WarSclerotic

Why is Israel alone in objecting to the agreement with Iran? | JPost | Israel News.

By MAURICE OSTROFF

12/05/2013 23:17

Rouhani’s charm offensive lulled the West into forgetting basic reasons for objecting to Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons.

As the November 30 Daily Telegraph headline “Israel rages – and no one cares” is typical of an attitude that is blinding the world to the very real danger posed by a nuclear Iran to the entire Western way of life, it is timely to recall a few pertinent FACTS.

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani’s charm offensive has lulled the West into forgetting that the basic reasons for objecting to Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons are not the threats against Israel but against all infidels and the entire Western world The real power in Iran lies in Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who calls America the devil incarnate and says that negotiating with the US is naive and perverted. On March 14, 2005 he declared on Iran’s Channel 1, “Our people say ‘‘Death to America,’” and the crowd responded, “Death to America, death to England, death to the hypocrites and Saddam. Death to Israel. On May 10, 2013 ,he said: “The European races are barbaric. They wear freshly pressed suits and ties, and they smell of eau de cologne, but deep down, they still have the same barbaric nature known from history. They kill with ease.” (Translation by MEMRI) Rouhani’s charm offensive lulled the P5+1 negotiators into ignoring the most pressing argument for preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weaponry namely the danger of a nuclear weapon falling into the hands of a terrorist group supported by Iran. Last May a report by the US State Department said Iran’s state sponsorship of terrorism has reached a tempo unseen since the 1990s. Iran was implicated in terror attacks in Asia, Europe, and Africa and certain terrorist groups have expressed interest in using a nuclear device.

A terrorist nuclear explosion could kill hundreds of thousands and destroy the economy of a country.

It was not Israel but the IAEA that alerted the world to Iran’s deceitful nuclear history as confirmed by Rouhani himself when he was Supreme National Security Council Secretary. In a September 2005 speech he said Iran tried to purchase nuclear fuel cycle capabilities as possession of this technology enables enriching uranium to the 90% required for a nuclear weapon.

Israel was not a factor in 2002 when, as Rouhani said, Western media accused Iran of building an atomic bomb and the IAEA approved a resolution against Iran. Rouhani referred to secret tests that the IAEA had uncovered. In one case a university student wrote a dissertation about a project and in another a scholar published a scientific paper about a project. The IAEA acquired copies of both. “Therefore,” said Rouhani “the IAEA was fully informed about most of the cases we thought were unknown to them.”

Rouhani said that in 2003 the IAEA found traces of 70% and 80% enriched uranium causing a new uproar. The IAEA doubted his explanation that that this was due to contamination in centrifuges purchased from a third country.

On August 30, 2012 the BBC reported that UN nuclear inspectors found traces of uranium enriched at 27% at the site, but Iran said those readings could be accidental.

In view of the concerns expressed by Gulf States and some experts and considering that the UN Security Council has adopted six resolutions since 2006 addressing Iran’s nuclear program mostly under chapter VII imposing sanctions and prohibiting enrichment of uranium, it is foolhardy to ignore the real dangers by focusing only on Israel’s objections.

The claim that Iranian enrichment has been halted was directly contradicted by Rouhani and Foreign Minister Zarif who declared that Iran’s enrichment activities will proceed as in the past, that the process of enrichment to 20% will continue based on the plans they had and that the heavy water project at Arak will continue along the same lines as in the current situation.

The declaration that Iran will decide the level of uranium enrichment is in direct conflict with the agreement’s provision that the enrichment level must be mutually defined and agreed upon by both sides in further negotiations The claim that the agreement has frozen essential work on Arak is contradicted by Zarif’s unambiguous declaration that construction work at Arak nuclear facility will continue and Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi said the deal is not legally binding.

Kerry’s interpretation of the Geneva agreement is certainly a welcome positive step and he deserves praise for his efforts and persistence. But it is tragic that the reactions of his Iranian interlocutors confirm Netanyahu’s description of the agreement as a bad deal.

Déjà vu. Sadly the immediate renunciation by the Iranian negotiators of the most essential aspects of the accord are reminiscent of Yasser Arafat’s actions days after signing the Oslo accords as reported in The New York Times of May 25, 1994 “ Last week’s controversy over a recording of his [Arafat’s] call for a jihad, or Muslim holy war, to liberate Jerusalem had barely died down when another explosive excerpt was released from the same speech, secretly taped earlier this month in a Johannesburg mosque. The latest quote cuts directly to the issue of trust by suggesting that the Palestine Liberation Organization’s peace agreement with Israel might soon be broken for a new round of fighting.” And this is exactly what happened.

Column One: The politics of subversion | JPost | Israel News.

By CAROLINE GLICK

12/05/2013 21:19

US Secretary of State John Kerry arrived in Israel on Wednesday to put additional pressure on Israel.

US Secretary of State John Kerry arrived in Israel on Wednesday to put additional pressure on Israel to make more concessions in land and political rights to the PLO in Judea and Samaria. To advance his current effort, Kerry brought along retired US Marine Gen. John Allen.

According to media reports, Allen presented a proposal to address Israel’s security concerns and so enabled the talks about Israeli land giveaways to proceed apace. The proposal involved, among other things, American security guarantees, a pledge to deploy US forces along the Jordan River and additional US military assistance to the IDF.

These Obama administration proposals are supposed to allay Israeli concerns that withdrawing Israeli forces from the Jordan Valley and the international border crossings with Jordan will invite foreign invasion and aggression, and increased Palestinian terrorism.

By controlling the Jordan Valley, (and the Samarian and Hebron mountain ranges), Israel is capable of defending the country from invasion from the east. It can also prevent penetration of irregular enemy forces, and on the other hand, maintain the stability of the Hashemite regime in Jordan. Without control over the areas, Israel can do none of these things.

Facing these undeniable facts, Kerry and his supporters have two main challenges. First they need to present themselves as credible actors.

And second they have to give Israel reason to trust the Palestinians. If Israel trusts the US, then it can consider allowing the US to defend it from foreign aggression. If the Palestinians are real peace partners, then Israel can surrender its ability to defend itself more easily, because it will face a benign neighbor along its indefensible border.

Unfortunately, Israel cannot trust the US. Kerry and the Obama administration as a whole lost all credibility when they negotiated the deal with Iran last month.

After spending five years promising they had Israel’s back only to stab Israel in the back in relation to the most acute threat facing the Jewish state, nothing Kerry or US President Barack Obama says in relation to their commitment to Israel’s security can be trusted. The fact that Kerry had the nerve to show up here with “security guarantees” regarding the Palestinians two weeks after he agreed to effectively unravel the sanctions regime against Iran in exchange for no concrete Iranian concessions on its nuclear arms program shows that he holds Israel in contempt.

But then, even if Kerry had all the credibility in the world it wouldn’t make a difference. The real problem with the notion of an Israeli withdrawal to indefensible borders is that those indefensible borders will be insecure. Both the PLO and Hamas remain committed to Israel’s destruction.

They will never agree to Israel’s continued existence in any borders. So the whole peace process is doomed. Kerry’s attempt to dictate security arrangements is a waste of time.

This much was again made clear last Friday by the PLO’s chief negotiator Saeb Erekat. Speaking to foreign supporters, Erekat said that the Palestinians will never accept Israel’s right to exist.

Their entire existence as a people is predicated on denying Jewish rights and nationhood. And, as Erekat put it, “I cannot change my narrative.”

The people who should be most upset both about Obama and Kerry’s destruction of US strategic credibility and about the utter absence of Palestinian good faith should be the Israelis wedded to the two-state paradigm. Former prime minister Ehud Olmert, former Shin Bet director Yuval Diskin, Justice Minister Tzipi Livni and Labor Party leader Issac Herzog among others, should be so vocal in their opposition to the deal with Iran that they make Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu look like a pushover.

It is they, not Netanyahu and his voters, who have insisted that Israel can make massive concessions to the PLO and sit on the sidelines with regard to Iran because the US will defend us. For the past generation it was they, not the political Right, that preached strategic dependency rather than strategic sovereignty.

These peaceniks, rather than Likud supporters should also be the ones leading the charge against PLO support for terrorism, incitement against Israel and rejection of Israel’s right to exist. The Right never wanted a Palestinian state to begin with. That’s the Left’s policy. If Netanyahu abandoned his support for Palestinian statehood, he would become more popular, not less so. And unless Palestinian society and the Palestinian leadership fundamentally transform their position on Israel, there is no way that Israel can be expected to surrender its ability to defend itself.

There is no way that Israel can consider the PLO’s territorial demands. And there is no way a Palestinian state can be established.

But the peaceniks don’t seem to care about these things.

Olmert uses every open microphone to attack Netanyahu.

Last week Olmert went so far as to say that Netanyahu, “declared war on the American government,” by openly criticizing the deal with Iran.

Despite the fact that PLO chief Mahmoud Abbas didn’t even respond to Olmert’s peace offer in 2008, Olmert places all the blame for the absence of peace on Netanyahu and his government.

For his part, on the eve of Kerry’s visit Diskin launched an equally unhinged attack on the government.

Speaking to the European funded pro-Palestinian Geneva Initiative, Diskin claimed wildly that Israel is more at risk from not surrendering to PLO demands than from an Iranian nuclear arsenal.

Last month Livni attacked Netanyahu for criticizing Obama’s deal with Iran and then claimed vapidly that Israel will protect itself from Iran by giving away its land to the PLO. Ignoring the fact that the Arab world is already siding with Israel against Iran, Livni said, “Solving the conflict with the Palestinians would enable a united front with Arab countries against Iran.”

This week newly elected Labor Party chief Issac Herzog went to Ramallah and chastised the government.

Praising Abbas for his “real desire to achieve peace,” while remaining silent about Abbas’s daily statements in support of terrorism, Herzog pledged “to try to put pressure on the Israeli government to take brave positions to achieve peace and security for our children.”

As for the deal with Iran, shortly after his election to head the Labor Party last month, Herzog lashed out not at the deal, and not at Obama for betraying his pledge to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power, but at Netanyahu. Netanyahu, he claimed, “has harmed our relations with the US and hasn’t brought about an improved agreement.”

Ignoring the fact that the Obama administration negotiated with Iran behind Israel’s back and then lied about the contents of what it had agreed to, Herzog seethed, Netanyahu “has created a total lack of trust between us and Obama rather than a trusting relationship.”

As polls taken over the past 20 years have shown, a majority of Israelis would be happy to make peace with the Palestinians, and pay a price in territory for doing so. But those polls have also shown that the public believes the Palestinians when they say they want to destroy the Jewish state. The Israeli public does not think people like Abbas, who praise mass murderers of Jews as national heroes, have “a real desire to achieve peace.”

And, as recent polls show, following the US deal with Iran, while the public continues to prize Israel’s alliance with the US, it no longer trusts the US government.

The fact that the likes of Olmert, Livni, Diskin and Herzog and their followers are not at the forefront pressuring the Palestinians to change their ways and demanding that the Obama administration demonstrate its trustworthiness, but rather have directed all their energies to attacking the government, indicates that peace with the Palestinians is not their primary concern.

Rather it would appear that their main concern is their personal power and prestige.

By siding with the Americans against the government, these senior figures seek to exploit the public’s support for the US. By presenting Netanyahu as anti-American, and claiming that he is responsible for Obama’s abusive behavior, they hope to convince the public to embrace them as guarantors of the strategic alliance. Certainly that is Olmert’s goal as he looks past his criminal prosecutions and begins to plot his course back to the center of power.

As for their support for the Palestinians against their government, here the motivation is external.

Israelis do not trust the Palestinians. And they certainly do not trust Abbas. But the Americans and Europeans have made Palestinian statehood the centerpiece of their foreign policies and view Abbas as the indispensable man.

Livni had no political future after she lost the Kadima party primary to Shaul Mofaz last year.

Her hopes of becoming prime minister had ended. But then she went to Washington, met with Hillary Clinton, and announced she was forming a new party and running on a pro-Palestinian, pro-Obama platform. She won a paltry six seats, which she took from other leftist parties.

But that was enough. Bowing to US pressure to prove he was serious about appeasing the Palestinians, Netanyahu appointed Livni justice minister and put her in charge of the talks with the PLO. If Livni had been less supportive of Obama or of the PLO, she would not be where she is today.

If the behavior of these people were just a matter of shameless jockeying for political power their actions would be bad enough. But they cause immeasurable damage to the country.

By accusing Netanyahu of blocking peace between Israel and the Palestinians, they embolden the Palestinians to escalate their political warfare against Israel, and maintain their steady anti-Semitic incitement. Indeed they lay the moral groundwork for justifying terrorism against Israel.

Livni, Olmert, Diskin, Herzog and their allies also give political cover to outside forces to adopt anti-Israel positions and policies. Why shouldn’t the European Union boycott Israeli goods when the former prime minister claims that Israel is the reason there is no peace? Why should Obama care what Netanyahu tells Congress when Olmert says Netanyahu is at war with the US? How can Israel justify attacking Iran’s nuclear installations when Olmert says it is strategically idiotic to even train for such an attack and Diskin says that we need a PLO state more than we need to block Iran’s nuclear ambitions? Diskin’s unhinged attack against Netanyahu on the eve of Kerry’s visit was hardly coincidental.

And we should expect more such displays as Obama becomes more open in his hostility towards Israel.

As long as we have a seemingly endless supply of senior officials willing to harm the country to advance their personal goals, domestic subversion will remain a key weapon in the international arsenal against us.

caroline@carolineglick.com

Into the Fray: Empowering Islam: ‘Taqiyya’ in the White House? | JPost | Israel News.

By MARTIN SHERMAN

12/05/2013 22:40

Was this really what well-meaning, gullible American Jews had in mind, when persuaded by Obama’s pledge that “I have Israel’s back,” they gave him their support— both at the ballot and the bank?

That great scholar of Islam, Bernard Lewis, caution[ed] that America risked being seen as harmless as an enemy and treacherous as a friend. The Obama administration seems to have raised the thought to the level of doctrine. What has hitherto been unclear is whether this was through design or incompetence.

– Mark Steyn, “Surrender in Geneva,” National Review, November 29.

These sobering sentiments expressed by Steyn, an incisive conservative columnist of Canadian origin, mirror with almost eerie accuracy those I articulated in my previous column “Will the West withstand the Obama presidency”, posted just one day earlier. In it I remarked: “the really chilling aspect of the Obama incumbency is that it is genuinely difficult to diagnose whether the abysmal results we see represent a crushing failure of his policies or a calculated success, the product of chronic ineptitude or purposeful foresight”.

‘Bungling stupidity cannot be ruled out’

Both pieces were written in response to the P5+1 deal brokered in Geneva on the Iranian nuclear program, largely under the stewardship of Obama’s Secretary of State, John Kerry, in which Tehran won significant gains – both economic and political – in exchange for…well, not a lot.

Given how incomprehensibly favorable the terms seemed to be for Iran’s tyrannical theocracy, Steyn was almost charitable in admitting that the possible explanation might lie in the realm of the stupid rather than the sinister. He concedes— caustically: “Certainly, John Kerry has been unerringly wrong on every foreign policy issue for four decades, so sheer bungling stupidity cannot be ruled out.”

This is charitable because with the passage of time, there is accumulating evidence that a more ominous possibility may be emerging as increasingly and disturbingly plausible.

The Geneva accord is so perplexingly perturbing, its terms so tenuous, so vague, so equivocal, so given to conflicting interpretation, that even some of Obama’s most sycophantic apologists have found themselves expressing unprecedented heretical doubts as to the soundness of its rationale. Some like Harvard Law professor, Alan Dershowitz, have been stridently blunt in expressing their misgivings.

Others, such as Jeffrey Goldberg, unkindly designated by some as Obama’s court-journalist, seemed almost contritely embarrassed for doing so, promising to balance his commendably well-argued censure of the deal in “a coming post”, in which “I will do my best to represent…the compelling arguments to be made in favor of this deal”.

But more on that later.

The ‘taqiyya’ thing

For those unfamiliar with the term taqiyya in the title, a brief explanation: The notion of taqiyya and its significance have been extensively discussed in the literature on Islam, so clearly we cannot encompass the full scholarly debate here. Accordingly a highly compressed account will have to suffice.

Historically, the Koranic-sanctioned practice was first codified by minority Shia Muslims and refers to the dissemblance (i.e. the act of concealing or disguising) of their religious faith to protect themselves from the persecution from the more powerful Sunni Muslims.

However today, as the well-known scholar of Islam, Raymond Ibrahim, tells us: ‘Taqiyya is not as is often supposed, an exclusively Shi’ite phenomenon.” To make the point he cites Islamic studies professor Sami Mukaram, author of over twenty books on Islam: ‘Taqiyya is of fundamental importance in Islam. We can go so far as to say that the practice of taqiyya is mainstream in Islam. Taqiyya is very prevalent in Islamic politics, especially in the modern era.’ Thus, Ibrahim asserts that taqiyya has come to be “deployed not as dissimulation but as active deceit… deceit, which is doctrinally grounded in Islam, [and] often depicted as being equal—sometimes superior – to other universal military virtues, such as courage, fortitude, or self-sacrifice.’Now, while I have no intention of engaging in the ideo-theological debate over the true significance and scope of taqiyya, in general, or the scholarly merits of Ibrahim’s widely quoted interpretation of it, in particular, one thing is indisputable: There is clearly a considerable body of opinion which holds that, in the modern era, taqiyya seems to have become a means not only to defend Islam against the infidels but to advance it among them—particularly in the West.

Indeed, in the public discourse the term has come to denote “active doctrinal deceit” not only for the purpose of preserving religious Islamic values but to advance political Islamic goals. It is in this sense that it has become commonly used in the ideo-political debate on Islam and the methods used to advance its objectives in the West.

It is in this sense I will refer to it here.

Of course, it would be unfair to imply that subterfuge is a purely Muslim stratagem. After all, it has been touted by non-Muslims for centuries. For example, over 2500 years ago, the ancient Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu wrote: “All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when we are able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must appear inactive.”

Indeed even the Bible (Proverbs 24:6) prescribes that “By deception shall thy make war,” which for a while was the motto of Israel’s external intelligence service, Mossad.

However, in Islam, there seems to be a far greater doctrinal sanction for a wider, unabashed and overarching use of “active deceit” in contending with the infidel “other”— not so much in the interests of self-preservation among them, but of dominance over them.

Why ‘sheer stupidity’ is charitable

It is against the backdrop of the foregoing discussion that Steyn’s previously cited dilemma should be evaluated. For it provides the context to judge whether the Obama administration’s penchant for making America seem “harmless as an enemy and treacherous as a friend” is the result of “design or incompetence”; and a criterion for understanding why his assessment that “sheer bungling stupidity cannot be ruled out” tends to the charitable.

For as readers will recall from last week’s column, it is difficult to make sense of current US foreign policy unless we accept that, as Dinesh D’Souza, director of last year’s highest-grossing documentary, “2016: Obama’s America,” suggests: “Obama has no interest in weakening our adversaries while he does seem to have an interest in weakening our allies”. This is emerging as an increasingly plausible interpretation of the Obama-administration’s undisguised Islamo-philic propensities.

Of course the White House has been at pains—albeit not always spectacularly successful—to blur the nature of its true agenda. However, this endeavor is becoming increasing difficult to maintain, as a clear pattern emerges of intervention when this advances Islamist interests, and non-intervention when it does not. This is particularly true in the case of Israel, even more so in the wake of the P5+1 deal, which last week prompted Caroline Glick to charge: “The goal of Obama’s foreign policy is not to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power [but] to weaken the State of Israel.”

Indeed, the deal struck in Geneva is so implausible that is may actually prove to be a point of inflexion for many hitherto Obama disciples and a moment of revelation for them to grasp the ominous nature of his underlying political credo.

Dershowitz & the case for deliberate deception

It already sparked some uncharacteristic rumblings in usually Obama-supportive quarters.

Arguably, the most outspoken of these was Alan Dershowitz, who has authored several works with titles that begin with the words The Case for…. Indeed, Dershowitz was so scathing in his censure of the deal with the mullahs that one is tempted to wonder whether, in light of his vigorous rebukes, he might not be mulling over the possibility of a new book entitled: The Case for Deliberate Deception.

In weekend interviews immediately following the announcement he made the following acerbic assessment of its chances of success and the abilities of those who “cooked it up”: “When you do a risk-benefit analysis, the possibility that this will actually result in ending Iran’s nuclear weapons program is probably in the range of 10%…But when you weigh that against the 30 or 40% chance that they’re dead wrong–nuclear bomb wrong – then it’s a very bad assessment of risk and benefits…This is first-year negotiating theory, and this administration gets a D-minus with grade inflation” Elsewhere, he warned that the agreement “could turn out to be a cataclysmic error of gigantic proportions.” His concern was clearly reflected in an article he penned, warning that “This is not a liberal/conservative issue…

Indeed all reasonable, thinking people should understand that ..it is a prescription for disaster.” With evident exasperation, he asked: “Have we learned nothing from North Korea and Neville Chamberlain?” So if the Obama-administration’s policies appear immune to conventional reason and impervious to historical lessons, what could possibly explain its manner of conduct? Surely, then, the case for deliberate deception should not be discounted? Surely, the lawyer in Dershowitz would agree?

Is revolt brewing in the court?

Perhaps one of the most intriguing sources of criticism of the Iranian deal was none other than Jeffrey Goldberg, rumored to be among the journalists with the closest relations to the White House, at times even acting as a mouthpiece to convey messages on its behalf to the public.

It is, therefore, hugely significant that he, of all people, would produce a stingingly skeptical review of the accord.

In his very astute (seriously) “Six Reasons to Worry About the Iranian Nuclear Deal”, posted Wednesday on Bloomberg, Goldberg gives a masterful (seriously) critique of the agreement’s fatal weaknesses, which virtually ensure its calamitous failure—unless of course for the authors of the deal, failure is a not calamity, but an objective.

Here is a synopsis of Goldberg’s analysis and concerns:

1. The deal isn’t done…nothing was actually signed. The deal is not, as of this moment, even operational.

2. Momentum for sanctions is waning…many nations, many companies and the Iranians themselves are seeing this agreement as the beginning of the end of the sanctions regime.

3. The (still unenforced) document agreed upon in Geneva promises Iran an eventual exit from nuclear monitoring… This is not a comforting idea.

4. The biggest concession to the Iranians might have already been made… Essentially, Obama’s administration has already conceded, before the main round of negotiations, that Iran is going to end up with the right to enrich.

5. The Geneva agreement only makes the most elliptical references to two indispensable components of any nuclear- weapons program…Iran is free, in the coming sixmonth period…to do whatever it pleases on missiles and warhead development.

6. The Iranians are so close to reaching the nuclear threshold anyway—that freezing in place much of the nuclear program seems increasingly futile.

Was this really what well-meaning, gullible American Jews had in mind, when persuaded by Obama’s pledge that “I have Israel’s back,” they gave him their support— both at the ballot and the bank?

Think ‘taqiyya’

The Obama administration has been disingenuous in portraying virtually every element of the deal with Iran – from its (non)compliance with half a dozen UN resolutions, to its stipulations regarding the right to enrich.

The accord will have far-reaching geo-political and geostrategic implications for the region—and well beyond.

Whether these will result in a clustering of pliant client- states around a nuclear-armed theo-tyrannical Islamist hegemon, or in a spiraling pan-regional arms race, with Sunni Arabs and Turks scrambling to develop—or purchase— their own non-conventional capabilities to match that of the Shia Persians, the consequences will be bleak— especially for Israel.

For whatever the outcome, it is likely to find itself facing a greatly empowered Islamic menace with a nuclear veto on any coercive action it may wish to undertake to ensure its security from external threats (e.g. Hezbollah) or domestic law-and-order (e.g quelling rebellion in the Galilee or Negev).

So much for “having Israel’s back.

So for anyone struggling to make sense out of all this seemingly inexplicable confusion, here’s some advice: Think taqiyya—and the pieces will all fall into place.

Martin Sherman (www.martinsherman.net) is founder and executive director of the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies.

Trying to smooth over Iran feud, Kerry moves from sticks to carrots | The Times of Israel.

Secretary of state endorses Israeli demand for recognition as Jewish state, presents plan to guarantee border security. Netanyahu likely still unimpressed

By Raphael Ahren December 5, 2013, 5:53 pm

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and US Secretary Of State John Kerry hold a joint press conference at PM Netanyahu’s office in Jerusalem. December 05, 2013.

Photo credit: Matty Stern/US Embassy/Flash90)

Visiting Israel Thursday for the first time since the interim nuclear deal with Iran led to the worst crisis in bilateral relations in recent memory, US Secretary of State John Kerry did his utmost to repair the damage and move on.

Thoroughly aware that his host, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, is highly critical of Washington’s latest moves in the Middle East, Kerry went beyond the usual diplomatic niceties, offering rare promises and pledges vis-a-vis Israel’s concerns and demands.

Regarding Iran, the US top diplomat couldn’t offer any concrete steps or policy statements that would satisfy Jerusalem. The interim deal with Tehran — which aims to partially freeze Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for limited sanctions relief — has been signed though not sealed by the US and five other world powers (technical details must be negotiated before it takes effect), and the next round, with protracted discussions about the nitty-gritty of a final deal, is still far off.

Instead, Kerry asserted that “Israel’s security in this negotiation [with Iran] is at the top of our agenda.” Not Washington’s own interests in the region, not the fate of the nonproliferation regime, but Israel’s security.

“The United States will do everything in our power to make certain that Iran’s nuclear program — a program of weaponization possibilities — is terminated,” Kerry pledged. Attempting to assuage widespread fears that the temporary deal hatched last month in Geneva would become a permanent situation, Kerry said Jerusalem and Washington “agree on what the goal of the final status agreement ought to be.”

The US administration’s idea of an endgame remains shrouded in mystery. But Israel’s demands are clear: Iran must not be left with any enriched uranium and needs to dismantle all facilities that could be used to produce nuclear weapons.

While Kerry probably did not bring with him a concrete proposal for the upcoming talks with Iran, he and his team did present Netanyahu and his advisers with a scheme on security arrangements in a future peace deal with the Palestinians. Indeed, in the first leg of his current visit to the region, intended mainly to revive the stalling Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations, Kerry tried to address two of Netanyahu’s key concerns thought by Washington to be impeding progress in the talks: recognition of Israel as a Jewish state and ironclad security arrangements.

Since Netanyahu reluctantly agreed to restart peace talks with the Palestinian Authority four months ago, he has reiterated numerous times that these two conditions need to be met for him to sign any agreement.

“In order for there to be peace between us and our Palestinian neighbors, they must recognize the right of the Jewish people to a state of its own in its homeland,” he said at a cabinet meeting last month. “The second foundation is the security that can defend the peace and will defend the Jewish state in case the peace frays.” These security arrangements “will certainly include many things,” he said, “but first and foremost, the security border of the State of Israel will remain along the Jordan River.”

Speaking at a press conference after his meeting with Netanyahu Thursday morning at the Prime Minister’s Office, Kerry went out of his way to please his host. “I join with President [Barack] Obama in expressing to the people of Israel our deep, deep commitment to the security of Israel and to the need to find a peace that recognizes Israel as a Jewish state, that recognizes Israel as a country that can defend itself, by itself,” Kerry said. “That is an important principle with which the prime minister and the president and I are in agreement.”

Kerry’s quasi endorsement of Netanyahu’s demand for Israel to be recognized by the Palestinians as a Jewish state does not signify a reversal on US policy. Back in March, Obama had said in Jerusalem that the “Palestinians must recognize that Israel will be a Jewish state.” But still, it’s music to Netanyahu’s ears every time he hears it, and Kerry knew exactly what to say to try to get back on “my friend Bibi’s” good side.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks with US Secretary of State John Kerry in Jerusalem, Thursday, December 5, 2013 (photo credit: Kobi Gideon/GPO/Flash90)

More concretely, Kerry also had a detailed plan for security arrangements in a future peace deal in his suitcase. Washington is keenly aware of Israel’s worries, Kerry took great pains in explaining. “I understand the challenges to security that Israel faces. I understand it very well,” he said, mentioning that he had visited the rocket-stricken towns in Israel’s north and south, and understands their suffering. To make sure Israel can go ahead and negotiate in earnest with the Palestinians, Gen. John Allen, a former US commander in Afghanistan, “provided the prime minister and his military leadership with some thoughts” about how to guarantee Israel’s safety, he said.

One reason the peace talks have been stalling in recent weeks, analysts surmise, is Netanyahu’s reluctance to produce a map of how he imagines the two future states would look, mainly because he is not willing to discuss borders before his security concerns are allayed. General Allen’s plan can be understood as an effort to show Jerusalem that while the US understands Israel’s legitimate worries, there are ways to address them.

Officials have yet to confirm details of the American proposal. According to Haaretz, it integrates “physical security arrangements” in the West Bank “with American security guarantees for Israel and proposed American military aid to the Israel Defense Forces.”

Netanyahu was probably not impressed by the American initiative. He maintains that Israel needs to keep a security presence in the Jordan Valley, a demand the Palestinians resolutely reject. “Israel is ready for a historic peace, and it’s a peace based on two states for two peoples,” the prime minister said at Thursday’s joint press conference with Kerry, after he had seen Allen’s draft. “It’s a peace that Israel can and must be able to defend by itself with our own forces against any foreseeable threat.”

Danon: ‘We will not allow Kerry to pressure us into another bad deal. We will never compromise on our security, even if it means saying no to our closest ally’

And even in the unlikely scenario that Netanyahu would be inclined to work with the US proposal, the right flank of his Likud party, which is opposed to a Palestinian state on ideological grounds, doubtless has profound reservations about Allen’s ideas.

Deputy Defense Minister Danny Danon rejected the American proposal even before Kerry and Netanyahu emerged from their meeting, because it allegedly includes the “possibility of Palestinian representatives at international border crossings.”

“Israel will not outsource its basic security needs to the Palestinians,” Danon said in a statement. “After the debacle in Geneva [where the interim deal with Iran was signed], we will not allow Secretary Kerry to pressure us into another bad deal… We will never compromise on our security, even if it means saying no to our closest ally.”

Kerry put his all into burying the hatchet with Netanyahu and washing away the bad blood between Jerusalem and Washington, which started with an aggressive television interview last month and escalated in the last two weeks with harsh statements back and forth over the Iran deal. On Thursday, Netanyahu, too, tried to move on, calling Kerry a “welcome friend” and refraining from any open criticism (such as calling the Geneva agreement “a historic mistake.”) But a few nice words, even well-chosen ones, will not be enough to obscure the deep divisions that currently fester between Washington and Jerusalem, on both the Palestinians and Iran.

Kerry: Israel’s security at the top of US agenda in Iran nuclear talks | JPost | Israel News.

By HERB KEINON

12/05/2013 13:21

US secretary of state meets PM Netanyahu, vows to consult Israel on final nuclear deal with Tehran; Netanyahu says Israel ready for “historic peace,” calls on Palestinians to stop “finger pointing.”

The bond between the US and Israel is “unbreakable,” and while there may be tactical differences between the two countries occasionally, the long term strategy for Israel’s security and peace in the region is the same, US Secretary of State John Kerry said in Jerusalem Thursday.

Kerry’s comments, following a meeting with Prime Minster Binyamin Netanyahu, came after a month of high-profile, public disagreement between Washington and Jerusalem both over the policy toward Iran, and the talks with the Palestinians. The two men, who both referred to the other as “my friend,” took pains to present a common and amiable front.

Netanyahu, who has been unsparing in his criticism of the interim accord the P5+1 reached with Iran in Geneva last month,  toned down his criticism a bit, concentrating on what he believes should be in the final deal with Iran, as well as reiterating his concern that the sanctions regime against Iran is in danger of unraveling.

In a final deal, he said, “we believe it is crucial to bring about a final agreement about the termination of Iran’s military nuclear capability.”  He also said that steps must be taken to “prevent the further erosion of sanctions.”

Kerry, in his brief comments, addressed both these concerns.

“I can’t emphasis enough that Israel’s security in this negotiation is at the top of our agenda, and the US will do everything in our power to make certain that Iran’s nuclear  program, [and] weaponization possibilities are terminated,” he said.

Kerry said that Israel and the US agree fully on what the final status agreement with Iran should look like, “and in the days and weeks ahead we will consult very closely and continually with our Israeli friends, in order to bring about a comprehensive agreement that can withstand everybody’s test.”

Regarding the sanctions,  Kerry promised that the US would be “vigilant” to ensure that they don’t start to unravel.

“We say to any country that contemplates moving ahead of sanctions, don’t; because those sanctions will continue to be enforced,” Kerry stressed. “The fundamental sanctions regime of oil and banking remains absolutely in place, it has not changed. And we will step-up our enforcement through the Treasury Department and appropriate agencies.”

Regarding the negotiations with the Palestinians, Netanyahu said that “Israel is ready for a historic peace” based on two states for two peoples. “It is a peace that Israel must be able to defend itself, by itself, with our own forces against any foreseeable threats.”

He called on the Palestinian leadership to stop finger pointing and creating artificial crisis, and stressed – an oblique reference to the ever-returning issue of settlement construction — that Israel is honoring “all understanding” reached in the negotiations that led to the current talks.

Kerry, relating to the talks and Netanyahu’s stress on the security issue, said that “Israel’s security is fundamental to these negotiations.” One of the main obstacles in the talks up until now is believed to be the issue of whether Israel will retain a security presence along the Jordan River after any agreement.

Kerry said that retired US general John Allen, who he described as one of the best military minds in the US, has been charged by US President Barack Obama with analyzing the security aspects of any future agreement and “ensuring the security arrangement that we might contemplate in the context of this process will provide for greater security for Israel.”

Allen, Kerry said, provided Netanyahu with “some thoughts about the practical security challenge.” He said that conversation will continue during a dinner meeting, and possibly at another meeting on Friday.

He said that a peace agreement would need to “recognize Israel as a Jewish state” and enable it to be a country that “can defend itself by itself.”

Following his meeting with Netanyahu, Kerry went to Ramallah to meet Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.

Washington watch: US-Israel rift spreading to Jewish community | JPost | Israel News.

By DOUGLAS BLOOMFIELD

12/04/2013 22:17

The widening rift between Washington and Jerusalem threatens to create fissures within the Jewish community here.

The widening rift between Washington and Jerusalem threatens to create fissures within the Jewish community here.

There is a growing feeling among some pro-Israel groups that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s strident attacks on President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry in the wake of their diplomatic opening to Iran may be harmful not only to bilateral relations but to their institutional interests as well as Israel’s.

Recent polls show the American public, by large margins, agrees that the interim Geneva agreement between the leading world powers and Iran to freeze the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program is an historic opportunity, and not, as Netanyahu insists, an “historic mistake.”

The agreement calls for six months of negotiations to produce a permanent arrangement to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Netanyahu’s call to immediately impose tougher sanctions is making a growing number of pro-Israel activists, Jewish leaders and political figures uneasy. Unlike the saber-rattling prime minister they know their constituents don’t want to see another war this country can’t afford.

Jewish activists see a number of problems ahead: • A growing rift within the Jewish community between the mainstream and the hardline Netanyahu supporters on this and other issues, particularly settlements and peace with the Palestinians.

• A potential loss of access to the administration and alienation from important contacts in the government, which means a loss of influence on the broad range of other issues on their agendas.

• An anti-Israel backlash if Israel is seen trying to torpedo a deal with Iran and push the United States into another war.

Many American Jews support the agreement not because they trust Iran but because they want to give diplomacy a chance.

Some of the most vocal opposition to the agreement is coming from Capitol Hill. The Republicans reflexively oppose anything Obama does and may be tempted to try to sabotage the agreement by enacting tough new sanctions for just that reason.

Democrats don’t trust Iran, either, and support tough sanctions, but they are more open to working with the administration.

Netanyahu’s full court press in Congress is putting many lawmakers in a politically awkward spot – another factor jeopardizing Israel’s long-term interests in Washington.

The White House is vigorously lobbying Congress to delay any new sanctions and to give negotiations a chance. After all, they’re telling lawmakers, the purpose of the sanctions was to force Iran to engage in serious talks.

The Geneva agreement requires a halt in any new sanctions for the duration of the negotiations. If the talks succeed, more won’t be necessary, Obama is telling them, and if they fail, he’ll back stringent new measures.

One strategy being considered on the Hill, as reported here earlier, is to enact new sanctions and put them on hold for the duration of the talks. An alternative may be to shelve new legislation for the duration of the talks. But Republicans may press for immediate steps that would force Obama to choose between a signature that would kill the negotiations or a veto they and Netanyahu could use to brand him as anti-Israel.

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC ), the leader of the sanctions movement, was the first to put some distance between itself and Netanyahu. It has said the negotiations should be given time to work or fail before imposing new measures.

The group may have been warned off by its own failure to muster enough congressional support to force Obama to bomb Syria as punishment for using poison gas. The result was a defeat for AIPAC and Netanyahu but a victory for Israeli security because Syria was forced to give up its chemical weapons arsenal, which was the greatest present threat to Israeli security in the region.

AIPAC also appears to be distinguishing between a civilian and military Iranian nuclear program instead of the zero-tolerance it previously advocated. Netanyahu has been vague on that point.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-New York), who likes to describe himself as Netanyahu’s closest friend in Congress and often echoes his views, appears to be following the AIPAC line, as are many mainstream Jewish organizations.

Congress can play bad cop to Obama’s good cop, but it has to be careful not to go farther than the war-wary American public will tolerate. Also Congress can’t ignore the concerns of our European allies, who are critical to maintaining the sanctions regime.

Some of Netanyahu’s former colleagues and rivals are cautioning him to end his strident attacks on the American government and the Geneva agreement. Former prime minister Ehud Olmert said Netanyahu has “declared war on the US.” He said “picking a fight with Israel’s number one ally and to incite the American congress against the president” is dangerous.

Dan Meridor, a former deputy prime minister under Netanyahu, said “embarking on an offensive of attacks, criticism and scorekeeping” only benefits Iran.

The self-righteous Netanyahu shot back, “I won’t shut up.”

Another recent development that should make Netanyahu and his hardline supporters nervous is the waning influence of the evangelical movement, which AIPAC and the Israeli Right have ardently courted for years and expected to protect their interests in Washington. Overtaking the religious Right is the rising tide of the tea party movement, which is pulling the GOP in a more isolationist direction.

Netanyahu has accepted Obama’s invitation to send a national security team to Washington to discuss the upcoming negotiations. Meanwhile there are reports out of Jerusalem that the prime minister has ordered the Mossad to find the smoking gun that will derail the Iranian deal.

Seeing he wasn’t making progress in that direction, Netanyahu on one occasion tried to take credit for the agreement, saying it is a “bad deal” but better than expected because of his influence. He couched that with another threat to take military action.

Netanyahu risks getting to the point where the administration – and the other big powers – become convinced that nothing they do will satisfy him, so why even bother. That would be the most dangerous development of all – for Israel and for the Jewish groups here that are increasingly uncomfortable with the prime minister’s bellicose leadership.

Yadlin: Scope of Iranian retaliation to potential strike is ‘exaggerated’ | JPost | Israel News.

By YAAKOV LAPPIN

12/05/2013 04:27

Former Military Intelligence chief assesses Iranian strategic calculations, concludes nightmare scenarios unlikely.

An Iranian retaliation to a military strike on its nuclear sites will likely be limited, and significantly smaller in scope than commonly believed in the West, a new study published by the head of the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), Maj.-Gen. (res.) Amos Yadlin, said on Wednesday.

Yadlin, formally head of Military Intelligence, and Avner Golov, a senior INSS researcher, published, together, a systematic overview of Iran’s military capabilities and assessed the likely Iranian strategic calculations when choosing a response.

They concluded that the nightmare scenarios of regional full-scale war is exaggerated and “serves Iran as an excellent deterrence mechanism, since it weakens the credibility of the military option and decreases the chances of the Iranian regime agreeing to a diplomatic solution.”

They said that “the option of an attack on Iran, as well as the threat of it, is an important and central mechanism in the service of diplomacy.”

Iran’s main retaliatory strike force is composed of 300-400 surface-to-surface missiles, made up of the Shihab 3 with a range of 1,300 km., and the Ghadir with a range of over 1,600 km., the authors wrote.

“Both of these missiles do not have high accuracy and do not allow for the pinpoint striking of a target,” the paper said.

The Shihab’s Circular Error Probable (CEP), indicating its accuracy, is over two kilometers, and the Ghadir’s CEP is hundreds of meters.

A Shihab can carry a one-ton warhead of conventional explosives, and the Ghadir can carry 750 kg.

Missile strikes can be used to terrorize cities, rather than hitting targets accurately, Yadlin and Golov said.

Actual damage can be contained to a minimum, through early warning alerts for civilians, an efficient use of the Arrow 2 anti-missile shield, and an improvement in projectile defense fortifications for the general population.

Although suspicions exist that Iran can arm its missiles with chemical and biological warheads, their low accuracy and ineffectiveness as unconventional delivery systems, combined with Iran’s understanding that such a move will provoke a massive military response, will prevent such a scenario, said the authors.

An additional threat exists in the form of Iran’s extraterritorial terrorism capabilities, embodied by the IRGC’s Quds Force.

Past Quds Force attempts to carry out attacks in revenge for covert strikes on the Iranian nuclear program show the limitations of this apparatus, the study said.

“These [Iranian] efforts failed and they point to a limited Iranian ability to carry out wide-scale terror attacks, and to a good ability to foil them in the Western world,” the authors stated, before concluding that this threat can be contained.

Other potential threats include Iran’s air force and fleet of drones.

Iran’s fighter jets are inferior to those of Israel, which enjoys two layers of air defenses against hostile intrusions: Interception aircraft and a chain of anti-aircraft weapon systems.

Iran’s most advanced jets, the Sukhoi 24, cannot get to Israel and back without midair refueling and would be vulnerable to air defense radars.

Iran’s drones are also primitive in comparison with their Western counterparts, “and do not allow much operational flexibility after their launch,” the study said.

The most realistic UAV threat consists of “suicide drones from Lebanon or Syria” that could be deployed, and this scenario merits preparations, but is “not the kind of threat that Israel can’t absorb,” the paper continued.

Iran’s long-range naval strike capabilities are “very limited,” the paper said, and consists mainly of Soviet-made submarines that operate in the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean.

Ships that can reach Israeli shores would have a hard time crossing the Suez Canal during a conflict, and would likely run into Israel Navy ships armed with advanced sea-to-sea missiles.

An attack boat disguised as a civilian vessel might be used to launch sea-to-shore missiles and mini suicide submarines could be deployed, though this threat can be countered by Israel as well, according to the study.

There is no Iranian ground force option to speak of, due to the 1,200 km. distance between the two countries, Yadlin and Golov said.

Iran’s capabilities are far from “Gog and Magog” scenarios and are limited to missile strikes and terror attacks, the effects of which will be principally psychological, they wrote.

If an initial attack on Iran is surgical and aimed only at nuclear sites, Iran, when weighing responses will wish to preserve its survival and decision makers in Tehran will likely seek to avoid a response that could suck the US into a conflict with Iran.

Similarly, Tehran will likely seek to avoid provoking a large-scale second Israeli wave of attacks that could be used to cause more damage to nuclear sites, as well as targeting regime assets.

Yadlin and Golov set out a scale of five possible Iranian responses, ranging from total restraint to a regional escalation.

One highly likely Iranian response is a “tit for tat” strategy, targeting Israeli nuclear reactors, they said.

This scenario would see “a significant number of missiles fired from Iran and Lebanon towards Dimona or any other target perceived as being ‘nuclear-associated’ in Israel, in order to send a message of parity between Iran and Israel, and maybe even strike the Israeli facilities.”

“There’s a high chance that this method of operation will be included in the Iranian response, as a wider response, or a limited Iranian response,” the authors said.

Alternatively, Iran could widen its response and include the activation of terrorism cells, while also firing off one or two missile barrages at Israeli cities, and target Saudi and Western targets in the Gulf.

Suicide missions from the air and sea are also possible.

“We believe that the chances of such an Iranian response is high if a Western attack hits Iranian nuclear infrastructure but does not harm other regime assets,” the study said.

Such a response would enable Iran to balance out its need to reply to an attack, but avoid an escalation that will threaten regime assets not directly tied to the military nuclear project.

A more serious yet less likely potential response, according to the study, would be sparked by an Iranian desire to avenge its national honor, punish Israel and isolate it from the US.

This would entail a massive launch of dozens of missiles at Israeli cities a day, paralyzing civilian life, and enlarging the psychological pressure against the Israeli population.

In this option, “The Iranians will try to achieve maximum deterrence against the Israeli government in a future conflict.

We assess that the regime in Tehran assumes that such a response will provoke a significant Israeli response, that could lead to an escalation in the conflict between the two countries.

“This could enable an additional strike at nuclear infrastructure, and a large-scale strike of Iranian economic interests and regime assets.

This escalation could spin out of control and encourage US military involvement, which would threaten the survivability of the regime of the Ayatollahs.

As a result, we assess that the Iranian regime will refrain from such a response against Israel, so long as the Western attack focuses on nuclear infrastructure,” Yadlin and Golov said.

Finally, Iran could go for a maximal response aimed at regional escalation, attacking the US, Gulf states and Israel.

This would necessitate a US response, and Iran would only pursue this course if it does not fear a significant attack on its regime assets, since it would already have sensed its survival to be in jeopardy.

In such an extreme scenario Iran would try to “set alight the region” and hope for Russia to achieve a cease-fire, before sustaining more damage.

The study concluded that such a retaliation is unlikely.

In examining potential responses by Iran’s proxies and allies, the authors noted that Hezbollah’s rocket arsenal has grown significantly since the Second Lebanon War of 2006, but added that Israel’s defensive, offensive, and intelligence capabilities have increased significantly as well.

Hezbollah is fighting for the Assad regime in Syria, and it remains unclear how this erosion on its capabilities will influence its readiness for a confrontation with Israel, Yadlin and Golov said.

Hezbollah’s intervention in Syria has undoubtedly added many new enemies against it, in Lebanon and outside of it, they said.

“Since the organization was established by Iran, and is managed on the foundation of Iranian funding, arms and training, on the basis that it will act if ordered to do so by Tehran, it may not be able to refrain from acting and the internal-Lebanese pressure will mainly influence the scope of the action, limiting it,” the study said.

Hezbollah will likely take part in an Iranian response, but its response might be relatively small in scale.

Syria’s rocket and missile arsenal poses a strategic threat to Israel, but Syria is not an Iranian proxy and acts according to its own interests, the paper said.

The civil war has greatly reduced Assad’s willingness to take part in an Iranian response against Israel, although growing dependence on the Iranian patron and Assad’s wish to revenge attacks attributed to Israel could allow for a small response.

“Even if Assad responds, it will be symbolic and minimal, such as letting terrorists launch attacks from Syria, and this won’t drag Israel into full-scale war,” they said.

Hamas is out of the Iranian orbit for now, though relations are warming up again, and Islamic Jihad will apparently take part in Iranian response, the paper assessed.

“Israel knows how to deal with the threat to the South,” as Operations Cast Lead and Pillar of Defense have demonstrated, wrote Yadlin and Golov.

They concluded by saying that a surgical strike on Iranian nuclear sites will decrease the chances of regional escalation, as would a message sent to Iran during an attack, that a massive retaliation on its part will provoke a powerful American- Israeli attack on regime assets, as well as economic and military targets.

Israel should strengthen its already advanced missile defenses; and those involved in planning a strike should also plan for the day after an attack as well as continue sanctions to pressure Iran to give up its nuclear program, the paper said.

US court orders Iran to pay $9 million to families of 1997 Jerusalem terror attack victims | JPost | Israel News.

By YONAH JEREMY BOB, JPOST.COM STAFF

12/04/2013 14:23

NGO wins 1st potential seizure of Iranian funds in US; Actual transfer of funds could still be blocked by appeal and the current diplomatic process.

For the first time in US history, victims of Iranian financed terror operations in Israel won a potential seizure of Iranian funds to satisfy a default judgment against Iran relating to a 1997 triple suicide bombing in Jerusalem, NGO Shurat Hadin – Israel Law Center announced on Wednesday.

The $9 million judgment entered in favor of the families of the five victims of the attack by a US federal court in California on November 27, is the first time that such victims have found Iranian assets in the US which could be and may actually be transferred to them.

The organization helped the American families of five of those wounded in the attacks to begin legal proceedings against Iran in 2001 for their sponsorship of Hamas, the Palestinian Islamist group which claimed credit for the attack on Ben Yehuda Street.

On September 4, 1997, three Hamas operatives set off explosives attached to their bodies as they wandered into the packed Ben Yehuda Street promenade in the middle of the afternoon, killing five Israelis and wounding scores of others. Three of those killed were 14-year-old girls.

“This is a tremendous victory for the victims of Islamic terrorism,” Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, founder of Shurat HaDin, said in a statement. “While the the US and EU are rushing out to economically bolster the outlaw regime in Tehran,  we and the families we represent do not forgive nor forget the Iranian funded terror that devastated Israel.”

“We still remember the heinous murders carried out by the Iranian proxy, Hamas, in 1997. We are still fighting every single day for a measure of justice and compensation from the outlaw regimes that supported the terror organizations.”

Still, in a complex decision, the court simultaneously rejected Shurat Hadin’s request for the immediate transfer of the funds, explicitly staying any transfer until Iran files its appeal.

An appeal involving the numerous complex legal issues and decades of history in the case, which has pieces nearly dating back to the 1979 Iranian revolution itself, could take an undefined amount of time.

Also, the court explicitly recognized that any final transfer of the funds would have to take into account the current diplomatic process with Iran, another potential roadblock to the funds transfer.

Still even an order officially giving the victims’ families title to the funds in theory, if not in practice, is a first in Shurat Hadin’s decade long struggle to not only win judgments on Iran-related terror financing cases for the victims’ families, but to also find actual assets to satisfy the judgments.

Bibi and Barack, the Sequel – NYTimes.com.

( Friedman takes a break from bashing Israel to concoct this nonsense.  It would appear he’s taking his support for IranScam by a notch.  Could the universal loathing he generated in the Jewish community have something to do with it? – JW )

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

Published: December 3, 2013

The thought sounds ludicrous on its face, I know. The two do not like each other and have radically different worldviews. But as much as they keep trying to get away from each other, the cunning of history keeps throwing them back together, intertwining their fates.

That will be particularly true in the next six months when the U.S.-led negotiations to defuse Iran’s nuclear bomb-making capabilities and the U.S.-led negotiations to reach a final peace between Israelis and Palestinians both come to a head at the same time. If these two leaders were to approach these two negotiations with a reasonably shared vision (and push each other), they could play a huge role in remaking the Middle East for the better, and — with John Kerry — deserve the Nobel Prize, an Emmy, an Oscar and the Pritzker Architecture Prize.

Let’s start with the Iran talks. After his initial and, I believe, wrongheaded outburst against the U.S.-led deal to freeze and modestly rollback Iran’s nuclear program in return for some limited sanctions relief, Netanyahu has quieted down a bit and has set up a team to work with the U.S. on the precise terms for a final deal with Iran.

I hope that Bibi doesn’t get too quiet, though. While I think the interim deal is a sound basis for negotiating a true end to Iran’s nuclear bomb-making capabilities, the chances of getting that true end are improved if Bibi is occasionally Bibi and serves as our loaded pistol on the negotiating table.

When negotiating in a merciless, hard-bitten region like the Middle East, it is vital to never let the other side think they can “outcrazy” you. The Jews and the Kurds are among the few minorities that have managed to carve out autonomous spaces in the Arab-Muslim world because, at the end of the day, they would never let any of their foes outcrazy them; they did whatever they had to in order to survive, and sometimes it was really ugly, but they survived to tell the tale.

Anyone who has seen the handy work of Iran and Hezbollah firsthand — the U.S. Embassy and Marine bombings in Beirut, the assassination of Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in Lebanon, the bombing at Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, and the bombing of the Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires   — knows that the Iranians will go all the way. Never negotiate with Iran without some leverage and some crazy on your side. Iran’s leaders are tough and cruel. They did not rise to the top through the Iowa caucuses.

While you need some Obama “cool” to finalize a deal with Iran, to see the potential for something new and to seize it, you also need some Bibi crazy — some of his Dr. Strangelove stuff and the occasional missile test. The dark core of this Iranian regime has not gone away. It’s just out of sight, and it does need to believe that all options really are on the table for negotiations to succeed. So let Bibi be Bibi (up to the point where a good deal becomes possible) and Barack be Barack and we have the best chance of getting a decent outcome. Had Bibi not been Bibi, we never would have gotten Iran to the negotiating table, but without Barack being Barack, we’ll never get a deal.

Just the opposite is true on the Israeli-Palestinian front. Had Kerry not doggedly pushed Bibi and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to the negotiating table, Bibi would not have gone there on his own. As Stanley Fischer, the widely respected former Bank of Israel governor, told a New York University forum on Tuesday: “The approach that we have to be strong, because if we’re not strong we will be defeated, is absolutely correct but it is not the only part of national strategy. The other part is the need to look for peace, and that part is not happening to the extent that it should,” the Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported.

I believe Europeans, in particular, would be more sympathetic to a harder-line Israeli position on Iran if they saw Israel making progress with the Palestinians, and if some of them did not suspect that Bibi wants to defuse the Iranian threat to make the world safe for a permanent Israeli occupation of the West Bank. Moreover, if Israel made progress with the Palestinians, it could translate the coincidence of interests it now has with Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Arabs — which is based purely on their having a common enemy, Iran — into a real reconciliation, with trade and open relations.

On the Iran front, Netanyahu’s job is to make himself as annoying as possible to Obama to ensure that sanctions are only fully removed in return for a verifiable end to Iran’s nuclear bomb-making capabilities. On the Israeli-Palestinian front, Obama’s job is to make himself as annoying as possible to Netanyahu. Each has to press the other for us to get the best deals on both fronts.

This is a rare plastic moment in the Middle East where a lot of things are in flux. I have no illusions that all the problems can be tied up with a nice bow. But with a little imagination and the right mix of toughness and openness on Iran and the Israeli-Palestinian issue, the Israeli prime minister and American president could turn their bitter-lemon relationship into lemonade.

Israel Hayom | Prepare for the Iranian tide to turn.

Ron Tira