is just a charm offensive – it has no substance, beware!’

Yackee: The U.S. and Israel have long been tied together as great, strong allies. Do you think the issue of Iran [having] nuclear weapons might come between the two?

Abrams: I don’t think so. There is an awful lot of support in the country and in Congress to having a really hard line on Iran. Iran has been an enemy of the United States since the hostage taking in 1979. And I think a lot of Americans would agree that we just can’t permit Iran to get a nuclear weapon and, indeed that is official U.S. policy; those are words President [Barack] Obama has spoken. So, I think, the worst thing that can happen is that we diverge in that we think that there’s a good deal and the Israelis don’t. Well, that’s a disagreement and they will be unhappy but we remain their top ally. Or they’ll think this deal is so bad, if one is struck, that they actually go ahead and do the military attack on Iran. I think many Americans would view that as a gutsy thing to do, and I think that the United States in those circumstances would be likely to support Israel in the aftermath. I don’t think it would cause any type of deep break.

Israel Hayom | Iranian espionage suspect claims to be victim of extortion.

Israel Hayom | The Israeli-Gulf link.

Dr. Ronen Yitzhak

“We are losing weight and the ship is sinking,” said the headline of a cartoon published in the Saudi newspaper Asharq Al-Awsat last week.

This cartoon was one of many published by the newspaper recently expressing Saudi and other Gulf states’ anger and frustration over both U.S. policy in the Middle East since the outbreak of the Arab Spring revolutions and the White House’s seeming readiness to negotiate with Iran over its nuclear program. Saudi commentators are so similar to their Israeli counterparts that it has become impossible to distinguish between the respective official positions over these issues.

The U.S.’s support of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak’s ouster — with Mubarak having been one of Israel’s and Saudi Arabia’s closest friends in the Middle East — and its refusal to publicly support the military putsch that brought about President Mohammed Morsi’s deposal, illustrated the joint interest Israel, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states have in preventing the spread of radical Islam throughout the region.

The war against Iran’s nuclear program — a program that, according to many in the intelligence community, is meant, first and foremost, to create a Shiite hegemony in the Middle East while simultaneously decimating the statuses of Saudi Arabia, the Sunni Gulf states, Jordan and Egypt — also brought about a secretive, strategic, Sunni-Israeli pact, the goal of which was to thwart the Iranian nuclear program. Additionally, countering the Iranian program opened the door for greater cooperation between the nations of the Gulf Cooperation Council, countries where Israeli ministries with similar interests had made limited contacts until 2009, closing those channels after Operation Cast Lead was launched.

The conclusion in Saudi Arabia, Gulf states and Israel in light of the U.S.’s conduct over President Bashar Assad of Syria, U.S. President Barack Obama’s limp policy over Iranian nuclearization and the propriety of setting off on negotiations with Iranian President Hasan Rouhani without Rouhani having proved the earnestness of his intentions, is a united one. These countries believe that the U.S. has grown weaker and either does not want to or does not have the ability to play in the Middle East.

All the while, the Iranians, laughing all the way to the nuclear bomb, are on the rise. With Russian backing, Iranian support of the Assad regime has continued (the Saudi’s are against Assad and support, as we know, the Syrian opposition). The Shiite subversion creeping through Sunni nations will continue as Middle Eastern terrorism intensifies. Gulf states, disturbed by this reality, are finding themselves absolutely aligned with Israeli interests.

Even though diplomatic relations between Israel and these nations do not openly exist, on a subterranean level, a covert diplomatic-security portal has opened, designed to facilitate coordination and bolster cooperative efforts, which have markedly grown against the backdrop of joint efforts to thwart the Iranian nuclear program. This is in addition to joint security activities with Jordan and Egypt. In one previously leaked piece of news, it was revealed that former Mossad chief Meir Dagan secretly visited Saudi Arabia in 2010 to discuss with its leaders the Iranian nuclear program. The Saudis also agreed, according to foreign sources, to allow Saudi air space to be used by the air force if an attack against Iran was to be launched, expressing a cooperative attitude.

Cozier Israeli-Saudi relations developed without any sort of official diplomatic channel. Given the waning American influence in the region and an increasingly feeble sense of security, it is very likely that this trend will only grow.

Israel Hayom | Battle has just begun.

Zalman Shoval

A week after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s U.N. address, one can say that its immediate effect was that it took the luster off Iranian President Hasan Rouhani’s own U.N. speech, which had received gushing media coverage. But the long-term effect of Netanyahu’s speech will be equally important. Was Netanyahu able to bring discussions about the Iranian nuclear issue back to reality?

A ray of light on this question could in fact be found in the very New York Times editorial that called Netanyahu’s speech “aggressive” and complained about his casting doubt on the chances of success of America’s diplomatic effort. Israeli officials justly criticized the editorial, but what they failed to mention was that it explicitly stated both that Netanyahu has good reasons to be wary of Iran’s intentions and that Iran has deceived the world about its nuclear program for the past two decades. The editorial also called for the U.S. to continue cooperating with Israel on the Iranian nuclear issue.

More worrisome was an op-ed written by David Ignatius, The Washington Post’s senior diplomatic commentator, that praised U.S. President Barack Obama’s recent foreign policy moves. Ignatius compared Obama’s “successes” in Syria and Iran to Richard Nixon’s China initiative and Ronald Reagan’s victory in the Cold War. He did not mention Netanyahu’s speech, but the spirit of the article was, “We’ve embarked on a new path with Iran and no one will take us off it.”

The struggle against worrying trends over Iran is just getting underway, but it is not hopeless. Not only is the U.S. Congress united and determined to continue sanctions (and even strengthen them) and also take other steps to thwart Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons, but Obama administration officials have also made statements indicating suspicions about Iran’s intentions. We have seen U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel say that America’s actions over Iran will not be based on blind trust, but rather on a “very verifiable, accountable, transparent process … whereby we know exactly what Iran is going be doing with its program.” There are even some who think that Netanyahu coordinated the content of his U.N. speech with Obama in advance, and that Netanyahu’s clear and firm statements about Israel’s military option were meant to strengthen America’s hand at the negotiating table.

Israel must continue on the path that Netanyahu outlined in his speech: Burst balloons of illusion and deception, precisely mark the roadmap to preventing a nuclear Iran, and emphasize the responsibility of the U.S. and civilized world on this matter. Israel is not opposed to diplomatic moves, but it is warning that the failed diplomacy with North Korea, which obtained nuclear weapons under the cover of a diplomatic process, will not be repeated. Unfortunately, American and European hints that they would be willing to allow Iran to enrich uranium for “peaceful purposes” do not bode well, as the line between that and enrichment for military purposes can be crossed without anyone noticing.

Netanyahu’s U.N. speech was a continuation of a tough, but successful, multiyear campaign to raise awareness about the Iranian nuclear threat and build a fortified wall against it. The campaign has now become more difficult. The wall must not be allowed to be breached because of a spirit of melancholy that has spread among those entrusted with its upkeep.

Israel’s Final Warning on Iran.

( Iran, ask not for whom the bell tolls… – JW )

Published on Monday, 07 October 2013 06:12

Written by Yaakov Lappin

With no military threat, Iran has no incentive to stop its nuclear progress. Iran might well conclude that the sanctions could disappear in the course of endless rounds of diplomacy.

No one in Israel seeks war, but a central tenet of its own defense doctrine is that Israel cannot depend on any external power to deal with existential security threats.

The coming weeks probably represent the last opportunity for Iran and the international community to reach an enforceable deal that will dismantle Tehran’s nuclear weapons program, before Israel concludes that time has run out, that Iran has gotten too close to creating its first atomic bombs, and that the time for a military strike has arrived.

Despite Iranian President Hassan Rouhani’s well-planned and deceptive charm offensive at the United Nations last week, so far not a single uranium-enriching centrifuge has stopped spinning in the underground nuclear facilities in Natanz and Qom. The heavy water plutonium facility at Arak is moving forward, and Iran has already amassed enough low-enriched uranium for the production of seven to nine atomic bombs.

Iran conducts test launches of its long-range Shahab-3 missiles, in 2008.

The speech given by Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu at the United Nations last week, in which he warned that Israel would act alone against Iran if it needed to, is an authentic warning, and serves a dual purpose.

First, the speech reintroduces a credible military threat and aims it squarely at the Islamic Republic.

This notice is important as deterrence against Iran has waned significantly since August, when President Barack Obama hesitantly climbed down from his commitment to carry out a military strike on Iran’s ally, the Syrian regime, over its use of chemical weapons to massacre civilians.

A diminished threat of military force leaves diplomatic efforts with Iran almost no chance of success: it leaves Iran with virtually no incentive to stop its nuclear progress, despite the painful economic sanctions it faces.

With no military threat, Iran might well conclude that the sanctions could disappear in the course of endless rounds of diplomacy, in which skilled Iranian negotiators would succeed in getting some of the sanctions lifted while giving up very little in return.

Many of America’s allies in the Middle East are very concerned about the lack of deterrence; and Netanyahu, keen to ensure that he has given talks with Iran all possible opportunities before taking matters into his own hands, has placed the military threat firmly back on the table, lest Iran forget that even if the U.S. will not act militarily any time soon, Israel most certainly will if it must.

The second purpose of Netanyahu’s speech was to put the international community on notice regarding the urgency of the situation, and to send the message that even if many in the West have fallen for Iran’s “campaign of smiles,” Israel has not, and if Israeli concerns are neglected, action will be taken.

Should the international community continue to allow Iran to buy more time for its nuclear program, as it has done for more than a decade, after Netanyahu’s warning, it will not be able to respond with surprise when Israel attacks Iran’s nuclear sites.

Israel’s leadership has long since concluded that a nuclear-armed Iranian regime — a regime that is doctrinally and theologically committed to Israel’s destruction, and that controls a state-sponsored terrorist network, active worldwide — is an outcome many times more dangerous than any military attack.

Israel’s defense establishment recognizes that stringent U.S.-led economic sanctions have forced Iran to the negotiating table. But senior officials, such as Israel’s Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon, have warned that merely arriving for negotiations and offering “sweet talk” is no reason to reward Iran by easing sanctions. On the contrary, easing sanctions now would guarantee that talks will fail.

Similarly, any agreement that allows Iran to continue to enrich uranium under the guise of a civilian energy program will simply enshrine Iran’s position as a nuclear breakout state. Only tangible, verifiable steps that will ensure Iran is pushed back by years from its current progress could be considered an accomplishment.

Against the background of these developments, it is worth bearing in mind that the core of Jerusalem’s defense doctrine holds that Israel cannot depend on any foreign power — even its most trusted ally, the United States — to deal with an existential security threat.

Israel’s clock, which gauges Iranian nuclear progress, ticks faster than that of America’s, due to Israel’s lesser strike capabilities, its smaller size, its closer proximity to Iran, and ultimately, because Israel is the openly and repeatedly declared number one target of Iran’s ambition to destroy it.

If Israel misses its window of opportunity to act, such a lapse would violate a central tenet of its own defense doctrine — that Israel cannot depend on any external power to deal with existential security threats — thereby making that option unthinkable. Once Israeli intelligence agencies and senior military command levels conclude that the clock has struck one minute to midnight, no amount of pressure from allies will succeed in dissuading it from acting in self-preservation.

A military strike would not be a goal in itself, as Iran could go right back to reactivating its program, but it would be a last resort designed to accomplish what years of talks could not: to push Iran back from the nuclear brink.

Israel’s strike capabilities remain a closely guarded secret, but according to international media reports, the Israel Air Force has more than 100 F15i and F16i fighter jets that can fly to Iran and return without the need to refuel, as well as, for other jets, advanced midair refueling capabilities that would allow them to strike multiple Iranian targets. According to the reports, Israel also possesses long-range Jericho ground-to-ground missiles.

Any strike, moreover, would be unimaginable without the Israel Defense Force’s advanced electronic warfare units.

In the event that Iran orders its Lebanese proxy, Hezbollah to retaliate with tens of thousands of rockets and missiles on the Israeli home front, Israel could respond with devastating air force strikes using new weapons systems, and a lightning ground invasion of southern Lebanon to extinguish quickly the rocket attacks and leave Hezbollah on the ropes.

No one in Israel seeks war, and few dispute that a diplomatic solution that can really freeze the threat from Tehran is the most desired outcome.

But so far, beyond empty gestures, Iran has given no indication that it is prepared to give up its program, and time is running out.

Gatestone Insitute

Yaakov Lappin is a journalist for the Jerusalem Post, where he covers military and security affairs. On a daily basis, he provides breaking news coverage and analysis of Israeli and Middle Eastern regional developments. He is also author of The Virtual Caliphate; Exposing the Islamist State on the Internet, which explores al-Qaeda’s online presence.

Israel Hayom | The mind of Netanyahu.

Elliott Abrams is a senior fellow for Middle East Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. This piece is reprinted with permission and can be found on Abrams’ blog “Pressure Points” here.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visited Washington last week and spoke at the U.N. General Assembly in New York. I did not speak with him during this visit. The following is a guess about what he is thinking:

I’m glad to be home but that was a terrific trip. I liked my speech — wolf in wolf’s clothing, wolf in sheep’s clothing, all that was better this time than the visual from my 2012 speech with that little bomb. Of course I liked that speech too (and nobody even noticed that the bomb drawing was exactly the same one in those Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad that caused riots!)

Speaking at the U.N. General Assembly is like addressing a mixed crowd — half Nazis and half mummies. But the real audience outside got the point: Iran can’t have nukes, no way, no how. Dunno about Obama. Good meeting, hours long; he treats me better now than before his election, which is weird. The thought struck me that he knows these talks with Iran may fail, and if they do he’s going to want me to hit Iran. He doesn’t want to do it and he doesn’t want them to get nukes; he has said they can’t so many times that he’d look like an idiot. So in the end he may turn to me, and back me.

Maybe. Maybe not. I mean, this Syria thing was bizarre. Even Hillary and John wanted him to do more, in 2012 and this year, and he just won’t do a damn thing. And throwing the decision to Congress without even consulting Biden and Kerry — wow, what an insult to them, with 60 years in the Senate between them! I heard he didn’t even consult Chuck Schumer about whether they had the votes. I mean, whatever his staff tells him, he isn’t Albert Einstein.

So maybe the guy will never go beyond drones. In which case, I am his escape route. Maybe the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei will save us all, and reject any deal — no matter how good — with the Great Satan. But I’m scared stiff about these negotiations. Those Persians are smart as hell; if we could team up we’d run the whole Middle East. I hope I live to see the Islamic republic fall. But does Obama really think Wendy Sherman and John Kerry will outsmart them? Has he read the history of how North Korea hornswoggled the Americans?

So the real question is, will he accept some crappy deal? That’s what gives me nightmares. I’ve got nothing to worry about at home. There’s no one like Rabin or Sharon to run against me, and people will back an attack on Iran. The talks with the Palestinians can go on forever, whatever Kerry wants, but Abu Mazen [Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas] is about as likely to sign a deal now as he himself was in 2008 or Arafat was with Clinton. Thank God the army is back in charge in Egypt and doing something Mubarak never did — really crushing the Muslim Brotherhood. The Americans are suspending aid! Hell, they should be doubling it, as I told Obama. My friend King Abdullah in Jordan is okay, too; people there realize the world is a tough place and while he may not be his father, life would be a lot worse without him. It isn’t a choice between the king and paradise; it’s a choice between the king and disorder, violence, disaster, the Brotherhood.

Obama. Weird guy. Smart, but man, they’re all smart — Bush and Blair and Clinton and Sarkozy and Putin. He’s no standout. His Syria play was bush league. He’s got no one around like a Cheney or Jim Baker, just acolytes. And those negotiations! I’m off to Europe to stiffen the spines of those creeps, though I have to admit the French are really smart: They get it all and are as worried about Obama as I am. Buying a crummy deal with Iran that just gains him three years is his agenda, I think. What happens afterward he can blame on his successor. (“They didn’t get nukes on my watch!”) That’s why I talked to all those Republicans, hoping they won’t lift sanctions for Obama’s fake deal.

What a mess. Still, they don’t have nukes yet and if I end up striking them I’ll be a hero. Amazing, isn’t it? We’re 6 million Jews here in this tiny little place. Yet the whole world expects us to handle Iran with its 76 million, and stabilize Jordan, and Sinai, and help Egypt, and confront Hezbollah. And we may just do it. I’ve never been a religious guy, not really, but it’s hard to resist praying for help and wondering if God is not really in this drama.

Full text of Netanyahu’s speech at Bar Ilan | The Times of Israel.

( Translated from Hebrew, this speech details Israel’s bottom line for its Iran policy.  RECOMMENDED. – JW )

Prime Minister says no centrifuges or enriched uranium for Iran, calls for more sanctions

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivers a speech at Bar-Ilan University in Ramat Gan, near Tel Aviv, on October 6, 2013. (photo credit: Reuven Kastro/Flash90)

I recently read a hundred-page book by a wonderful American historian who passed away nearly 50 years ago. His name was Will Durant and he wrote many books. He wrote an eleven volume history of civilization, but at the end of his life, he wrote a hundred-page book, The Lessons of History. You should read it. Every line is carved from the stone of truth, and I will give you the bad news and the good news. The bad news is that when you finish reading this book, you understand that in history, greater numbers rule. They matter.

But here is the good news. On page 17, if I am not mistaken, he mentions that there may be exceptions to this rule and that through the unification of a cultural force, that’s what he called it, the odds could be overcome. He gives the State of Israel as an example of such an exception. I think that we have proven in the 65 years of Israel’s existence that we are exceptional, but we must continue to be so, also by preserving our spiritual foundations. Two weeks ago, archaeologists found a gold medallion near the Western Wall. The archaeologists dated it to the beginning of the seventh century and there is a menorah on the medallion – our national symbol. On one side, a Torah scroll and on the other a shofar. The entire Torah on one medallion and of course, this was after 2,000 years of Jewish existence in the Land of Israel. This existence has lasted for nearly 4,000 years. Apparently there is something special about this exception of ours, in our unique combination of our past heritage and the way that we look to the future with our full force and talents and I would even say genius. There is no doubt that this university is part of our national and international effort to preserve our heritage and of course combine it with the future.

I thank you for your invitation to speak here, on the 20th anniversary of the founding of the Begin-Sadat Center. Many things have happened to us during those years. On the political front, we signed a peace agreement with Jordan. During all that time, exactly 20 years, we have been conducting negotiations with the Palestinians, trying to achieve a peace agreement, and despite ups and downs during these two decades, we managed to maintain the peace accords with Egypt. This is not insignificant.

However, without a doubt, the most significant developments in the Middle East during this entire period are those of the past few years, and they overshadow all the rest when taking a broad view. Two of these developments include the historic unrest taking place in the Arab world – unrest that is at its height and far from over if such a thing can actually end; and of course Iran’s ongoing efforts to develop nuclear weapons. Iran’s goal is to take over the entire Middle East and beyond, and to destroy the State of Israel. This is not speculation; this is their goal.

Israel and the United States agree that Iran must be prevented from arming itself with nuclear weapons. Just days ago, the Iranian president said at the UN that Iran is only interested in civilian nuclear power. That’s what he said.

I do not believe him, but anyone interested in examining his statement should ask the Iranian regime one simple question – if you only want peaceful nuclear energy, why do you insist on centrifuges to enrich uranium and on plutonium reactors? Neither of these things is necessary to produce peaceful nuclear energy. There is no need for them; however they are the essential components for producing fissile material for nuclear weapons. This must be understood – they are not needed at all for peaceful purposes. Seventeen countries, including some of the leading countries in the world – Canada, Mexico, Spain, Switzerland, Sweden, Indonesia with a quarter of a million people – and many others produce nuclear energy without centrifuges, without plutonium reactors.

Only someone who wants to produce fissile material for nuclear bombs insists on these components – not only insists, but is willing to inflict great suffering on his people because this insistence involves sanctions and dictates by the Security Council. Why do they do this? Perhaps they are lacking energy resources? They have gas and oil. I mention natural gas on purpose because it is immediately available for industry and for everything else. They have so many resources that they can provide for the needs of considerable areas of the world for many years with what they have, certainly for the needs of their own country. Therefore, the international community should take the following position vis-à-vis Iran – we are ready to reach a diplomatic resolution, but only one that dismantles Iran’s ability to produce nuclear weapons. In other words, no centrifuges or enriched uranium, no plutonium reactor.

As long as Iran does not dismantle its centrifuges and plutonium reactors, the sanctions must not be eased at all. On the contrary, they should be increased. The truth is simple, it is clear, it cuts like a razor through the fog they are trying to create. If their intentions are peaceful, they will agree. If they are not peaceful, they will not agree. But perhaps the formula should be put simply as follows: they dismantle, they receive; they don’t dismantle, they don’t receive. And this is a difficult struggle because it is human nature to hope, to believe, to try – we are willing to try but not to conduct an open experiment without criteria and certainly not without a realistic and clear-sighted view.

Parallel with the attempt to stop Iran’s nuclear armament and preserve the peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, we are interested in bringing the conflict with the Palestinians to an end. Achieving a genuine and secure peace, with real security and not just on paper but on the ground – for us, our children, our grandchildren – this is the greatest wish of all citizens of Israel. In order to bring about an end to the conflict, the root of the conflict must be understood.

I bring this up because, in my opinion, in all the discussions regarding the conflict with the Palestinians, at least one thing has been achieved and that is that whoever believed that it was the core of the conflict in the Middle East – well, now it is difficult to say such a thing without sounding absurd. It is not the core of the conflict – not what is happening in Libya or Tunisia or Algeria or Egypt or Yemen or Syria or Iraq and so on and so forth. But for years they told us that the core of the conflict in the Middle East was the Palestinian matter and… how shall I put this? That sacred cow is one of the victims of the Arab revolution.

However, there is a second sacred cow in equal measure. When people are asked what the root of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is – since if you want to provide a solution or fix a certain problem, first you must correctly diagnose the illness. Well, when asked what the root of the conflict is, people usually have an answer at the ready: the occupation, the territories, the settlements and so on – it is all the same. Israel “taking control of the territories”, the area of Judea and Samaria after the Six Day War, the settlements – this is what sustains the conflict, this is what created the conflict for the most part. And I ask, is it really?

In my opinion, if one must choose a process by which the conflict started in actual fact, I would set the date at 1921 on the day on which the Palestinian Arabs attacked the immigration hostel in Jaffa.
Many Jews were killed in this attack, including the well-known writer Y.H. Brenner. This attack was directed against Jewish immigration. My grandfather arrived in Jaffa, at that same hostel, the year before, as did many others. Clearly this attack was not about territory or settlements; it was against Jewish immigration to the Land of Israel. Later there were more attacks: In 1929, the ancient Jewish community in Hebron was brutally slaughtered. It had existed there nearly uninterrupted for close to 4,000 years. After that, there were attacks in ’36, in ’39 – what they called unrest. These were repeated and methodical attacks against the Jewish community in Israel. Later on there was the Partition Plan of 1947, wherein it was proposed that there be an Arab state – they didn’t say Palestinian state, but rather Arab state – and a Jewish state. The Jews agreed, the Arabs refused. Because the matter was not at that time, nor is it today, the question of a Palestinian state, but rather was and remains, unfortunately, the Jewish state.

And even before 1967, for 19 years, they had us in a chokehold; there was a stranglehold around us with the sole goal of uprooting us, of extinguishing our lives. What was that about? There were no territories then either. There was no occupation, unless Tel Aviv is occupied and Jaffa is occupied. There were no settlements for 46 years, from 1921 to 1967, nearly half a century. We were excoriated by the Arab public unrelated to settlements, unrelated to what is presented as the historic heart of the struggle. I say these things because I can – well, so it ended there, but later everything changed. Later on, events developed as they developed. We withdrew from Gaza, every last centimeter. We uprooted communities and the attacks against us continued – approximately 10,000 missiles were fired at us from Gazan territory, from territories from which we withdrew. And when we ask those who launch the missiles and those who stand behind them: why do you fire at Jews? They say: in order to free Palestine. And what is Palestine? Judea and Samaria? No. Of course, they are part of it, but they say: Beer Sheva and Ashkelon, Majdal and Acre and Jaffa. Fine, those who say such things belong to Hamas or Islamic Jihad, but the more moderate elements in Judea and Samaria, the Palestinian Authority – it is true that they do not engage in terror and this is an important distinction. They do not engage in terror, but when they are asked to say: Well, do you recognize? Not in Judea and Samaria, not in the West Bank, but are you ready finally to recognize the Jewish state? They answer: We are prepared to recognize the Israeli people; we are ready to recognize Israel. I say, that is not the question I am asking: are you prepared to recognize the Jewish state, the nation state of the Jewish people? And the answer so far has been no. Why not?

During my speech here four years ago, I said that the solution is a demilitarized Palestinian state. The reason for demilitarization is clear to everyone in light of our experience – true and ongoing demilitarization with very clear security arrangements and no international forces. But a Jewish state – recognize the Jewish state. Why are you not willing to recognize the Jewish state? We are willing to recognize your nation state, and that is at great cost – it involves territories, our ancestral lands, which is not insignificant. And I say this as well – this is a very difficult thing. But you need to make a series of concessions too and the first concession is to give up your dream of the right of return. We will not be satisfied with recognition of the Israeli people or of some kind of binational state which will later be flooded by refugees. This is the nation state of the Jewish people. If they want, Jews immigrate to this country. Palestinian Arabs, if they want, will go there. Recognize the Jewish state. As long as you refuse to do so, there will never be peace. Recognize our right to live here in our own sovereign state, our nation state – only then will peace be possible.

I emphasize this here – this is an essential condition. There are other conditions important for concluding the negotiations – not for conducting negotiations, but for concluding them, but I mention this because the political process with the Palestinians involves resolving complicated problems. It will be deemed successful only if it is built on the foundations of truth, the truth of the present and historic truth and unfortunately, the truth that is under constant attack from our enemies and opponents. They try to undermine the ancient connection of our people with the Land of Israel and obfuscate the basic facts of the conflict between us and the Palestinians in the 20th century.

For example, several days ago, I heard Iran’s representative half-heartedly comment on the Nazi crimes – it is difficult for them to say Holocaust – but immediately he added vigorously that one shouldn’t allow the Zionists to take advantage of the Nazi crimes, i.e. the Holocaust, in order to harm the Palestinians. Iran’s representatives repeat time and again the familiar trope that the Holocaust occurred without any connection to the Palestinian question and only later the Zionist leaders came along and made use of the Holocaust to repress the Palestinians. Well, what are the facts? The undisputed leader of the Palestinian national movement in the first half of the 20th century was Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini. The Mufti was the living sprit behind those same attacks I described, from 1921 in Jaffa through the Second World War. All this is known, but here are some facts about the Mufti’s activities that are less well known:

On November 28, 1941, the Mufti flew to Berlin and met with Hitler. He expressed to Hitler his readiness to cooperate with Germany in any way. And he did so – both by recruiting Muslim fighters to join the ranks of the S.S. in the Balkans and by broadcasting propaganda for the Nazis.
Here is a typical example of the propaganda broadcast by the Mufti in 1942. I quote, “If England is defeated and its allies overwhelmed, it will provide a final solution to the Jewish question, which in our mind is the greatest danger”. Between 1942 and 1944, he worked from his base in Berlin and tried to prevent Jews from being saved – in Hungary, Germany, Bulgaria, Croatia – countries which, despite being enslaved to Hitler, allowed the Jews to escape to the Land of Israel and other places.

The Mufti protested to the Nazis that they hadn’t provided enough resources to prevent the escape of the refugee Jews from the Balkans. In his testimony at the Nuremberg Trials on August 6, 1947, the German commander Wilhelm Melchers said, “The Mufti made his protests known everywhere, in the Bureau of the Foreign Minister and the State Minister and in other headquarters of the S.S.” On May 13, 1943, for example, the Mufti submitted a letter to the Nazi Foreign Minister Ribbentrop in which he objected to the understandings Germany made which allowed for the deportation of 4,000 Jewish children from Bulgaria. He asked to see, “everyone,” and I quote, “everyone wiped out”.

Eichmann’s deputy, Dieter Wisliceny, provided the following chilling testimony at Nuremberg: “The Mufti played a role in the decision to destroy the Jews of Europe. The importance of his role cannot be ignored. The Mufti repeatedly proposed to the authorities with whom he was in contact, first and foremost Hitler, Ribbentrop and Himmler, to destroy the European Jews. He saw in that an appropriate solution to the Palestinian question”. Wisliceny even provided hearsay evidence that the Mufti was directly involved in the Final Solution. “The Mufti was one of the initiators of the methodical destruction of the Jews of Europe and was a partner and consultant to Eichmann and Hitler on how to execute the plan. He was one of Eichmann’s best friends and constantly pushed him to speed up the destruction. With my own ears,” he said, “I heard him say that he visited the gas chambers of Auschwitz anonymously in the company of Eichmann”.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

As opposed to the things being said by Iran’s representatives and others, the Zionist leaders did not use the Holocaust to destroy the Palestinian national movement. On the contrary, the most senior Palestinian leader at the time, the Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini preached and acted to implement the Holocaust in order to destroy the Zionist movement. It almost worked. European Jewry was indeed wiped out, in part because of the Mufti’s efforts, but Zionism was not wiped out and the State of Israel was established.

I mention these things here because these roots, this poisonous tumor, must be uprooted. The Mufti is still an admired figure in the Palestinian national movement. Go look at websites, go to schools, look at schoolbooks. This is the tumor that must be removed, this is the root of the conflict, this is what keeps it alive and the root of the conflict was and remains that which has been repeated for over 90 years – the profound objection by the hard core of Palestinians to the right of the Jewish people to its own country in the Land of Israel. In order for the current process to be significant, in order for it to have a real chance for success, it is essential that we finally hear from the Palestinian leadership that it recognizes the right of the Jewish people to its own country, the State of Israel. I very much hope that it will happen so that we can move toward a real resolution of the conflict.

There are many other subjects that we will of course have to resolve during the negotiations. First and foremost, there must be a real and sustainable solution to Israel’s security needs in the unstable and dangerous region in which live, because even if we do achieve this recognition, after years of incitement that still continues, we have no assurance that this recognition will filter down into all levels of Palestinian society and that is why we need very solid security arrangements, so that we will be able to defend the peace and defend ourselves if the peace is violated. This is a realistic and responsible approach, one that is ready to move forward but not blindly.

This reminds me of another issue. I think an essential condition for reaching a genuine resolution clearly was and remains the reversal of the refusal to recognize the right of the Jews to a nation state of their own in the land of their ancestors and this too is the most important key to resolving the conflict, recognition of this right.

I believe in the power of the people of Israel and I believe in the power of the State of Israel. What we have accomplished over the last 65 years is indeed wondrous. Today we mark 40 years since the Yom Kippur War. In the ensuing 40 years, the population of Israel has increased two-and-a-half fold. Israel’s GNP has increased 25 times. That is like taking 25 economies of the State of Israel and placing them side by side. We can mark achievements in all fields – in immigrant absorption, immigration, technology, freeing up the economy, developing the Negev and the Galilee, in the cyber city we are building in Beer Sheva, in the biotech city which will be established now in Safed, which is rising before our very eyes.

These are tremendous things. We did not wait for our neighbors in order to develop our country. We continue to do so. There is a connection between the two things – as long as we continue to grow our power, as long as we fortify our country, as long as we build our economy, as long as we strengthen our society, as long as we are strong – there is a chance that this change will also occur among our neighbors. We cannot give up on this – it is essential for safeguarding our future and ensuring our safety.

Hizballah is secretly pulling its fighting men out of Syria, elated by victory.

Hizballah forces parade their prowess

Just as the Iran-backed Lebanese Hizballah sent thousands of fighting men into Syria on the sly to fight for the Assad regime in the winter of 2012, so it is now pulling them back in the same furtive fashion in small, inconspicuous bands. debkafile’s Middle East sources report that 1,500 Hizballah fighters are home out of 3,500 still awaiting repatriation last month. By early November, they are all expected to be out of Syria.

Hizballah’s leaders and backers rate the operation a major success: It gave President Bashar Assad a valuable boost for his regime’s survival against a major uprising. Hizballah’s military involvement in the Syrian civil war went through unopposed by the US or any regional power, such as Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia or Qatar. And, finally, Tehran for the first time fielded a surrogate force for a winning role to determine the outcome of a conflict in one of its most important strategic arenas.
Hizballah’s rapid exit from Syria is the outcome of five developments in the region and beyond:

1. It signifies the close interdependence of the US-Russian understanding for Syria’s chemical disarmament and the deal unfolding between the US, Russia and Iran on Tehran’s nuclear program.

Progress in negotiations with Iran is clearly interlocked with progress on Syria.

2. Assad and his regime are now firm enough in the saddle to dispense with Hizballah’s military assistance.

3. Hizballah needs to whisk its militiamen out of Syria before the inspectors of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons-OPCW, the first of whom arrived in Damascus Tuesday, Oct. 1, fan out across the country and get down to work. The Lebanese Shiite group is anxious to keep its expeditionary force in Syria out of sight so as to preserve the closely guarded secrets of its makeup and modes of operation.

4. The Hizballah militia comes out of the Syrian war toughened by combat experience and well-trained in the running of regular military units in battle conditions under combined Iranian-Syrian command.

In comparison, Israel’s armed forces, the IDF, have not faced combat conditions in the field since the Second Lebanon War of 2006, while Hizballah, which is dedicated to destroying Israel, despite its heavy war losses, has just survived the test of fire on the Syrian battlefield.

5.  At Tehran’s behest, Hizballah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah is turning his attention inward to Beirut. His assignment is to promote a political set-up that will support future accords on Syria between the US, Russia and Iran. He is therefore abandoning his strong opposition to a national unity government in Beirut and helping to get one installed.
In his latest speech Sunday, Oct. 6, at the Begin-Sadat Center of Bar Ilan University, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu declared: “The goal of Iran today is to control the Middle East and beyond, and to destroy the State of Israel. That is not speculation; that is the goal.”
But he had no word to offer on what Israel was going to do to stop Tehran achieving its goal or disarm Iran’s faithful operational arm to prevent it pursuing its master’s Middle East objectives.