WarSclerotic

More American soothing efforts, Israel Hayom, Zalman Shoval, May 8, 2014

(Again, the process is seen as more politically important than its long term consequences. — DM)

The Obama administration is interested in presenting a deal with Iran as a lofty diplomatic success and will therefore minimize the significance of its flaws. The administration is also encouraged by the current public support for the deal as it has been presented. At the beginning of his tenure, Obama repeatedly declared his objection to a policy of “containment” in regards to Iran’s nuclear program, but it appears this could precisely be the real and negative result of the approach taken with Iran on the nuclear front.

U.S. National Security Advisor Susan Rice, the person who more than anyone has President Barack Obama’s ear on foreign policy matters, arrived in Israel on Wednesday to coordinate positions on the emerging agreement with Iran on its nuclear program. She was accompanied by Undersecretary of State Wendy Sherman, who leads the American negotiating team in the Iran talks.

This coordination is important to the United States and to Israel, which considers Iran’s nuclear efforts an existential threat. The Obama administration should also be interested in a modicum of coordination, because comprehensive Israeli objections to the deal could make it difficult to win the support of Congress. Regardless, a considerable portion of Congress already believes, in contrast to the administration, that the only way to block Iran’s race to a nuclear bomb is to increase the pressure rather than alleviate it.

The Obama administration also wants to make sure that in any case Israel will not act unilaterally against Iran. Rice, Sherman and their teams arrived in Jerusalem about a week before the next round of nuclear talks, which will likely be one of the last and is expected to focus on formulating the primary clauses of the final agreement.

Israel does not object, in principle, to a compromise, and is not thrilled at the notion of acting militarily against Iran without U.S. support. But it is far from being convinced that the deal on the table will in fact put an end to Iran’s nuclear program.

Rice and Sherman will certainly try convincing their Israeli counterparts that Washington is aware of deceptive Iranian maneuvering and that America and its Western allies will not concede even one of the tools at their disposal to act as required if need be, including the renewal and intensification of sanctions and the military option. However, not only would this probably be too little too late, but in light of America’s policies of restraint in places like Syria, Libya and Ukraine, it is hard not to doubt the veracity of these promises and soothing words.

Israel’s reservations, which the American team is sure to hear from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his staff, primarily revolve around the following issues: The fact that despite the Americans’ sincere intentions to constrain Iran with hermetic oversight and routine inspections, experience has shown that this could be yet another instance of shutting the barn doors after the horses have already fled, or in other words, that, according to the proposed deal, Iran will perhaps be punished for violating it but not for developing the ability to acquire a nuclear bomb.

To the Iranians’ “credit,” it can be said they are not at all trying to hide their intentions. According to Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi, the chances of the agreement preventing his country from developing a nuclear weapon is “less than 50 percent” and that Iran is within its rights to nullify any aspect of the deal it sees fit. He also added that the 20,000 centrifuges and the enriched material his country already has is already enough to make five or six nuclear bombs. While the Obama administration objects, based on its public declarations and certainly according to what the American team is telling their Israeli counterparts in Jerusalem, to Iran becoming a “threshold nuclear state,” various comments by Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, its “moderate” President Hassan Rouhani and by Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif make it clear that the Islamic republic has no intention of meeting the aforementioned American expectations. The only way they will be convinced, maybe, is if the economic and political price for violating the agreement is too steep.

To our great remorse, it appears that this is not where things are heading, and that the scenario of American firmness is not on the horizon. The Obama administration is interested in presenting a deal with Iran as a lofty diplomatic success and will therefore minimize the significance of its flaws. The administration is also encouraged by the current public support for the deal as it has been presented. At the beginning of his tenure, Obama repeatedly declared his objection to a policy of “containment” in regards to Iran’s nuclear program, but it appears this could precisely be the real and negative result of the approach taken with Iran on the nuclear front.

White House Escalates Secret Media War Against Israel, Washington Free Beacon, Adam Kredo, May 8, 2014

Obama administration continues to bash Israel over peace process.

Secretary of State John Kerry and Middle East envoy Martin Indyk / AP

Senior Obama administration officials have escalated a secret media war to discredit Israel in the press, providing highly critical anonymous quotes and negative information about the Jewish state in a bid to blame it for the recent collapse of peace talks with the Palestinians.

Multiple sources in both the United States and Israel confirmed to the Washington Free Beacon that Middle East envoy Martin Indyk again served as the anonymous source for a recent interview in the Israeli press that lambasted Israel, blamed it for the failure of peace talks, and predicted that Israel needs to face another wave of Palestinian terrorism before it will make peace.

Indyk was first identified by the Free Beacon as the anonymous source for a series of anti-Israel stories planted by the Obama administration in April.

The targeted leaks have sparked anger among top officials in Jerusalem who believe that Israel is being attacked with unfair and negative press stories while the Palestinian side escapes blame from the Obama administration, according to these sources.

“There was a general ban on leaks, and it was more or less enforced,” said one senior official with a leading pro-Israel group. However, “Indyk and his team were the exception.”

“The result was that you had this constant stream of anti-Israel talking points from anonymous U.S. officials and nothing to balance them out. The Israelis would go to the Americans and ask them to correct the record, and the Americans would refuse—because of the prohibition against leaking!” the source said.

The Obama administration’s latest attempt to discredit Israel behind a facade of anonymous quotes came in a wide-ranging interview that two unnamed officials gave to Israeli reporter Nahum Barnea.

Multiple sources in the United States and Israel identified Indyk as one of Barnea’s key sources.

A State Department spokeswoman declined to speculate on who the sources of the article might be when approached by the Free Beacon and stated that both the Israelis and Palestinians deserve blame for the collapse of peace talks.

Indyk, a longtime Middle East hand and peace negotiator, has for years personally disliked Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, according to these sources.

“It’s been going on for many years,” said one former Israeli diplomat, referring to Indyk’s leaks to the press. “He was defending the Palestinians. That is a long time story. His antipathy to Netanyahu is also a very long story. It’s not recent. It goes back years.”

Indyk has enjoyed a long relationship with reporter Barnea and has used those ties to leak stories critical of Israel and Netanyahu, the source said.

Barnea has been publicly close to Indyk since at least 2006, when he was selected as a top speaker on a closed-door panel sponsored by the Brookings Institution’s Saban Center, where Indyk has long served as the director when working outside of the government.

Barnea also was given a chance to interview former President Bill Clinton during a 2009 event hosted by the Saban Center.

In 2011, Barnea went to Indyk’s Saban Forum and then quoted unnamed American officials referring to Netanyahu as “the N-word.”

“Indyk has long made a practice of essentially buying the loyalty of Israeli reporters by giving them free trips and cushy speaking gigs,” said the senior official who works for a pro-Israel group. “Then he turns around and anonymously uses those journalists to attack diplomats and leaders he perceives as enemies.”

“He couldn’t do any of it without cash from Haim Saban, who endowed the Saban Center where Indyk was the director, or, more recently, from Qatar, which has been pumping huge amounts of money into the Brookings Institution.”

State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf declined to speculate on the article’s sourcing, but told the Free Beacon that both the Israelis and Palestinians share the blame for talks failing.

“As we’ve said publicly numerous times, both sides took steps that hurt the ability of the talks to move forward,” Harf said. “And it is totally inaccurate to say the secretary wanted to blame one side or the other.”

Israeli government sources in recent days have released private documents showing that the Palestinians had been planning to “thwart” the peace process long before talks officially collapsed.

Other recent stories in the U.S. press have focused on attempts by Israel to spy on America.

Newsweek published a lengthy expose earlier this week on what it claimed to be Israel’s attempts to steal technological trade secrets from the United States.

“We’ve had this pop up every few years,” said the former Israeli diplomat, explaining that U.S. officials typically leak these stories to distract from the peace process and smear Israel.

“The stuff Newsweek ran, I’ve seen this stuff repeated four of five times over the last decade,” said the source. “It’s almost as if there’s a file drawer somewhere in the basement of the State Department where someone calls a bureaucrat and says, ‘Pull out all the Israeli misdeeds.’”

The thinking in the State Department is, “If there’s a chink in Israel’s armor let’s pull this stuff out,” the source said.

Iran’s plans | JPost | Israel News.

By JPOST EDITORIAL

05/08/2014 00:45

More than Iran has managed to pull the wool over the eyes of the international coterie, the nations of the world desperately wish to be fooled.

Grudgingly, we must admit that Iran is doing quite well. Tehran’s ayatollahs have effectively managed to hoodwink the US, Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia, whose representatives are now trying to reach a final deal in New York on Iran’s nuclear ambitions before the July 20 deadline.

But in actual fact, more than Iran has managed to pull the wool over the eyes of the international coterie, the nations of the world desperately wish to be fooled.

Iran’s interlocutors prefer to believe that by a miraculous happenstance the country has transformed itself overnight from a ruthless theocracy – whose agenda inter alia includes wiping Israel off the map – to an agreeable member of the international community.

Had self-bamboozlement not played a key role in the international attitude vis-à-vis Iran, there would be no difficulty seeing through the ruse and sweet talk.

Thus, while International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors visited a uranium mine and a uranium- thickening facility in the central Iranian towns of Ardakan and Yazd, Iran banned access to the WhatsApp messaging site. It explained – without embarrassment or hesitation – that the move arose from the fact that WhatsApp is owned by a “Jewish American Zionist.”

This was a reference to the acquisition of WhatsApp two months ago by Facebook, whose founder is Mark Zuckerberg. According to Abdolsamad Khorramabadi, head of the regime’s Committee on Internet Crimes, the fact that Zuckerberg is Jewish legitimizes cracking down on a particularly popular social media site.

The astounding fact isn’t so much that Tehran’s Shi’ite rulers fear social networks and incite against Jews, but that the world’s democracies are so silent on any hate propaganda so long as its targets are Jews.

Were Zuckerberg a passionately committed Zionist, it should not be held against him. Supporting Zionism, the national liberation movement of the Jewish people, ought to be a source of pride and not treated as a crime. But the fact is that while Zuckerberg is Jewish by birth, he is hardly a committed Jew. If anything, this goes to the heart of contemporary Judeophobia.

A Jew is hated not for what he does or what he espouses, but for his parentage. A Jew can be totally assimilated and fail to significantly identify with fellow Jews and Jewish causes, but to the eyes of the enemies of the Jewish people – even these days – he remains anathema for no other reason than his lineage.

We can only express dismay that the world’s most liberal governments, among them the Obama administration, have chosen to not so much as notice the non-stop stifling of elementary freedoms in Iran and the vehement anti-Jewish pretext to which Ayatollah Khamenei’s cohorts resort for outlawing applications the regime intends to repress.

Behrouz Kamalvandi, spokesman of Iran’s Atomic Department, maintains that by allowing the visit to the uranium extraction and refinement sites, “Iran will be able to say that the seven-agreed measures between Iran and the Agency [IAEA] have been fulfilled. Already six steps have been taken.”

This is the pose. Iran postures as an accommodating partner, oozing goodwill, and the international powers, seeking to strike a bargain, are only too happy to pretend right along that all is well on the Iranian front and that danger to the world can be avoided by easing the sanctions on Tehran.

It’s easier to make believe that Iran is now ruled by a moderate regime, that it will indeed – as per its promises – redesign its Arak heavy-water reactor (to greatly limit the amount of plutonium it can produce) and that it will dilute half of its 20-percent-enriched uranium.

Yet all these seeming Iranian concessions, if indeed made, are eminently reversible and will only delay the manufacture of an Iranian nuclear bomb.

The true test for Iranian intentions shouldn’t be sought in the self-serving promises of its nuclear negotiators but in other spheres – including the denial of rudimentary liberties to the Iranian population and the ongoing unmitigated expressions of hate toward all Jews, no matter where and who they are.

Israel Air Force is deadlier than ever – Israel Opinion, Ynetnews.

Analysis: IAF believes it can shorten next war on its own by striking thousands of targets a day, dropping more than 10 accurate bombs from one plane on different areas. Ron Ben-Yishai reviews revolution in aerial warfare branch perceived as ‘Israel’s insurance policy.’

At first we’ll experience a number of tough days. Rockets and missiles, directed mainly at the Tel Aviv metropolitan area. The aerial defense will mostly defend strategic facilities and bases, in the big cities buildings will collapse and there will be casualties.

But it won’t last for long. The Israel Air Force will respond immediately, and after a few days we will see a significant drop in the number of missiles fired on Israel. A ceasefire will follow, there will be some more rocket fire, and then a truce and relative calm for several years thanks to the restored deterrence.

This is the serious but reasonable scenario the IDF is preparing for, and this is the political echelon’s strategic target. It will be a “high-trajectory war.” Whether the rocket fire comes from Syria, Lebanon, Gaza or Iran – the goal will to end it quickly in order to minimize damages and losses, while causing maximum damage on the other side, so that it feels the urgency to pursue a ceasefire.

Israelis running into bomb shelters. Buildings will collapse (Photo: Idan Rodkin)

Israel Air Force (IAF) Commander Major-General Amir Eshel and senior IAF officers believe it is possible – and even more: With the intelligence, the arms and aircraft available at the Air Force’s disposal, they believe it could reach the described achievements on its own, without the IDF having to maneuver its way into enemy territory, and it must be allowed to do so.

If Major-General Eshel and his people are right, we are talking about a significant reduction in the number of casualties and a huge saving in resources considering the astronomic cost – about NIS 1 billion ($290 million) – of every day of fighting. What the IAF commander is suggesting is in fact a real revolution in the IDF’s combat perception, which will dramatically affect the need to equip and train the ground forces, and the budgetary list of priorities.

I already heard the claim that the Air Force can do the job on its own once before from Dan Halutz, when he served as IAF commander before being appointed chief of staff. That claim was proven wrong in the Second Lebanon War, and that’s the reason it still raises many doubts today.

Of course not all senior IDF officers agree with the IAF’s assessments. Many generals, who are aware of the Air Force’s abilities and respect them, still believe that the army must operate on the ground in order to paralyze the firing of thousands of rockets and missiles.

The short period of action is also seen as unlikely. The IAF officials respond with quite a convincing argument: If we are attacked suddenly, it will anyway take us time to gather all the ground forces and overcome attacks on emergency depots and traffic arteries. At the same time, we will have an opportunity to get the job done through aerial attacks. Simultaneously, they say, we are preparing to offer the ground forces significant help in the fighting.

The man in charge of the war in the north. IAF Commander Eshel (Photo: Air Force Media)

“We are not gambling,” Eshel explains. “We know that we are perceived both by the public and by senior state officials as the people of Israel’s insurance policy, and the expectations from us are high. Perhaps too high. But we are not confused. We remember that we’re not alone and we are building an ability to integrate.”

In Operation Pillar of Defense, he notes, the IAF prevented the need for a ground operation in Gaza, and the deterrence is more or less “working” till this very day.

I witnessed the IAF’s preparations to significantly improve its ability to aid the ground forces several weeks ago, when I joined a detention and patrol activity in the Hebron area, which was combined with preparations for a war: A drill simulating the takeover of a Lebanese village.

As we moved forward, the Paratroopers Brigade commander pointed at a fighter bending behind a terrace, and whispered in my war that his name is Lieutenant Colonel T., the F-16 squadron commander. Quite an unusual event in the IDF reality.

T., who was equipped and armed and acted like a regular fighter, explained naturally that he had joined the operation at his own initiative because he wanted to understand how the infantry forces move and operate during fighting and how he and his pilots could help them from close up – very close.

A warplane helping ground forces with gunfire and missile fire is a “natural” mission. A warplane dropping a one-ton bomb on a house and delaying the progress of a ground force – that’s an entirely different story.

 ‘Attack outputs’

But aiding the ground forces is not the IAF’s first mission. In the past two years, it has been preparing mainly for goal approved by the chief of staff, defense minister and prime minister – to be ready to shorten the fighting which could erupt at any minute, and this places immediate and even heavier responsibility on the shoulders of Eshel and his people.

Neutralizing tens of thousands of rockets and missiles in Lebanon and Gaza is a Sisyphean mission. The immobile launchers from which the missiles are fired to a larger range, with the heavy and relatively accurate warhead, are fortified and well hidden in the homes of citizens or in hidden launching holes (dug in the ground and operated by remote control); their operators move between them, rearm them and hit the IDF forces moving towards them through tunnels.

The main difficultly is using intelligence to locate them, and targeting them may also lead to the killing of uninvolved civilians and stir up the world against us.

Hunting for the portable launchers is even more difficult. It requires close surveillance of the launching areas, and if they are located – an aircraft or another instrument is needed to accurately hit the launchers’ truck while it is still exposed on the ground or while its driver is attempting to hide under the pillars of a building.

In the Second Lebanon War, the IAF was successful – facing a store of missiles which is at least six times smaller than what Hezbollah has today – but these missions proved to be tough even then. In addition ,the pilots will have to operate while bases are being fired on and defend themselves against Russian-made antiaircraft missiles which may have reached Hezbollah, or shoulder missiles which may have reached the Gazans.

In order to overcome the difficulties and climb up according to the extent of the task, the IAF has been undergoing some processes of change in the past two years. The most important process is the effort to increase the “attack outputs”: The number of sorties, but mainly the number of attacked targets and the damage inflicted on them.

 Like hail

Major-General Eshel instructed the IAF in as early as August 2012, three months after taking office, to prepare to carry out several thousand military sorties a day. The goal is increasing what he refers to as “the Air Force’s deadliness.”

In the Second Lebanon War, there were hundreds of sorties, and the number of attacked targets from the “target bank” was even smaller. Today, the bank of targets which can be destroyed has been expanded considerably, and the IAF is expected to complete the improvement of attack outputs very soon.

But even that is not enough. In order to reduce the launches within a short period of time, a large number of targets must be attacked at the same time. For that purpose, the defense industries have developed an accurate guided armament which the pilot can launch at different directions like hail falling on a wide area, without giving up on the accuracy of the hit, the number and variety of the targets.

For example, a single F-16 can bomb more than 10 targets in different sites simultaneously. The abilities of the F-15 (of the old models) are much higher both in quantity and in the weight of the bomb, which can destroy underground fortifications. This aircraft, says Brigadier-General Tomer Bar, commander of the Tel Nof Base, can get very far with a heavy load and without aerial fueling. Not to mention the F-15i, which is particularly adjusted for long-term attack missions and aerial supremacy. The strategic meaning is clear, even if he doesn’t mention the target country.

In order to meet Eshel’s new speed and outputs requirements, the technical and logistic systems have also been analyzed and reorganized. Colonel Dan Tortan, commander of the Hatzor Base, says the technical crew “storms” an F-16 returning from a military sortie and prepares it for an additional sortie within a short while, similar to the crew which refuels and adjusts a Formula 1 car at a pit stop during a race. With the old methods it would take several hours.

 The north is in his hands

Apart from improving the attack outputs, the IAF is investing many efforts and budgets in building the aerial defense system, which is divided into antiaircraft defense and a multi-layer missile interception system. The plan includes one command which will manage all the activity from one operation center. At the moment, however, the preference is to purchase more Iron Dome batteries in order to complete the development, get new supplies of David’s Sling (Magic Wand) interception missiles, and complete the development of the Arrow 3 for intercepting ballistic missiles in space.

David’s Sling is the most important at the moment because of it has higher abilities than Iron Dome to intercept more serious threats. This system will operate from fixed bases which are being built, but it will be operational in only about two years at the earliest.

The truth must be told and it must be stressed that the Iron Dome batteries whose abilities have been improved in the meantime will be used at the time of a major conflict to defend Air Force bases and other vital facilities and not us much for the defense of the population, in order to improve the “functional continuity” needed for high attack outputs. The IAF base commanders have been devoting a significant part of their time and training to the functional continuity matter.

Another area the IAF has been engaging in intensively in the past few years is the “battle between wars,” which aims to prevent terrorist activities and strategic weapon supplies in Lebanon and Gaza. The activity is mostly secret. An important development took place about a year ago, when the chief of staff put the IAF commander in charge of the northern area of the “battle between wars,” at the defense minister’s approval.

As part of his responsibility, Major-General Eshel has been operating intelligence systems and operational forces not only from the IAF but from all of the IDF’s departments, arms and units. At the same time, the IAF contributes to the other efforts of the “battle between wars,” for example the takeover of Iranian weapons ship Klos-C.

 More than career soldiers 1,000 dismissed

There are more diverse tasks than before, and the IAF is also changing the staff and creating a new position – head of aerial operations, a brigadier-general who will be the IAF’s No. 3 after the head of the staff. The new structure will take effect in the summer, and the designated head of aerial operations is Brigadier-General Bar, commander of the Tel Nof Base.

Aerial fueling of F-15 planes. Improved abilities (Photo: AFP)

The organizational change is expected to help deal with the “third circle” – the name given to dealing with the Iranian nuclear program through offensive measures. Senior IAF officials don’t talk about it much, but they have created the impression that they are convinced of their ability to act if they are required to, and to reach reasonable achievements. The current abilities of the IAF and IDF to launch efficient long-range strikes, they believe, are better than they were several years ago. And yet it’s hard to compare them to the United States’ abilities.

I was very impressed by the fact that in all my conversations with senior and junior Air Force officials, I did not hear any demands to increase the aircraft fleet or the purchase budgets. The thing that bothers them is not just the deficit created this year, which is threatening the ongoing training activity, but mainly the budgetary uncertainty.

The IAF cannot make plans because the IDF still doesn’t have an approved multi-year work plan and the defense establishment still doesn’t have any approved budget for the coming year and the following year.

The IAF is in the process of closing several operational squadrons and has dismissed 1,010 career soldiers. This is a relatively huge number compared to the Air Force’s size.

“I was recently forced to dismiss, as part of the cutbacks, a 38-year-old career soldier who is an expert on the quick repair of Yasur helicopters. My heart aches over the man and his abilities which we lost, but there is no choice,” said Brigadier-General Bar.

The number of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) which the IAF is taking in is increasing over time, and there is a rise both in the quantity and in the types and level of technology invested in them. The number of tasks the UAVs will engage in mainly in the intelligence and accurate fighting areas will grow over time, says Brigadier-General Laor, commander of the Palmachim Base, but the manned aircraft in the key tasks will not be replaced in the near future.

 Even the Americans are jealous

Another growing field is the use of flight simulators. Today there are simulators not only for warplanes but also for helicopters and UAVs.

But the highlight is the mission simulator – an Israeli invention which was co-developed by Israel’s Elbit and the American Lockheed Martin. The US Air Force commander has admitted, enviously, that even his army does not have such a thing.

So what’s the big deal? In the mission simulator a lone pilot can exercise a mission, and an entire combat squadron can even simulate a state of war. From receiving the mission from the Air Force headquarters, through planning and briefing the pilots to the sortie itself, which although it is carried out in a cockpit on the ground – the three-dimensional visions and feelings are completely realistic and relevant to the real task.

At the same time, the pilots exercise overcoming mishaps and emergency situations and flying an aircraft in extreme conditions, including a crash as a result of an antiaircraft missile hit.

These simulators not only save millions of dollars which should have been invested in hours of flight training, but also allow reserve soldiers, for example, to maintain their fitness and acquire new flight and arms operation abilities.

The pilot receives the instructions for correcting the errors in his earphones in the voice of a 19-year-old woman demonstrating amazing knowledge of the secrets of a combat flight she has never experience herself.

The New York Times Whitewashes Anti-Israel Terrorism, Algemeiner, May 7, 2014

[T]he reporter sanitized the group by presenting it as a “political” and “militant” “faction” in Gaza, and discussing its “civic activities” — plans to build medical facilities and running of kindergartens where children alternate “between chanting Quranic verses and singing the ABC’s.” The group’s “armed wing,” which the reporter acknowledged was its priority, was described in heroic terms as “the main military expression of Palestinian nationalism.”

A day before Yom Hazikaron, Israel’s Memorial Day, when the country mourns its fallen soldiers and victims of terrorism, The New York Times featured a prominent article about Islamic Jihad, the notorious Palestinian terrorist organization responsible for dozens of deadly attacks on Israeli civilians.

Islamic Jihad’s claim to fame is its introduction and continued use of suicide attacks against Israelis, including gruesome attacks at Jerusalem’s Sbarro pizzeria, Haifa’s Maxim restaurant, the central bus stations in Hadera and Tel Aviv, and numerous other bombings in shopping malls, open-air markets, restaurants, buses and train stations — attacks responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Israelis and for wounding more than 1000 others. The group’s primary targets are Israeli men, women and children going about their daily lives in public areas.  It therefore seemed timely to profile Islamic Jihad, responsible for so many of Israel’s terror victims, just before Yom Hazikaron.

There was just one problem. The article by The New York Times Jerusalem bureau chief included no mention whatsoever of Islamic Jihad’s terror attacks or anything at all about its victims.

Rather, the reporter euphemistically described the group’s “focus on military resistance to the Israeli occupation” – a description that adopts the terrorist group’s narrative justifying attacks against Israeli civilians, with the aim of eliminating all of Israel, as legitimate.

The reporter’s own use of such unattributed language sharply contrasts with the way the newspaper distances itself from language used by Israel, for example when it employs quotation marks  when referring to “what [Israelis] call ‘incitement’ [by Palestinians].” And in contrast to the newspaper’s frequent invoking of “much of the world” viewing Israeli settlements as illegal, the article concealed the global view that Islamic Jihad is a terrorist group, noting only that “the U.S. designated Islamic Jihad” as such “in 1997,” and burying even this partial information in the 15th paragraph of the story. The fact that the European Union, the United Kingdom, and other Western countries have also listed Islamic Jihad as a terrorist organization is ignored entirely.

Instead, the reporter sanitized the group by presenting it as a “political” and “militant” “faction” in Gaza, and discussing its “civic activities” — plans to build medical facilities and running of kindergartens where children alternate “between chanting Quranic verses and singing the ABC’s.” The group’s “armed wing,” which the reporter acknowledged was its priority, was described in heroic terms as “the main military expression of Palestinian nationalism.”

Islamic Jihad is neither “militant” nor is it a “faction.” It is a terrorist group. Indeed, the group is so proud of its terrorism that it openly revels in its successes — that is, the murder of innocent civilians — every chance it gets.

But while Islamic Jihad does not make any attempt to obscure its terrorism, The New York Times does. Why would the so-called “newspaper of record” hide from its readers the most salient fact about the subject of an article?

When challenged about the article’s omissions, an editor suggested that all the context deemed relevant to the organization, its background and aims had been included in the story, with the obvious implication that there was no need to share the unpleasant facts about Islamic Jihad’s terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians– its raison d’etre.

Even though we have made the point before, it bears repeating again. News consumers beware: The New York Times deliberately deceives its readers about the facts with its advocacy journalism.

President Obama still considers Islam the beautiful religion of peace, Dan Miller in Panama, May 7, 2014

One might hope that the past five years had changed His mind. His views seem to remain the same.

Remember President Obama’s 2009 Cairo speech?

I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles – principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings. [Emphasis added.]

. . . .

I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear. [Emphasis added.]

Negative “stereotypes” of Islam? Such as this?

Does mentioning that there have been thousand or so Islamist “honor killings” in Pakistan in just one year present a vile “negative stereotype?” That video was posted almost a year ago. Would a comparable piece be aired even now on the “legitimate” media? I don’t think it would be, due to political correctness and fear of violent Islamist retribution should Islamic violence be mentioned.

How about Syrian Islamists crucifying Christians for refusing Islam?

Sister Raghad, the former head of the Patriarchate School in Damascus who currently resides in France, told Vatican Radio how she personally witnessed jihadi rebels terrorize Ma‘loula, including by pressuring Christians to proclaim the shehada—Islam’s credo that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his messenger—which, when uttered before Muslim witnesses transforms the speaker into a Muslim, with the death penalty for apostasy should the convert later “renege” by returning to Christianity.

According to the nun, those Christians who refused to embrace Islam were

killed in atrocious and violent ways that cannot be described.  If you want examples, they crucified two youths in Ma‘loula for refusing to proclaim Islam’s credo, saying to them: “Perhaps you want to die like your teacher [Christ] whom you believe in?  You have two choices: either proclaim the shehada or else be crucified.  One of them was crucified before his father, whom they also killed.”

The post also notes,

The fact is, crucifixion is a prescribed form of punishment in the Koran (5:33) and occurs throughout the Islamic world . . . .

[list of a few examples.]

Of course, if one delves into Islamic history, one learns that crucifixions were extremely common.  For example, Witnesses For Christ: Orthodox Christian Neomartyrs of the Ottoman Period 1437-1860 lists crucifixion as one of the many forms thousands of Christians were executed by the Muslim Turks.

And in her memoir, Ravished Armenia, Aurora Mardiganian described how in the early twentieth century in the city of Malatia, she saw 16 girls crucified, vultures eating their corpses: “Each girl had been nailed alive upon her cross, spikes through her feet and hands,” wrote the Armenian survivor. “Only their hair blown by the wind covered their bodies.”

Prescribed in the Koran itself, crucifixions are as old as Islam and, with the global revival of the latter, are returning with increased frequency.  And, although it is more politically correct to report on jihadis crucifying other jihadis — other terrorists or “spies” — the fact is, many more innocent Christians are being crucified again, including simply for refusing to embrace Islam and thus renounce Christ.

Why reject reality-based “negative” stereotypes and promote fantasy-based “positive” stereotypes instead? Is it a multiculturalistic effort at false moral equivalence as between Islam and Christianity/Judaism? Between evil and good?

The U.S. Commission on International Freedom seems to recognize some of the problems.

The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom’s new report recommends that eight more countries be designated as Countries of Particular Concern, all but one of which are Muslim-majority populations. The panel repeatedly identified interpretations of sharia as a source for the increasing violations of religious freedom. [Emphasis added.]

The panel suggested designations for Egypt, Iraq, Nigeria, Pakistan, Syria, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Vietnam.

Of these, Pakistan warranted the most concern. The panel said the state of religious freedom “hit an all-time low” last year. In April 2013, the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan even said the country is “on the verge” of becoming an undemocratic society where violence is mainstream. [Emphasis added.]

“On the verge?” With “only” approximately one thousand “honor killings” in just one year? Of course, Pakistan is “democratic,” i.e, operates in accord with the desires of its Islamists. Is that the type of democracy that President Obama relishes in Islamist nations? Elsewhere?

The report suggested the retention of eight countries previously labeled as Countries of Particular Concern (CPC): Burma, China, Eritrea, Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Uzbekistan.

The panel’s comments on Iran correspond with a United Nations report that found that Christian persecution is at unprecedented levels, even though the new President is supposedly a “moderate.” The Commission states that Sufis, Sunnis and Shiites opposed to the regime are also being victimized. [Emphasis added.]

“[Rouhani] has not delivered on his campaign promises of strengthening civil liberties for religious minorities,” the Commission report states.

One of the most important conclusions in the report is that Saudi Arabia is still promoting radical Islam and religious intolerance in the school system. The Saudi government may be confronting the Muslim Brotherhood, but that has not stopped it from indoctrinating students with a Brotherhood-type worldview.

Has President Obama found enough time (or interest) to read the report? That’s doubtful. Has His position changed? If so, I haven’t noticed it.

Even comedian Jay Leno — former host of Tonight show — protested recently against intensifications of Shari law in Brunei.

Hassanal Bolkiah, sultan of Brunei, began enacting the new Shariah laws this month, which call for a range of punishments, including fines and imprisonment for those who fail to show up for Friday prayers or who get pregnant outside of marriage, the Washington Post reported.

“The decision to implement the [Shariah penal code] is not for fun but is to obey Allah’s command as written in the Koran,” Bolkiah said last week.

Later this year the punishments will ramp up, with flogging and the severing of limbs becoming the punishment for those who rob or commit property crimes. And death by stoning is also scheduled to take effect next year for those who commit sodomy or who enter adulterous relationships.

Most of these punishments can also be applied to the nation’s 440,000 non-Muslims — one-third of the country’s population, as the Associated Press noted.

“This is 2014, not 1814,” Leno told the crowd, according to the Los Angeles Times.

He continued, “Evil flourishes when good people do nothing, and that is pretty much what this is. This is not complicated. These are not crazy left-wing wacko people.”

The comedian and former “Tonight Show” host went on to say that the controversy over Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling should be considered minor when compared to what’s happening in Brunei.

That’s a start, but the entire Islamic world awaits his (and our) censure. How about Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Syria and even the “peace loving” Palestinians? Here’s a link to an article about Hamas’ Independence Day “greeting” to Israel, wishing death to Israel for her widely celebrated sixty – six years of independence.

Why not focus on Islamic religious apartheid rather than on Israel’s falsely alleged apartheid?

Why not consider Palestinian efforts to derail the Obama- Kerry “peace process” months ago, even before Abbas visited President Obama at the White House, followed by Administration efforts to blame Israel for the collapse? Although the United States of Obama cannot lawfully continue to fund “Palestine” under  a Fatah – Hamas power sharing agreement, it seems to be looking for ways to do so even as Hamas insists of having control over military aspects of the Fatah – Hamas coalition government.

How about Iran’s influence in Latin America, where it seems to promote the spread antisemitism? Why not focus on President Obama’s support of the Muslim Brotherhood?

The Egyptian people are astounded. They simply do not understand the Obama Administration’s efforts to bring the Muslim Brotherhood back to power.

In an effort to make some sense of the Obama Administration’s policies, Amr Adeeb, a prominent Egyptian commentator, argues that the U.S. is helping the Muslim Brotherhood to achieve power, in order to turn Egypt into a magnet for jihadist fighters. The goal, Adeeb states, is to turn Egypt into another Syria or Afghanistan and discredit Islamism as a viable political movement.

To Westerners, this may seem like a bizarre conspiracy theory, but for Egyptians it helps explain why the U.S. government is supporting an organization that has openly declared jihad against the West, engaged in threats of war with Israel and Ethiopia, demolished dozens of ancient historic churches, set hospitals on fire, and murdered Christians in the streets. The Muslim Brotherhood has no respect for the rule of law, but the Obama Administration treats the Egyptian military that removed the group from power as a threat to democracy itself. [Emphasis added.”

The Muslim Brotherhood has done its best to frustrate the Obama – Kerry “peace process.”

The link between the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas is clear and straight, and confirmed by Article 2 of the Charter of Hamas, which reads: “The Islamic Resistance Movement is one of the wings of the Muslim Brothers in Palestine. The Muslim Brotherhood Movement is a world organization, the largest Islamic Movement in the modern era. It is characterized by a profound understanding, by precise notions and by a complete comprehensiveness of all concepts of Islam in all domains of life: views and beliefs, politics and economics, education and society, jurisprudence and rule, indoctrination and teaching, the arts and publications, the hidden and the evident, and all the other domains of life.” [Emphasis added.]

Iran, with which the United States of Obama and the rest of the P5 + 1 group have been negotiating a nuclear “peace process,” seems likely to be permitted to continue its military nuclear progress. It won’t happen transparently.

“The fear,” a former senior intelligence official told me, “is that the Iranians are going to pretend to give up their nuclear weapons program — and we’re going to pretend to believe them.” [Emphasis added]

Similarly, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), last week told a large audience at the annual Washington Forum of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (the think tank I head): “No one wants a diplomatic solution more than I do. But it cannot be a deal for a deal’s sake. And I am worried they [Obama and his advisers] want a deal more than they want the right deal.” [Emphasis added.]

The United States now have a “wuss” as President. He is a devious wuss, intent upon pleasing Islamists as they manage to scam an at best naive American President and others, while continuing to conduct jihad against adherents to all non-Islamist religions. President Obama ignores as best He can not only their stated but their denied and poorly concealed aspirations for world conquest, while He mocks those who disagree with His approach. Is His approach anti-American and anti-freedom in the few places where it still exists, albeit tenuously? Yes.

Obama’s Credibility Crisis, National Review online, Tom Rogan, May 7, 2014

(Can credibility attach to President Obama’s foreign policy when it is so incredibly amorphous as hardly to exist? Or when his actions contradict his words constantly? — DM)

Perceptions of America’s credibility shape the policies of our friends — and our enemies. 

[T]he sharp edge of Iranian strategy is shaped significantly by perceptions of American global resolve. Where America is seen to be resolute and determined, Iran is deterred. Where America is seen to be timid and uncertain, Iran is emboldened.

This past weekend, The Economist lambasted President Obama’s policies in Ukraine and Syria for fostering a “nagging doubt” about America’s credibility as an ally. Then, on Monday, The Atlantic’s Peter Beinart suggested that such notions are “bunk.” For Beinart, the “credibility fallacy” is an excuse to avoid complex discussions of America’s global interests.

I have some sympathy for one of Beinart’s arguments: Casual strength-vs.-weakness narratives are unhelpful. Foreign policy is too important for posturing. But ultimately, Beinart is wrong. Contrary to his assertions, American policy in Ukraine and Syria most certainly does influence America’s adversaries — especially in the Middle East.

For a start, take Dexter Filkins’s study of Qassem Suleimani, the leader of Iran’s Quds Force and an archetypal hardliner of the regime. In his meticulous analysis, Filkins shows how the sharp edge of Iranian strategy is shaped significantly by perceptions of American global resolve. Where America is seen to be resolute and determined, Iran is deterred. Where America is seen to be timid and uncertain, Iran is emboldened.

And perceptions of U.S. credibility among players who are not part of a foreign regime are also important. Take America’s adversaries in the Middle Eastern media. Opinion makers there now present Obama as the master of a rudderless agenda. These populist narratives are important — they mobilize political agendas in ways that are either favorable or problematic for the United States.

We must always remember that the Middle East is a region beset by strategic paranoia. It harbors a political environment in which perception drives policy and perception thus makes reality. Consider the Syrian civil war. In the absence of American leadership on Syria, the Sunni Arab monarchies have moved to fill the vacuum. Indeed, the Saudis warned that this would happen when, last December, they threatened to be “more assertive.” We have seen the consequences of this new assertiveness. Lacking U.S. reassurance, the Sunni kingdoms have retrenched into hypersectarian fear. Specifically, they’ve allowed their citizens to fund Salafi jihadist groups that oppose Assad (and thus also Iran). And those jihadists have been doing what they do best — most recently, going on crucifixion rampages. Tellingly, the White House is now speeding up weapons transfers to more nationalist-minded Syrian rebels. The Sunni monarchies have shamed themselves by their actions, but perception of U.S. leadership does matter.

Still, there’s another major problem with Beinart’s argument: He, like the Obama administration itself, is blind to the necessity of understood purpose in foreign policy. Again, a recent example encapsulates this truth.

Last September, serving the president’s short-lived Syria authorization-of-force request, Secretary of State John Kerry and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Martin Dempsey, gave testimony to Congress. For much of the hearing, Dempsey appeared sullen. Why? Because he knew the administration’s policy represented the antithesis of basic strategy. First, the president had relinquished his authority as commander-in-chief by equivocating on his “red line.” Then, in the hearing, Kerry proudly trumpeted the administration’s intention of using strictly “limited” force. His portrayal of military strategy as a clean, simple mechanism of government was extraordinary. But don’t take my word for it, watch this video. Dempsey’s rebuke says it all — disgust. Disgust at the void between stated intention and strategic vision. And disgust at what that void did to American diplomacy. After all, barely a month before the hearing, Dempsey had been in Israeltrying to persuade a skeptical Netanyahu that America would prevent a nuclear-armed Iran. That day in Congress, Dempsey knew America’s credibility was suffering — and that a unilateral Israeli attack on Iran had become more likely.

Disgust, also, because Dempsey knew that America’s adversaries were also watching — and probably believing that America’s purposefully purpose-deficient foreign policy lacked the credibility to cause them to exercise restraint. (As a side note, it isn’t by chance that the U.S. Army’s leadership manual offers “influence” through “purpose” as its first principle.)

Today, America’s adversaries are watching the second and third acts of this spectacle of strategic vapidity. Act II: the administration’s cover-up of Assad’s continuing chemical warfare. Act III: the administration’s apparent unwillingness to respond seriously to Putin’s aggression — the Russian markets actually rallied after the latest “tough” U.S. sanctions.

Credibility matters.

So, yes, America’s foreign-policy challenges require in-depth consideration and debate. That’s especially important where military force is on the table. Nevertheless, when strength is proffered in words, those words must carry the perceived guarantee of action. Without that support, the echo of empty rhetoric finds its way into the strategic contemplations of others. The result is America’s diminished credibility and the invitation to aggression that this degradation represents.

via ▶ Six Days In June (Six Day War – Israeli victory) – Documentary – YouTube.

______________________________________

( For readers interested in learning about the 1967 war, this 2.5 hr documentary from PBS is the most complete and least one-sided that I have encountered.  HIGHLY RECOMMENDED. – JW )

An IMdb user review:

(10 of 10 stars)

Clear, very watchable account

This DVD is taken from the WGBM production directed by Ilan Ziv. It is admirably objective considering that Ziv was born in Israel and fought in the Yom Kippur War of 1973. He came to the US and graduated from New York University’s film school soon afterwards.

The film consists of interviews with soldiers and politicians from both the Arab and Israeli side along with footage shot during the war. I say the film is “admirably objective” but of course there is no such thing as absolute objectivity in such matters, and I am sure that Arab viewers will find the production disagreeable. This disagreement may stem largely from the fact that the Six Day War in June, 1967 was an unmitigated disaster for Syria, Egypt, Lebanon, and especially for Palestine.

However, Israel’s swift and decisive victory brought with it no lasting peace. It did however humiliate the Arabs who imagined that they should be able to defeat such a tiny nation as Israel with Allah on their side and great leadership from Egypt’s charismatic President Gamal Adbel Nassar and Jordan’s King Hussein. To save face Arab leaders have done two things. One, they have inculcated the faithful with the notion that Israel won only because the US and other allies helped them; and Two, they have refused to acknowledge defeat holding onto the notion that the war is not over and that the Arab nations will yet achieve victory.

Ziv’s film emphasizes the political nature of the conflict, revealing the thinking of leaders on both sides, showing how Moshe Dayan assumed a position of power and influence just prior to the war and how Nassar deluded himself (or was deluded by his military people) into thinking the combined forces of Egypt, Syria and Jordan could defeat the Israelis. In the United States President Lyndon Johnson was advised by his military people that if the Israelis struck first they would win in a week or so, if second, it would take them perhaps two weeks. Johnson remarked (at the time mired in Vietnam) that his generals did a great job of analyzing prospective wars in which they would not be involved, or words to that effect.

Ziv reminds the viewer that the war could have escalated into a much wider conflict, possibly bringing in the Soviet Union on the side of the Arabs and the US on the side of Israel. Some teletype messages between Soviet Premier Aleksei Kosygin and Johnson are recalled.

Some facts gleaned from the film: Israel struck first with well-timed, precision bombing of Arab airfields so that the Arab states were left with no air power. The war was, effectively speaking, over then within hours of its start. However, when the report of the air disaster reached Nassar, instead of seeking peace as fast as possible, he ordered propaganda broadcasts repeat with fictitious “victories.” Black and white film clips show the Arabs in jubilant celebration. How cruel it was when the truth came a few days later.

Israeli’s preemptive first strike was prompted by the military build up by Egypt and Nassar’s closing of the Strait of Hormuz, which most authorities consider an act of war. The film strongly suggests that if Israel had not acted first it would have suffered many more casualties, especially from Arab air power.

And then there is the famous phone call from the Arab states that never came. The Israelis were willing to trade land for peace, but the Arabs decided to pretend that the war would continue and so they did not negotiate a peace treaty. The reason the actual fighting ended is because the super powers and the United Nations demanded that Israel halt its advances.

There is some almost nostalgic footage of Moshe Dayan, Israeli’s heroic Defense Minister who led the armed forces to victory, and some of indecisive Prime Minister Levi Eshkol. Ziv recreates the story of their difference of opinion on what Israel should do and how Dayan’s position prevailed.

The real losers in the war have turned out to be the Palestinian people who have been under occupation since the war ended. The Arab states that were instrumental in bringing about this human tragedy seem content to blame Israel while doing nothing substantive to help the Palestinians. Indeed a significant portion of the terrorism directed at Israel and the West is motivated by spiteful spasms of revenge by Arabs who are desperate to somehow erase what they see as a humiliating defeat. How much wiser it would be to realize that what happened in 1967 reflects not at all on the manhood of anyone living today, or even then for that matter. Israel won because it could not lose. “Manhood” and heroic acts of valor or lack thereof have nothing to do with it.

Sadly, as many others have noted, Israel may win all the battles and all the wars and yet never achieve peace. Theirs is an unenviable position. As long as they exist in the midst of Arab nations who hate them and teach their children to hate, they will always be on a military footing. Only when the old hatreds die, some many years from now, will there be lasting peace in the Holy Lands.

Israel Hayom | ‘Israeli spying in US crosses red lines’.

Newsweek reporter Jeff Stein cites classified U.S. intelligence document on “Jerusalem’s efforts to steal U.S. secrets under the cover of trade missions and joint defense technology contracts” • Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman slams “malicious” report.

Eli Leon, Shlomo Cesana and Israel Hayom Staff

U.S. intelligence officials told Congress members that Israel has “gone too far” with its spying in the U.S., with an emphasis on seeking industrial and technical secrets, according to a Newsweek article published on Tuesday.

“Jerusalem’s efforts to steal U.S. secrets under the cover of trade missions and joint defense technology contracts have ‘crossed red lines,'” Newsweek reporter Jeff Stein wrote, citing a classified document.

According to the report, U.S. intelligence sources tasked with counterespionage, say Israel’s spying activities “go far beyond” those of other allies like Germany, France, Britain and Japan.

One congressional staffer called the testimony “alarming, terrifying.” Another was quoted calling it “damaging.”

“No other country close to the United States continues to cross the line on espionage like the Israelis do,” a congressional staffer said in the report.

While the intelligence officials did not give details in the report, a former congressional aide called Israel’s activities “industrial espionage — folks coming over here on trade missions or with Israeli companies working in collaboration with American companies, [or] intelligence operatives being run directly by the government, which I assume meant out of the [Israeli] Embassy.”

“Israel doesn’t conduct espionage operations in the United States, period. We condemn the fact that such outrageous, false allegations are being directed against Israel,” Israeli Embassy in Washington spokesman Aaron Sagui said in response.

Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman on Wednesday denied the claims made by Newsweek, calling them baseless and “malicious.”

Speaking to Israel Radio, Lieberman said Israel was not in any way involved in spying on the U.S., and that the story was likely put together by parties seeking to damage relations between the two countries.

“Israel is not spying on the U.S., not directly and not indirectly,” he said.

The article comes after some Congress members called for allowing Israeli citizens to join the 38 other countries allowed to visit the U.S. without a visa. Some opposed to the move have said allowing waiving the visa requirement would lead to increased Israeli spying on the U.S.

Israel Hayom | Obama’s plan for Iran.

Clifford D. May