WarSclerotic

Commander Renews Leader’s Warning against Israel, Fars News Agency, February 15, 2014

(Israel had better become peaceful, like Iran. That is the will of  Iran’s Master — Allah’s only legitimate spokesperson —  and hence of Allah. He does not bluff.– DM)

TEHRAN (FNA)- Commander of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) Aerospace Force Brigadier General Amir Ali Hajizadeh renewed the last year warning issued by the Iranian Supreme Leader about Tehran’s crushing response to any possible Israeli attack, reiterating that Iran will destroy Israel if Tel Aviv dares to resort to military action.

“The remarks of our master (Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei in March 2013) about Iran’s response to (any aggression of) the Zionist regime is the yardstick for our action and if the Zionists make a mistake, this (Ayatollah Khamenei’s warning) will certainly happen, and the reason why they haven’t yet embarked on such a move (i.e. attacking Iran) lies in their fear of Iran’s capability and power,” Hajizadeh said, addressing a number of Iranian university students in Tehran on Saturday.

He said similar to the 33-day war against the Lebanese resistance movement Hezbollah in 2006 in which the Zionist regime was defeated due to its lack of intelligence about Hezbollah’s power, Israel is not aware of Iran’s defensive power either and will sustain a heavy defeat if it ever dares to make a military move.

Hajizadeh assured the Iranian nation and officials of the Armed Forces’ full preparedness to defend Iran against any threat.

Addressing a large and fervent congregation of the Iranian people in the country’s Northeastern holy city of Mashhad on March 21, 2013, Ayatollah Khamenei deplored Israel’s war rhetoric against Iran, and warned that any hostile move by the Zionist regime against the Islamic Republic would be reciprocated with a destructive response.

Ayatollah Khamenei pointed to the warmongering statements by Israeli officials and warned Tel Aviv against any wrongdoing against the Islamic Republic of Iran.

“Israel’s leaders sometimes threaten Iran, but they know that if they do a damn thing, the Islamic Republic will raze Tel Aviv and Haifa to the ground,” Ayatollah Khamenei stressed.

Israel and its close ally the United States accuse Iran of seeking a nuclear weapon, while they have never presented any corroborative document to substantiate their allegations. Both Washington and Tel Aviv possess advanced weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear warheads.

Iran vehemently denies the charges, insisting that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only. Tehran stresses that the country has always pursued a civilian path to provide power to the growing number of Iranian population, whose fossil fuel would eventually run dry.

Both Israel and the US have recently intensified rhetoric against Iran, saying an attack on the Islamic Republic’s nuclear site is impending.

Iran has, in return, warned that it would target Israel and its worldwide interests in case it comes under attack by the Tel Aviv.

Iran has also warned that it could close the strategic Strait of Hormuz if it became the target of a military attack over its nuclear program.

Strait of Hormuz, the entrance to the strategic Persian Gulf waterway, is a major oil shipping route.

Israel’s Enemies Are Too Distracted To Worry About An Attack on Iran, Huffington Post (Canada), Lawrence Solomon, February 15, 2014

Israel’s enemies . . . .  all now have major distractions that will leave them conflicted in the event of an Israeli attack on Iran. But there are other reasons for Israel to attack now, too, these ones dealing with Israel’s current friends.

Because the U.S. acts only in its own best interest, Israel cannot count on the U.S. to remove the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran, either over the next few months in Geneva or later. So far, in the hope that the U.S. would come to its rescue or that the mullahs in Iran would be overthrown, Israel has waited rather than taking action.

While Israel has waited Iran has developed more and more nuclear weapons capability, more and more ability to harden its weapons sites to shield them from an Israeli attack, and more ability to deliver nuclear and non-nuclear missiles to targets inside Israel.

While Israel has waited, the number of missiles aimed at Israel by Iran’s allies, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza has grown, from a few thousand to 20,000 by 2006 to today’s estimates of 60,000 or more. While Israel has waited Syria has been drawn closer into Iran’s orbit, becoming a puppet state likely to do Iran’s bidding and a particularly worrisome puppet state at that, because of Syria’s chemical weapons arsenal.

Waiting has not served Israel’s need for security. It now faces far more complex dangers than it did a year ago, two years ago, or five years ago. Continuing to wait – and to hope for the U.S. or something to save it — would likely only worsen Israel’s predicament.

Because Iran has been allowed to pursue nuclear capability, Saudi Arabia and other Sunni states are pursuing nuclear weapons. If Israel waits much longer, it could be surrounded by nuclear weapons states in Egypt, Jordan and Turkey as well as Iran and Saudi Arabia. None of these countries are stable, any one of them could become an extremist state that decides to rid the region of Israel.

There is never a good time for military action but where Israel and Iran are concerned, now is always better than later.

Now, Iran is preoccupied in securing both Syria and Iraq to its sphere of influence. If Iran succeeds in securing these two states against the Sunni rebels and insurgents that are now at war there, it would represent the biggest gains for the Iranian Empire in centuries. Iran would be loath to risk losing these prizes in a prolonged war with Israel and might decide to minimize or ignore any actions Israel took, just as Syria stayed mum in 2007 after Israel took out the nuclear plant it was building.

Later, the story could be different. Should Iran secure both Syria and Iraq, it would be at the height of its powers, with the battle-hardened armies of Syria and Iraq at its disposal, with a sense of invincibility and with scant reason to fear another confrontation.

Now, Hamas is weak, the weakest it has been in a decade. It has lost the support of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and it fears a coup by Egyptians and the Palestinian Authority — Egypt and Jordan with the Palestinian Authority’s blessing in 2008 proposed sending Egyptian troops into Gaza. Hamas once had strong ties to Iran, now those ties are conflicted. If Israel attacked Iran now, Hamas might choose to sit it out.

Later, Hamas might decide to reconcile fully with Iran. Other Sunni states, seeing Iran’s rise, are hedging their bets by warming relations with Iran. In this scenario, Hamas would have every reason to reconcile. According to a recent report, even the Palestinian Authority is making moves to renew its relations with Iran, in anticipation that the U.S.-brokered peace talks with Israel will fail.

Israel’s enemies, in other words, all now have major distractions that will leave them conflicted in the event of an Israeli attack on Iran. But there are other reasons for Israel to attack now, too, these ones dealing with Israel’s current friends.

Today, Israel has secret allies in Saudi Arabia and Egypt, both of whom fear Iran above all others. Both countries are likely to help Israel in the event Israel strikes Iran without U.S. help.

Egypt’s military government, for example, could quell Hamas in Gaza, which has been aiding terrorist attacks on Egypt in the Sinai Peninsula. Hamas must worry that Egypt could retake Gaza, which it ruled prior to the Six Day War. If Egypt covertly tells Hamas to stay out of a confrontation between Israel and Iran, Hamas could well stand down.

Likewise, Saudi Arabia can do a lot covertly. It’s thought that Israel could not only use Saudi airspace but a Saudi base in the event of a war. The Saudis, who are the main backers of the Syrian rebels, could ramp up military pressure on Syria at the time of an Israeli attack, pinning down Syrian forces to discourage them from supporting Iran. The Saudis and their Sunni friends in the Gulf could also massively ramp up oil exports, to stop the cost of oil shooting through the roof and upsetting Western economies.

Most importantly, an attack on Iran now would eliminate a harsh condemnation from the United States, which is heading into mid-term elections, with the U.S. Senate up for grabs. President Obama does not want to lose the Senate to the Republicans, yet that might happen if he is seen to side with Iran, which Americans detest, and against Israel, which most Americans, including mainstream Democrats, solidly support. For this reason, the Obama Administration could be counted on to veto the anti-Israel resolutions that would surely arise at the United Nations.

After the November elections, Obama would have no electoral constraints. He might well pile on Israel as would other countries.

If Israel could count on Obama and the U.S., Israel would be prudent to wait and act in concert with the U.S. Because Israel cannot and never could count on either Obama or the U.S, Israel may feel compelled to go it alone, and soon.

Iran to complete production of new air defense system by late 2015, Trend, February 15, 2014

Technical and infrastructural project of a long-range air defense system Bavar-373 has been completed, the Chief of Staff of Air Defense ‘Hatamul-Anbiya’ of Iranian Armed Forces General Farzad Ismaili said, Fars news website reported on Feb.15.

Ismaili expressed hope that the long-range air defense system Bavar-373 will be improved and put into operation by the end of the country’s fifth five-year plan (until March 2015).

The fifth five-year plan envisages an increase in the quantity and improvement in quality of the country’s air defense systems.

Ismaili believes that the problems of the Bavar-373 system have been eliminated and currently works for the production of the system are at the last stage.

Bavar-373 air defense system is stronger than Russia’s S-300 missile defense system, according to Ismaili.

Hamas: NATO force in West Bank will be treated as occupier, Ynetnews, February 15,2014

Gaza rulers calls on PA President Abbas to exit peace talks with Israel: ‘No one has authorized him to speak for the people.’

Hamas has vowed to treat the deployment of any international force in Palestinian territory under the auspices of a peace accord with Israel as an occupying force, the organization’s spokesman said on Friday, Palestinian news agency Ma’an reported.

Speaking at a rally in the Gaza Strip organized by Palestinian factions opposed to the talks with Israel, Sami Abu Zuhri said Hamas would work to “defeat this initiative.”

“No Arab country will agree to the desecration of one centimeter of its lands,” he said.

The plan proposed by US Secretary of State John Kerry only serves to “terminate the question of Palestine and what is left of Palestinian rights and principles,” Abu Zuhri said.

The cost of the ‘peace process,’  Israel Hayom, Elliot Abrams, February 14, 2014

[D]o we care, or are we indifferent to what goes on within the borders Kerry is trying to negotiate? Has the U.S. reverted to the position we had in the 1990s, when Arafat visited the White House 13 times and our policy goal was to hand him a state, no questions asked? How can it possibly contribute to the building of a decent, peaceful, democratic Palestine for the U.S. to appear — or worse yet, to be — indifferent to the actual conduct of the Palestinian Authority?

Elliot 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.

The goal of Secretary of State John Kerry’s energetic diplomacy with the Israelis and Palestinians is the two-state solution, which means the establishment of an independent, sovereign Palestine living at peace with its neighbor Israel.

Or is it? What’s missing in that sentence is the word “democratic.” Do we care? Once upon a time, the United States worked hard to give Yasser Arafat, a terrorist and thief, a state to rule. That policy was changed in the George W. Bush administration, when we began to care not only about the borders of the new Palestine but about what was inside those borders. Bush said he would not support establishment of a Palestinian state if that state would just be another dictatorship, another kleptocracy, another home for terrorism.

Today we appear to be back in the Arafat period — without Arafat to be sure, but with the same lack of concern about events in the real Palestine.

Consider the new January 2014 report of the Palestinian Independent Commission for Human Rights. Some highlights:

“Cases of torture and ill treatment during detention continued. Furthermore, it increased in the centers of the Preventive Security Agency in the West Bank. ICHR received 56 complaints of torture and ill treatment, 36 of which occurred in the Gaza Strip and 19 in the West Bank.

“ICHR received complaints of violations of the right to appropriate legal procedures during detention in breach of guarantees to a fair trial, which are enshrined in the basic law.

“Some official security and civil authorities still refrain from implementing courts’ decisions or procrastinate their implementation. ICHR received eight complaints in this regard in addition to 16 other previous decisions. Furthermore, one of the inmates remained in prison despite completing his sentence.

“ICHR received complaints concerning expropriation of citizens’ property by security agencies in the West Bank without judicial order.

“ICHR received a number of complaints of violations concerning the right to freedom of expression, press, peaceful assembly and academic freedoms. It also received a number of complaints concerning assaults on persons, public and private properties.”

There are plenty of other reports. The Committee to Protect Journalists noted: “Despite the immense differences between the Israeli government, Fatah and Hamas, they shared a common trait in 2013: a consistent and troublesome record of silencing journalists who reported dissenting perspective. … Local human rights organizations reported that the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank also obstructed coverage of protests, especially those in support of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.”

Human Rights Watch, which is notably unsympathetic to Israel, reported that “in the West Bank, Palestinian Authority security services beat peaceful demonstrators, and arbitrarily detained and harassed scores of journalists. Credible allegations of torture committed by the PA’s security services persisted.”

One could go on. It is widely believed that corruption in the Palestinian Authority has exploded since the departure of former prime minister Salam Fayyad, who fought it. Reports on PA corruption are numerous. Just one example is theSunday Times of London storyin October reporting that “billions of euros in European aid to the Palestinians may have been misspent, squandered or lost to corruption, according to a damning report by the European Court of Auditors, the Luxembourg-based watchdog.”

So, the question again arises: do we care, or are we indifferent to what goes on within the borders Kerry is trying to negotiate? Has the U.S. reverted to the position we had in the 1990s, when Arafat visited the White House 13 times and our policy goal was to hand him a state, no questions asked? How can it possibly contribute to the building of a decent, peaceful, democratic Palestine for the U.S. to appear — or worse yet, to be — indifferent to the actual conduct of the Palestinian Authority?

Kerry and other U.S. officials have spoken often about the negotiations and their goals, but I do not recall any honest discussion of the problem of growing corruption and lawlessness in the Palestinian Authority. State Department spokesmen issue statement after statement about Israeli settlement activity, seemingly whenever one brick is laid atop another, yet ignore these serious issues. What kind of Palestine is it that the United States is seeking to create?

From “Pressure Points” by Elliot Abrams. Reprinted with permission from the Council on Foreign Relations.

Salafi insurgency fermenting in northern Sinai, Gloria Center, Jonathan Spyer, February 14, 2014

(The late Barry Rubin’s site. — DM)

What this means is that any hopes that Sisi’s coup would lead to a rapid return to quiet and order in Egypt should rapidly be abandoned. Rather, the new regime is facing a similar test to that endured by Mubarak in the 1990s and Nasser in the 1950’s. Islamism in Egypt is not going to quietly accept the verdict of July 3rd, 2013.

For Israel, the emergent insurgency raises the prospect of two de facto al Qaeda controlled areas adjoining its border – one in southern Syria and the other in the Salafi playground that is now northern Sinai.

Northern Sinai has long played host to a variety of smuggling networks and jihadi organizations. Since General Abd al-Fattah al-Sisi’s military coup of July 3rd, 2013 in Egypt, however, there has been an exponential increase in attacks emanating from this area.

This increasingly lawless region is now the home ground for an emergent Islamist insurgency against the Egyptian authorities. Since July, 2013, more than 300 reported attacks have taken place in Sinai. The violence is also spreading into the Egyptian mainland, with attacks in recent weeks on a security facility in Cairo, and the killing of an Interior Ministry official in the capital.

Some of the groups engaged in the fighting are linked to global jihadi networks, including al-Qaeda. Others have connections to elements in Hamas-controlled Gaza. The precise links between the various organizations engaged are difficult to trace.

This emergent reality in northern Sinai has serious implications for Israel. While the main focus of the jihadi activity is directed against Sisi’s administration in Cairo, some of the groups centrally involved have a track record of attacks against Israeli targets. In al-Qaeda’s official propaganda channels, the north Sinai area is described as a new front in the war against ‘the Jews and the Americans.’

The most significant group operating in northern Sinai today is the Ansar Beit al-Maqdis (Supporters of Jerusalem) organization. This organization has been active since 2011. It originated in Gaza, and made its way to Sinai following the ousting of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in 2011.

The group’s name will raise a wry smile for Israeli and Jewish readers. The Arabic term ‘Beit al-Maqdis’ (House of the Holy) for Jerusalem derives from the older Hebrew name for the Jewish Temple – Beit Hamikdash, with the same meaning.

Contemporary Islamists and jihadis, of course, would fiercely deny that any Jewish Temple ever stood in Jerusalem.

But this absence of logical consistency appears to have little impact on the organization’s energy for violent activity.

Ansar Beit al-Maqdis was responsible for repeated attacks on the El-Arish-Ashkelon gas pipeline in 2011-12, which eventually led to the suspension of supplies via this route.

The group also carried out the cross-border terror attack on August 18, 2011, in which eight Israelis were murdered, and an additional strike into Israel on September 21, 2012, which took the life of an IDF soldier.

More recently, Ansar Beit al-Maqdis claimed responsibility for the rocket attack on Eilat on January 20, 2014. The rocket was intercepted by the Iron Dome system.

The organization’s main focus in recent weeks has been on increasingly high-profile attacks against Egyptian targets. These have included an attempt on the life of Egyptian Interior Minister Mohammed Ibrahim on September 5, 2013, and a series of bomb attacks in Cairo in January,2014. On January 25, 2014, the group claimed responsibility for downing a military helicopter over northern Sinai.

The weapon used in this attack, a Russian Igla air-defense system, was reportedly smuggled out from Gaza, where the group maintains links with Salafi Jihadi elements.

So what exactly is Ansar Beit al-Maqdis?

According to a former militant of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad organization, Nabil al-Naeim, the group is funded by the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, following a deal brokered with powerful Brotherhood strongman Khairet al-Shater.

Naeim suggested that Ansar Beit al Maqdis is supplied with weapons by the Brotherhood via the Gaza tunnels and Libya. He maintains that the Hamas authorities in Gaza are aware of the deal.

The alleged Brotherhood links were also asserted by Sameh Eid, described in an al-Arabiyya article as an ‘expert on Islamist groups.’ Eid referred to the group as the ‘military wing of the Muslim Brotherhood,’ and said that Shater had threatened the Egyptian authorities with ‘escalation in Sinai and the targeting of the Egyptian Army.’

Little hard evidence, however, has yet emerged to support the claims of a direct Muslim Brotherhood link to Ansar Beit al-Maqdis.

The Egyptian authorities have an obvious interest in linking the violence erupting out of northern Sinai with the Muslim Brothers. Having brought down the Muslim Brotherhood government, General Sisi’s subsequent strategy has been to deny the Brotherhood any way back into political activity, preferring to force it along a path of confrontation on which it is likely to be defeated by the army.

It is certainly possible, of course, that the Brotherhood has now as a result elected to begin to link itself to armed groups and to prepare for insurgency. But hard facts have not yet emerged to support this contention.

Clear links between Ansar Beit al-Maqdis and the al-Qaeda network, however, do exist. In recent testimony to the House Committee on Homeland Security’s Subcommittee on Counterterrorism and Intelligence, Tom Joscelyn of the Federation for the Defense of Democracies noted that the group uses al-Qaeda’s official channels for its propaganda – such as al Fajr Media Center.

Also, al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri has on many occasions praised its operations. Ansar Beit al-Maqdis also often features al Qaeda leaders and ‘martyrs’, including Osama Bin Laden, in its videos.

This shows that at the very least, a clear ideological identification is there, along with probable organizational links at one or another level.

Ansar Beit al-Maqdis is only the most active and prominent of a whole number of jihadi networks operating against the Egyptian authorities from Sinai. Joscelyn in his testimony notes evidence that elements of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula are active in Sinai. He also mentions a third grouping directly linked to al Qaeda, the Muhammad Jamal network, as also active on the peninsula.

What does all this add up to?

An Islamist insurgency is now under way in northern Sinai. It involves groups with roots in the Gaza Strip. If some accounts are to be believed, both the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and the Hamas authorities in Gaza are involved in it on one or another level. Almost certainly, the regional networks of al Qaeda form a significant part of it. The Islamists have already begun to strike west into Egypt proper.

What this means is that any hopes that Sisi’s coup would lead to a rapid return to quiet and order in Egypt should rapidly be abandoned. Rather, the new regime is facing a similar test to that endured by Mubarak in the 1990s and Nasser in the 1950’s. Islamism in Egypt is not going to quietly accept the verdict of July 3rd, 2013.

For Israel, the emergent insurgency raises the prospect of two de facto al Qaeda controlled areas adjoining its border – one in southern Syria and the other in the Salafi playground that is now northern Sinai.

Sabbath Calm Disturbed by Rocket Attacks – Defense/Security – News – Israel National News.

Terrorists fire rocket at Eshkol region, just one hour after an attack on the Hof Ashkelon region.

Kassam rocket

Israel news photo: Flash 90

The calm of Shabbat was interrupted in southern Israel on Friday evening, as terrorists from Hamas-controlled Gaza fired a Kassam rocket at the region.

The rocket, fired shortly after 9:00 p.m. local time, exploded in an open area in the Eshkol Regional Council. There were no physical injuries or damages.

Only an hour earlier, a Gaza rocket exploded in an open area in the Hof Ashkelon Region. There were no physical injuries or damages in this attack as well.

In both cases, the “Red Alert” siren was heard in surrounding communities before the explosion, forcing local residents into shelters.

Rocket attacks have been on the increase in recent days, especially after Hamas gave terrorists the “green light” to open fire at Israel by withdrawing its forces that were deployed to prevent such rocket fire.

On Monday, two rockets were fired at southern Israel. The first one, on Monday afternoon, exploded in an open field near the Ashkelon coast. No physical injuries or damages were reported.

Later that evening, Gaza-based terrorists fired another rocket at southern Israel.

The rocket exploded in an open area of the Shaar HaNegev Regional Council, causing no physical injuries or damages.

The IDF retaliated several hours later with airstrikes on a concealed rocket launcher in central Gaza and a terror target in northern Gaza.

Syria rivals declare impasse in peace talks, Al Jazerra English, February 14, 2014

Government and opposition delegates say negotiations are deadlocked, as Russia and US trade blame for talks’ failure.

A second round of Syria peace talks in Geneva has made no progress, Syria rival delegates said, as the United States and Russia traded blame for the talks’ failure to take off.

“We deeply regret that this round did not make any progress,” Faisal Maqdad, the Syrian deputy foreign minister, told reporters on Friday.

Speaking separately just minutes earlier, opposition spokesman Louay Safi complained about the other side’s failure to budge.

“The negotiations have reached an impasse,” Safi said.

Safi urged all parties, particularly the government’s ally Russia, to exert pressure on the government to break the deadlock.

The Syrian rivals have failed to agree what should come top of the agenda of the talks.

The opposition insists negotiations must centre on Syria’s political transition from one-party rule under President Bashar al-Assad.

The government delegation says halting “terrorism” should be the priority, and rules out talks on transition while the violence rages.

Air strikes and clashes between rebels and government troops have continued unabated since the first round of talks in January, with daily death tolls over 200, according to activists.

Blame trade

As the talks neared their end in Geneva, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov accused the US of using the talks for the sole purpose of “regime change”, while US Secretary of State John Kerry suggested Moscow was backtracking on earlier commitments.

“The only thing they want to talk about is the establishment of a transitional governing body,” the Associated Press quoted Lavrov as saying.

“Only after that are they ready to discuss the urgent and most pressing problems, like terrorism,” he added, speaking after meeting the German foreign minister in Moscow.

Kerry said in Beijing that agreeing on a transition government was the sole purpose of the talks in Geneva. He said Lavrov had stood up beside him several times when Kerry has said that was the purpose.

“There is no question about what this is about and any efforts to try to be revisionist or walk back or step away from that frankly is not keeping work or keeping faith with the words that have been spoken and the intent of this conference,” Kerry said.

The talks aim to end the conflict which has killed more than 130,000 people and displaced millions in three years.

Wake up and smell the Turkish coffee, Israel Hayom, Ruthie Blum, February 14, 2014

(Does anyone else remember the Latma We Con the World You Tube video about the Flotilla? — DM)

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan may be having domestic troubles, but two places where he is popular are Iran and the Gaza Strip.

Indeed, at the end of January, Erdogan went to the Islamic Republic to meet with Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and President Hassan Rouhani. The purpose of his visit was twofold: to bolster trade and energy cooperation between the two countries, and to discuss differences over Syria.

By his own account, Erdogan has been hoping “for the removal of all sanctions on Iran. Turkey has so far done its best in that regard and will continue to do so.”

No surprise, then, that a few bilateral business deals were sealed between Ankara and Tehran during Erdogan’s short stay.

That was two weeks ago.

This week, Erdogan was hailed by Hamas for his “noble position” on making a diplomatic reconciliation with Israel conditional on a complete lift of its naval blockade of Gaza. He also said that relations with Israel could not be normalized until a final agreement on compensation to the families of the Mavi Marmara “victims” was signed.

Naturally.

From the time of the 2010 incident, which led to Turkey’s severing of ties with Israel, Erdogan has been calling the shots and getting away with it. The first of these was the “Free Gaza” flotilla itself.

Six ships transporting arms and activists set out to defy Israel’s blockade of the terrorist-run enclave. When Israeli soldiers tried to prevent the Mavi Marmara from going any further, they were pummeled, stabbed, fired at and thrown overboard.

The soldiers had been equipped with paintball guns, and it took them a while to begin shooting their attackers with live ammunition. When they did, however, they managed to kill nine of the perpetrators. It was an act of self-defense, pure and simple.

Turkey took the opportunity to go after Israel with a vengeance in the international arena. Lying about the purpose of the flotilla — that it was a peaceful mission aimed at bringing humanitarian goods into Gaza — Erdogan began a blatant anti-Israel campaign that allowed his true colors to show through any membrane of remaining doubt. He even called Zionism a “crime against humanity” at a U.N. forum last February. Oh, and his courts filed lawsuits against Israel Defense Forces soldiers and officers who intercepted the flotilla.

Neither that nor Erdogan’s stance on Iran, support of Hamas and Hezbollah (both designated by the U.S. as terrorist organizations) and statements hostile to Jews, women and blacks caused President Barack Obama to stop referring to him as a “close personal friend.”

On the contrary, when Obama was on the tarmac at Ben-Gurion Airport last March, about to return home after his first official trip to Israel as president, he phoned Erdogan and made Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu issue an apology for the events of the Mavi Marmara.

It was this appalling piece of appeasement — forced on Netanyahu by Obama — that set the stage for what has happened since then: 11 months of “talks” with Turkey. What this means in Middle Eastern-ese is nearly a year of continued attempts on Israel’s part, including the offer of $20 million in compensation for the flotilla deaths, to persuade Turkey to resume relations.

As soon as word got out on Tuesday of an imminent agreement, however, Erdogan did what all Islamist “negotiators” do in such circumstances: He upped the ante.

“I am in favor of an agreement with Turkey,” Strategic Affairs Minister Yuval Steinitz told Israel Radio on Thursday. “But [the current impasse] is Erdogan’s fault. … I don’t understand [his] behavior.”

Is Steinitz kidding? What is hard to understand about Erdogan’s behavior? It is Israel’s actions that are incomprehensible.

The only explanation that once made sense (to optimistic pragmatists) was that Netanyahu received assurances from Obama about U.S. backing of a potential Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities in exchange for reconciliation with Turkey — whose airspace would be needed in such an event.

This is clearly nonsense. Obama will never approve an Israeli strike on Iran; he won’t even let Congress step up sanctions. And the likelihood of Erdogan’s allowing Israel airspace access for a military mission against the country with which he is now enhancing economic ties is nil.

It is high time for Israel to wake up and smell the Turkish coffee.

Rocket hits Hof Ashkelon Regional Council; none injured, Ynet News, February 14, 2014

Following red color alert, rocket hit detected near greenhouse in Hof Ashkelon Regional Council. Security forces continue searching for additional hits.

A rocket hit near a greenhouse in the Hof Ashkelon Regional Council on Friday. No injuries were reported.

Security forces are scouring the area in search of additional rocket hits.

Earlier Friday, a color red alert sounded in regional council.

On Tuesday, the Israel Air Force struck the Gaza Strip in response to Monday rocket fire towards the Hof Ashkelon Regional Council.

On Saturday, a rocket landed in Sha’ar HaNegev Regional Council, but no injuries or damage were reported. Another rocket was launched Thursday evening, and landed in an open field south of Ashkelon.