WarSclerotic

Return Gaza to the Stone Age, Israel Hayom, Amos Regev, July 9, 2014

Israel must destroy the arsenal Hamas has built up over the past decade. The only way to do this: an extensive ground operation.

IDF tanks on the Gaza border, Tuesday | Photo credit: AFP

The Gaza Strip must be returned to the Stone Age. Not in the sense of destroying every home and all the infrastructure, which would leave Gaza residents wandering among ruins. Rather, Israel should eliminate every rocket, bomb and gun in Gaza. In other words, get rid of the arsenal Hamas has accumulated over the past 10 years. The snake must be defanged, leaving Hamas without rockets. The most it would have left would be stones.

There is only one way to do this — an extensive ground operation. This must be carried out with determination and clenched lips, with the knowledge that this is a war of no choice.

Over the past decade, intentionally or negligently, Israeli governments have allowed Gaza to turn into a terror base. There have been military operations and targeted assassinations, yet Gaza terror groups, led by Hamas, have nevertheless been able, via both smuggling from outside Gaza and internal production, to build up stockpiles of rockets. This has created a “balance of terror” between Israel, with its large and sophisticated army and air force, and Hamas, armed with several thousand rockets. Israeli deterrence has been eroded by Hamas’ ability to strike the central Gush Dan area.

This is an intolerable situation, yet it has become a fact. Given the current circumstances, the time has come to change this reality. Restoring quiet would not be enough. Rather, Israel must return Hamas to a situation in which the most it can do is throw stones. This is how it was when Hamas was founded, in Gaza, during the First Intifada. But since then, particularly over the past 10 years, Hamas equipped itself with long-range rockets. It would take only 10 days to return Hamas to the Stone Age.

The current crisis began with horrible kidnapping and murder of the three Israeli teens last month. This was followed by the revolting killing of the Arab teen, after which the violence in Gaza and its surrounding area began. Three and a half weeks passed between the start of the crisis and the launch of Operation Protective Edge. On one hand, the government could perhaps be praised for the levelheadedness, restraint and sound judgment it exhibited before ordering the Israel Defense Forces to launch Operation Protective Edge. On the other hand, the government could perhaps be questioned over why it took so long for it to give such a necessary order.

But on Monday, the order was given. Thousands of reserve soldiers have been called up. Our forces are preparing. The Israeli Air Force is attacking. And Hamas is continuing to do what it does.

There are moments in the life of a nation when history is made. This could be such a moment, if we utilize it. This time, the method must be different — no pinpricks or surgical strikes, but rather a massive concentration of force.

Instead of battalions or brigades, whole divisions must march shoulder to shoulder, moving forward like a steamroller, slowly but also very powerfully. Anyone familiar with military history knows how this method works. It has been used successfully in the past. Not on the “modern battlefield,” but the battlefields of old. A massive concentration of force covering every meter of the front, rolling into Gaza, destroying all points of resistance, blowing up every tunnel and eliminating the entire terrorist arsenal there. After completing the mission, the force will pull out.

Such an operation would enjoy the support of the Israeli public, including residents of the south, who have suffered enough, and residents of the center and the north, who are now being threatened by the long-range rockets of Hamas.

The task assigned to our forces must be much more than “returning the quiet.” The order must be to eliminate Hamas’ ability to threaten us. And when our forces depart Gaza, they must leave Hamas, or what remains of it, back in the Stone Age.

Gaza rockets aimed at Israel: What would you do with just 15 seconds? Fox News, Kenneth Bandler, July 9, 2014

July 5, 2014: An Iron Dome air defense system fires to intercept a rocket from Gaza Strip in the costal city of Ashkelon, Israel. (AP Photo/Tsafrir Abayov)

For those not blinded by unmitigated hope, it is clear that Hamas never changed one bit. And so it was disappointing that the White House and State Department, followed by our European allies, so quickly welcomed formation of the Palestinian unity government, instinctively accepting the Palestinian narrative that this Fatah-Hamas marriage, blessed by President Abbas, would be the panacea to advance the peace process.

Tragically, the international community has long ignored the evil festering in Hamas-ruled Gaza. Indeed, Gaza was barely mentioned during Secretary of State John Kerry’s nine-month effort to achieve a negotiated two-state settlement. That hopeful effort was buried when Abbas rebuffed Kerry’s last-minute attempt to extend the talks that summarily ended in April. Abbas has not been held accountable for joining up with Hamas, nor has any government that recognized the marriage pressed him to declare a divorce.

Hope is not policy. Amidst the escalating conflict, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu is wondering whom he can trust as he carefully considers options to protect all of Israel’s citizens.

Imagine that wherever you live in the United States you have only 15 seconds to reach a secure place to avoid a rocket or missile. Seriously, count down from 15 to 1, and think about what you would do. For more than 3.5 million Israelis, Jews and Arabs, their mental stopwatch is ticking as Hamas extends the reach of its barrage from Israeli communities near the Gaza border to Hadera, 26 miles north of Tel Aviv.

Some of the hundred-per-day rockets have been stopped by Israel’s Iron Dome anti-missile system. Most have landed in open fields or in buildings that, by chance, were empty. But given past experience with Hamas, the deadly projectiles are likely to soon maim or kill.

The international community has long ignored the evil festering in Hamas-ruled Gaza.

A few years ago, I visited Sderot, the Israeli town that has borne the brunt of Hamas rockets for years. I stood next to a crater in a kindergarten playground where a Qassam rocket had landed the previous Saturday. Since that was the Jewish Sabbath, the 50-plus children were not on site. Then, as now, it has largely been good fortune that Hamas has failed to inflict mass casualties, but they have vowed to not give up.

The current Hamas offensive began shortly after Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas refused to extend peace talks with Israel, and instead formed a unity government with the unrepentant terrorist organization on June 2. The frequency and reach of rockets fired into Israel increased after three Israeli teens, abducted and murdered by Hamas, were found on June 30. Hamas leaders, who earlier had encouraged the kidnapping of Israelis, now both celebrated and denied responsibility for the abduction.

One twisted narrative, reported as fact by some Western media, is that Hamas was “provoked” by Israeli actions aimed at bringing to justice the individuals responsible for killing the teens. But that myopic view belies the very essence of Hamas, which is intent on using all kinds of violence to fulfill its mission of destroying the State of Israel. While it does not have the capacity to overwhelm the IDF, Hamas can certainly wreak havoc, and right now is doing its best to provoke a wider conflict.

It did not have to be this way. In 2005, Gaza was liberated as Israel withdrew totally and transferred the territory to the Palestinian Authority, as a first step towards the potential achievement of a two-state solution. But Hamas never shared that vision of peace, and immediately after seizing control of Gaza in 2007, returned to its terrorist raison d’etre. Instead of finding ways to build constructively in Gaza, Hamas focused on acquiring and manufacturing rockets. Today, this remains Gaza’s primary export, and the rockets are arriving uninvited in Israel at a fast and furious pace.

For those not blinded by unmitigated hope, it is clear that Hamas never changed one bit. And so it was disappointing that the White House and State Department, followed by our European allies, so quickly welcomed formation of the Palestinian unity government, instinctively accepting the Palestinian narrative that this Fatah-Hamas marriage, blessed by President Abbas, would be the panacea to advance the peace process.

Tragically, the international community has long ignored the evil festering in Hamas-ruled Gaza. Indeed, Gaza was barely mentioned during Secretary of State John Kerry’s nine-month effort to achieve a negotiated two-state settlement. That hopeful effort was buried when Abbas rebuffed Kerry’s last-minute attempt to extend the talks that summarily ended in April. Abbas has not been held accountable for joining up with Hamas, nor has any government that recognized the marriage pressed him to declare a divorce.

Hope is not policy. Amidst the escalating conflict, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu is wondering whom he can trust as he carefully considers options to protect all of Israel’s citizens.

Will the international community get off the fence and unequivocally condemn Hamas’s relentless attacks on Israel? Will there be worldwide expressions of full solidarity with Israelis – men, women and children – forced to endure the ceaseless, frequent assaults?

And, most importantly, when Israel does take further actions, will world leaders ask themselves what they would do if their own countries were similarly threatened and attacked, and their citizens had only 15 seconds to find shelter?

And again: Hamas leadership hiding in basement of Shifa Hospital, Israel Matzav, July 9, 2014

(IF the story is accurate, perhaps the Shifa Hospital’s basement should be a principal target if and when IDF ground forces go into Gaza. — DM)

As in 2009, Hamas is using Shifa Hospital to hide its leadership, and as in 2012, it is using the hospital as part of its war effort (link in Hebrew) (Hat Tip: Shaul). This one is only three short paragraphs, so I will translate it and then ask a question.

A journalist source who is close to security sources in the Middle East says ‘Hamas’ leadership is taking advantage of the underground structures underneath the Shifa Central Hospital in Gaza as a hideout for commanders and Hamas leaders to protect them against attack by the Israel Air Force.

“In the ongoing battle between Hamas and the Israeli army,” the source further related, “Hamas leaders aren’t just using the underground facility at Shifa Hospital as a hideout, but also as a command center for Hamas’ leaders and commanders, and from here all orders are issued to Hamas activists in the field. Shifa Hospital, which is in the Rimal district in Gaza, is one of the main absorption centers for treating the sick and wounded in Gaza.”

Ironically, in 1980, Israel helped renovate Shifa Hospital in an effort to improve relations with the ‘Palestinians.’ Part of the Israeli renovation included a large underground basement, which includes offices and hospital rooms to absorb the wounded. Until 1940, the facility was a medical base for the British army, until 1950 when the Egyptians, who then ruled the Gaza Strip, turned it into a hospital. According to the source, “during an emergency you can enter the facility through hidden, underground tunnels, which are hundreds of meters away from the facility.”

Many years ago, I had a beehive in front of my house in New Jersey. To get rid of the bees, I waited until nightfall, sprayed the entrance to the beehive with alcohol, and then set it on fire. The bees were forced out in the dark and were unable to return.

Did we build these tunnels or did the ‘Palestinians’? Do we know where the entrances are? (If we built them, then obviously we do). If yes, why aren’t we closing off those entrances so that the only way out is if they come out the front door, where they can be picked off like low-hanging fruit? You know, flush them out like the bees….

Anyone know the answer?

Iran’s Path to the Bomb, Front Page Magazine, Charles Bybelezer, July 9, 2014

According to most estimations, the focus of the talks has shifted from dismantling Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, as demanded by Jerusalem, to creating a verification network that would, ideally, grant inspectors unfettered access to Iranian sites to ensure the peaceful nature of its nuclear operations.

In “Inspections: The Weak Link in a Nuclear Agreement with Iran,” Dore Gold, a former Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations and currently an advisor to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, questions “the advisability of erecting a comprehensive agreement with Iran that is so highly dependent upon the efficacy of its inspection system and the willingness of Iran to agree to what some analysts call unprecedented levels of transparency.”

As nuclear negotiations resume between Iran and world powers, it is becoming increasingly clear that any deal signed will be considered negatively by Israel as “ill-conceived.”

According to most estimations, the focus of the talks has shifted from dismantling Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, as demanded by Jerusalem, to creating a verification network that would, ideally, grant inspectors unfettered access to Iranian sites to ensure the peaceful nature of its nuclear operations.

In “Inspections: The Weak Link in a Nuclear Agreement with Iran,” Dore Gold, a former Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations and currently an advisor to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, questions “the advisability of erecting a comprehensive agreement with Iran that is so highly dependent upon the efficacy of its inspection system and the willingness of Iran to agree to what some analysts call unprecedented levels of transparency.”

The drawbacks should be evident, especially when considering Iran’s ongoing refusal to grant the IAEA access to its Parchin facility, where the UN nuclear watchdog believes Tehran has conducted military research into the development of atomic weapons. That the underground Fordow nuclear plant remained unknown to the West for years casts further doubt on both the Islamic Republic’s trustworthiness and the ability of monitors to keep tabs on the whole of its nuclear activities.

The fact that U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry recently revealed that Iran’s breakout capacity stands at a mere two months should alone obviate any such deal, as this window is surely too close for comfort.

Nonetheless, it appears as though the prospects of reversing the Islamic Republic’s nuclear progress by significantly reducing the number of its centrifuges is off the table.

In the prescient words of Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif, the “talks are not about nuclear capability…they are about Iranian integrity and dignity.”

But the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism is undeserving of respect.

Iran continues to fuel the debauchery in Syria, and now has boots on the ground in Iraq; with the aim there, in conjunction with local Shiite fighters, almost certainly to carve out an Iranian protectorate.

Moreover, the widely held belief that Iran opposes the Sunni terror group ISIS, which is active in both Iraq and Syria, is tenuous at best, with recent reports suggesting the organization may well have been spawn by Tehran.

As the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs’ Pinhas Inbari recently pointed out, “the more time passes, the more this notion of a link between ISIS, Syrian and Iranian intelligence has become fixed in the minds of leading Arab analysts.”

To support this claim, Inbari highlights a February 2012 U.S. Treasury Department document which states that ISIS’ precursor, “al-Qaeda in Iraq,” was provided with money and weapons by Iran. He also raises the intriguing possibility that Iran facilitated ISIS’ advances in Iraq in order to force the U.S. to deepen its coordination with Tehran.

As journalist Melanie Phillips recently noted in the Jerusalem Post, “the Iranian leadership [has] suggested the price of its ‘help’ in ‘stabilizing’ Iraq would be a deal over its nuclear program.”

And this is the key point: The road to an Iranian bomb is paved with instability.

Iran’s carefully crafted plan is two-tiered; first, to foment widespread regional unrest, thereby removing the focus on is illicit nuclear work while, concurrently, convincing the West, which shuns chaos in favor of stability, that the only solution is to engage, rather than defeat, Iran.

And it has worked.

The West has misunderstood, or otherwise turned a blind eye to, Iran’s strategy, devised to buy time while Tehran becomes a nuclear power, which, in turn, will allow it to pursue its ultimate ambition of spreading its Islamic “revolution” throughout the world.

The ramifications of an expansionist, nuclear-armed Iran would be devastating.

Even without the bomb, in the near future Iran will effectively control territory spanning from eastern Iraq to southern Lebanon. The so-called Shi’ite crescent warned of years ago by Jordan’s King Abdullah is, for all intents and purposes, a fait accompli.

An Iran with atomic bombs can be expected to set its sights on Sunni Gulf states, including Kuwait and Bahrain, where its meddling during the Arab Spring prompted Saudi Arabia to deploy troops to the country.

In fact, Tehran appears to be on a collision course with Riyadh (which, parenthetically, is alleged to have pre-paid atomic weapons waiting for it in Pakistan).

Were tensions to explode between the Mullahs and the House of Saud, the entire region could be drawn into a bloody conflict; not unlike the Sunni-Shiite proxy war currently being waged in Syria, although the effects of a direct clash between the leading purveyors of these competing forms of Islam would, almost inconceivably, be much worse.

Like it or not, such a prospect would force the hand of the United States, which could not sit idly by as its allies, as well as the global oil economy, became endangered.

It is possible that an emboldened Russia would likewise become involved, at the very least as an arms supplier, and perhaps even ascendant China if to protect its growing interests in the region.

Israel, undoubtedly, would be targeted by its enemies and thus dragged into the fighting.

This is but a snapshot of the bleak picture facing the Middle East if Iran goes nuclear, and the Obama administration in particular is seemingly oblivious.

While the U.S. president reiterated last month—this time to his outgoing Israeli counterpart—that he remains committed to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, Obama’s words are no longer trusted by many in Jerusalem given his willingness (eagerness) to treat a rogue regime, ideologically committed to the West’s destruction, as a friend.

Hence the recent dispatch to Washington of Israeli National Security Adviser Yossi Cohen and Intelligence Minister Yuval Steinitz, in order to spell out the Jewish state’s positions perhaps for the last time.

Speaking to prior to his departure, Steinitz made clear that a good deal “will not allow the Iranians to remain a nuclear threshold state…. Our position is that an agreement needs to be based not only on supervision and verification, but on dismantling infrastructure,” he affirmed.

Netanyahu likewise weighed in last week, granting interviews to major television networks in each of the P5+1 countries.

“Inspectors can be deceived,” he warned, before advocating for an agreement along the lines of the Syrian one, which “remove[s] what’s not destroyed.”

But given Obama’s ongoing rapprochement with Iran, Israel’s expectations are surely being tempered. In fact, it would be surprising if the government was not already intensifying covert preparations for “plan-B.”

What this entails could be revealed as early as July 21st, the day after the deadline for a nuclear agreement is set to expire.

Only then will it become known whether Netanyahu is serious about preventing an Iranian bomb—and the lengths to which he is willing to go in order to do so.

Op-Ed: Why This Operation is Different, Israel National News, Phyllis Chesler, July 9, 2014

Operation Protective Edge may look like its predecessors–Operation Cast Lead in 2008-9 and Operation Pillar of Defense in 2012–in that it is a response to Palestinian terrorism launched from Gaza against Israeli civilians. The previous two rounds of the conflict ended with Hamas still in power in the Gaza Strip, weakened but able to re-arm over time and to project a strategic threat. There are five reasons, however, this time may be different.

1. By Attacking Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, Hamas Has Invited Its Own Destruction. By launching its Iranian-and Syrian-made missiles against Israel’s two major cities–especially Tel Aviv, normally a safe distance from conflict–Hamas has broken the unwritten rules of the game. It has long been known that Hamas in the south and Hezbollah in the north had the ability to reach those cities. But those groups had not exercised it.

Now that Hamas has shown it is willing to attack Israel’s commercial, spiritual, and political centers, the terror group has left Israel no choice but to destroy it completely. There is no way Israel can accept life under an active threat of rockets, enjoying safety only at Hamas’s whim. Attacking border towns like Sderot–or even, as in 2006, a northern city like Haifa–is one thing. Attacking Tel Aviv is a provocation Israel cannot ignore.

In particular, Netanyahu must maintain Israel’s deterrent. While he needs to keep forces at the ready in case of an attack from Hezbollah, or a more direct escalation by Iran, he knows that if he fails to show that Israel is ready to defend itself, he will strengthen Tehran. With nuclear negotiators just days away from their deadline for a (bad) deal, Netanyahu needs to maintain pressure on Iran–and remind the U.S. it can act on its own.

2. Obama Is on the Wrong Side–and Irrelevant. On the first day of Operation Protective Edge, President Obama published an op-ed in the left-wing daily Ha’aretz calling for “restraint” and a Palestinian state. As if to make clear that the publication was not an accident of timing, a senior Obama adviser gave a harsh speech to a peace conference in Tel Aviv the same day at which he blasted Israel for continuing to occupy the West Bank.

These gestures–informed, as usual, by misleading Palestinian demographic statistics that falsely predict Arab majorities in the near future–send the message that the White House disapproves of Israel’soperation and its general strategic posture. Normally, that would be very bad news for Israel. But it may help, ironically, because Obama has already alienated Israel to such an extent that the Israeli government feels at liberty to ignore him.

In addition, Israel previously held back due to political considerations in the U.S., cutting Cast Lead short in time for Obama’s inauguration, and postponing Pillar of Defense until Obama’s re-election campaign was over. This time conflict has erupted at the height of the midterm elections, meaning that anything Obama tries to do to stop Israel will boost Republican criticism of his foreign policy, and place Democrats in a tough spot.

3. None of Hamas’s Usual Allies Are Going to Help. Egypt, which as of last year was controlled by a very Hamas-friendly Muslim Brotherhood, is now run by Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, who led a military coup that pushed the Muslim Brotherhood out of power, cutting off a critical source of military and diplomatic support. The fact that Hamas is the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood means Sisi has no love for the organization.

Iran might normally be expected to help, especially by smuggling weapons and stirring up Hezbollah to create a potential second front for Israel in Lebanon. However, Iran is tied down in fighting to defend the Assad regime in Syria and the Maliki regime in Iraq. Syria has long since expelled Hamas from Damascus, and Jordan is too preoccupied with the threat of ISIS to care. Even ISIS is too busy to make Israel a priority. Hamas is on its own.

4. Iron Dome Has Neutralized Hamas’s Offensive Arsenal. Though Hamas targeted Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, those two cities have (thus far) emerged unscathed, thanks to the effectiveness of Israel’s Iron Dome system, which tracks and destroys small, short-range projectiles. (Here the Obama administration will try to take some credit for Israel’s security, although the project had U.S. support before Obama came to power.)

The other weapon Hamas still retains is kidnapping. It is still a potent threat, as last month’s abduction and murder to three Israeli teens shows. Yet to carry out that threat, Hamas must either rely on infiltrating from Gaza, which has become very difficult, or on activating terror cells in the West Bank, where the Israeli military operates relatively freely. There is a reason Hamas is resorting to its best weapons first: it is rather desperate.

5. There is Israeli Support for Invading Gaza. Or, rather, Netanyahu will pay a political price if he fails to do what is necessary to oust Hamas. That could include re-occupying Gaza for some time–not re-introducing the settlements that were abandoned in the 2005 disengagement, but enforcing stability and preventing Hamas from operating militarily or politically in the Strip, withdrawing only once its terror infrastructure is destroyed.

The Israel peace camp has become a joke. On Tuesday, attendees at a conference of peace activists physically assaulted one of Israel’s conservative leaders. Though a few die-hards–including Israel’s outgoingPresident Shimon Peres–will stress the importance of negotiations and a two-state solution, the more potent political threat is on Netanyahu’s right, ready to exploit impressions that he has not done enough to secure Israel.

Iran: ‘Substantial differences’ remain in Vienna | The Times of Israel.

Diplomats familiar with the talks say uranium enrichment is the main bone of contention between the parties

By AP July 9, 2014, 4:27 pm

A meeting at the P5+1 talks with Iran at UN headquarters in Vienna, on July 3, 2014 (photo credit: AFP/Joe Klamar)

VIENNA — An Iranian official on Wednesday said that while some progress is being made at nuclear talks with six world powers ahead of a July 20 target date for a deal, “substantial differences” remain.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Marzieh Afkham spoke as negotiators worked on a draft agreement meant to curb Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for an end to sanctions.

Diplomats familiar with the closed-door talks say the main problem remains uranium enrichment, which can make both reactor fuel and the core of a nuclear weapon.

Iran denies wanting nuclear arms but insists on having either 50,000 enriching centrifuges, or fewer but more advanced machines with the same total output. The US wants to a much smaller program.

Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany are also at the Vienna talks.

Copyright 2014 The Associated Press.

Lecturing us on security, as the rockets fly in | The Times of Israel.

The White House’s Middle East coordinator gave a risible speech Tuesday, asserting that the US knows how to keep Israel safe, at a conference that was halted by a Hamas attack

An Iron Dome Missile Battery near Tel Aviv, on the first day of Operation Protective Edge, July 8, 2014. (

Sometimes you don’t know whether to laugh or cry. On Tuesday, at a conference organized by the Haaretz daily in Tel Aviv, the White House’s Coordinator for the Middle East, Philip Gordon, delivered an address that dealt at some length with the US effort to both broker an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal and draw up the security arrangements that would leave Israel feeling safe enough to carry out significant territorial withdrawals.

Gordon made lots of valid points about Israel’s essential interests requiring an accommodation with the Palestinians. But parts of his oration read as though Gordon is a recent arrival from Planet Zog who has mistaken the Middle East for Finland.

You can read the entire address here, but the first passage I want to highlight is one of the questions Gordon puts to us Israelis — as a representative of “Israel’s closest friend” — when he wonders, “how will [Israel] have peace if it is unwilling to delineate a border, end the occupation and allow for Palestinian sovereignty, security, and dignity?” The answer, of course, is that we won’t. Unfortunately, as things stand, however, we won’t have peace, either, if we do “end the occupation and allow for Palestinian sovereignty, security, and dignity.”

You’d think this sad truth might have permeated the administration’s mindset by now, as it surveys the dismal, terror-riven Middle East, and contemplates the abject collapse of its policies in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and the rest of the area. But no, Gordon goes on to explain that America will always have our back, and sets out his conviction, undimmed by grisly Middle Eastern reality, that it can help provide us with the security we need against those who would wipe us out. “We know that many Israelis fear withdrawal from the West Bank due to the experience in Gaza, from which rockets continue to strike Israel, notwithstanding the full withdrawal of Israeli troops and settlements,” he offers magnanimously. “But it is precisely this outcome that we are determined to ensure is never repeated. That is why President Obama, supported by Secretary of State Kerry and Secretary of Defense Hagel, asked General John Allen to lead a Security Dialogue with the Israel Defense Forces regarding Israel’s security in a two-state context. General Allen, a recently retired four-star Marine Corps general, is one of the sharpest military minds in the United States. He has worked closely with Israeli counterparts for years. There is no American better suited for this job.”

And how is this supremely suited officer going to keep us safe in the spectacularly unstable Middle East? “For over a year now, General Allen has coordinated closely with his Israeli counterparts in the IDF to fully understand Israel’s security challenges from Israel’s perspective in a two-state context. He and his team have developed a broad series of approaches to security that address, but are certainly not limited to, the Jordan River Valley. We believe these approaches can make Israel more secure than it is today, and are consistent with the sovereignty of a future Palestinian state.”

Unfortunately, Gordon can’t give us all the specifics — “the details of this work remain classified.” But he is at liberty “to make clear that General Allen and his IDF counterparts are taking into account a range of contingencies, including the rising threats we see around the Middle East today…” And “the bottom line is that, based on this Security Dialogue, we are confident that, together with Israel, Jordan and the Palestinians, we can create a comprehensive approach to security, proven through operational testing, to meet the highest standards anywhere in the world.”

Why does Gordon’s championing of these security arrangements — presented as a veritable panacea that we foolish Israelis have pigheadedly spurned — sound so particularly risible? Because he was speaking soon after the very conference he was addressing in the David Intercontinental Hotel had been forced to shut down temporarily, its participants evacuated to a safer floor of the hotel.

And why was that? Because Tel Aviv was being targeted by rocket fire, and the sirens were wailing to warn of incoming warheads.

And where were the rockets being fired from? Oh, that would be the Gaza Strip, controlled by an organization called Hamas, on whose support the Palestinian unity government of Mahmoud Abbas rests. That’s the unity government, sworn in early last month, that the US administration immediately announced it would work with because, as Kerry explained, Abbas had “made clear that this new technocratic government is committed to the principles of nonviolence, negotiations, recognizing the state of Israel, acceptance of the previous agreements and the Quartet principles.”

Of course it is.

Just to avoid any misunderstandings about where I’m coming from: Yes, Israel needs an accommodation with the Palestinians. Yes, we must retain a Jewish, democratic Israel. Yes, ruling the lives of another people is bad for them and lousy for us.

Fixing the conflict, however, will not be advanced by our “closest friend” repeatedly berating us for our perceived self-destructive idiocy. Gordon is the latest, minor culprit. It is the president who is principally to blame, including in interviews such as this one — which, incidentally, was not followed by a similar interview querying Abbas’s policies when the PA leader visited Washington soon after. Peace does not solely depend on our willingness to end the occupation and give the Palestinians sovereignty, security and dignity. It also requires a Palestinian leadership and a Palestinian public truly committed to Israel’s ongoing sovereignty, security and dignity.

Our closest friend doesn’t help us, or the Palestinians, or its regional interests, by pretending that a government whose ministers were subject to a Hamas veto is not compromised by that association. It doesn’t help by heaping disproportionate blame on Israel for failures in the peace process, heightening the Palestinian sense of grievance, reducing the likelihood of Palestinian compromise, and legitimizing the assaults on Israel’s very existence by those who are not our closest friends. And it doesn’t help by failing to acknowledge that it hasn’t got a clue as to how to protect its own interests from “a range of contingencies, including the rising threats we see around the Middle East today,” much less protect our interests.

Gordon delivered his speech after the Iron Dome missile defense system kept him safe from Hamas’s rockets, launched by an organization which his administration has implicitly legitimized as an acceptable backer of the Palestinian government. The US, to its great credit, has funded Iron Dome’s development. But the security innovations behind its life-savingly effective performance are Israeli.

There’s a lesson in there which Gordon and the rest of the Obama administration should have long since internalized. It’s that our closest friend should be just a little less arrogant in telling us what we need and don’t need to do in order to keep ourselves safe.

2 Reasons why Hamas are not victims, American Military News, July 9, 2014

Hamas terrorists placing rocket launchers @ #palestine ‘s daycares, causing dozens of casualties to their own people

Once again, Hamas has shelled Israel for long enough that the Jewish nation cannot sit by any longer.

There will now be a game of equivalency played, as the world pretends there are no monsters left, or that both sides are equally monstrous. But monsters there are, and both sides are not the same.

In Gaza, Hamas puts its rockets in daycare centers and other places where noncombatants, especially children, will be hurt when the inevitable Israeli counterattack comes — but that is Hamas.

As the Middle Eastern Forum put it,

No terrorist group is a party to the Geneva Conventions. They have not signed, much less ratified, those treaties. Moreover, it is evident that Hamas, Hezbollah, and members of the global Al-Qaeda network spurn both the spirit and the letter of international treaties designed to ameliorate the cruelty of war. Bloody attacks in New York, Jerusalem, Bali, Madrid, and Beslan are testament to the fact that these groups seek to kill civilians rather than to take captives. And when Islamist terrorists do seize hostages, brutality rather than protection appears to be the rule.

It is a war crime, under the Geneva Conventions, to use civilians as human shields. The harm that comes to the shield is the fault of the evil men who take up residence with the innocent. Hamas do not accept these rules. Not only do they make no attempt to spare civilians the destruction of war, but they actively try to bring harm to noncombatants, including children.

But that is Hamas.

When the attack comes and children are hurt or killed, there will be an outcry for justice, for those who kill or maim the innocent to be punished, and the guilty party brought down.

But that is Hamas.

By the way, the “2 Reasons” from the title are standing together in the title photo.

US Mid East Envoy: Israel Cruel Occupier, Abbas Man of Peace, The Jewish Press, Lori Lowenthal Marcus, July 9, 2014

(Please see also To Win This War, Israelis Must Believe in Justice of Zionism. — DM)

Gordon, apparently one not able to omit a single failed policy from his noxious stew of Israeli Insults also slips in that adjective beloved by all haters of Israel: contiguity, and the insistence on the Green Line with land swaps, as the only permissible peace template.

Philip Gordon, U.S. Special Envoy to the Middle East, demanded Israel make changes and accept peace at the Haaretz Peace Conference on July 8, 2014. Photo Credit: YouTube

Philip Gordon is U.S. Special Assistant to the President and White House Coordinator for the Middle East, North Africa, and the Gulf Region. Gordon was appointed to this position in March of 2013.

In a tongue-lashing directed solely at Israel, Gordon embodied the grotesquely unbalanced position of this U.S. administration, claiming the supporters of terrorism are peaceful, and the supporters of peace are akin to terrorists.

Gordon was speaking at the ill-fated Haaretz Peace Conference. Ill-fated because it was revealed to be both hypocritical and unerringly ill-timed. During the “peace” conference attendees verbally and physically attacked Naftali Bennett, a member of the Israeli Knesset. The tzeva adom rang through the building in Tel Aviv where the conference was held, forcing those present to run and seek shelter in doorways. Some peace conference.

But the speech given by Gordon was astounding in its sole focus on Israel as the party in the conflict which needs to change, Israel as the sole party in the conflict which needs to accommodate, Israel as the sole party in the conflict which needs to grasp the opportunity to make peace with its enemy, “before it is too late.”

There was not one sentence in a very lengthy speech which took Abbas to task either for demanding the release of all “political prisoners,” i.e. murderers, or for glorifying and providing pensions for genocidal terrorists, or for insisting that its hoped-for future state would be one that practices apartheid and will be judenrein.

The following are only some of the most egregious and aggressively naive comments made by Philip Gordon in Tel Aviv on Tuesday, July 8:

Israel confronts an undeniable reality: it cannot maintain military control of another people indefinitely. Doing so is not only wrong but a recipe for resentment and recurring instability. It will embolden extremists on both sides, tear at Israels democratic fabric, and feed mutual dehumanization.

As the President has said, neither occupation nor expulsion is the answer. Just as Israelis built a state in their homeland, Palestinians have a right to be a sovereign, free, and secure people in their own land.Or to quote one of your own leaders, Ariel Sharon: It is impossible to have a Jewish democratic state, at the same time to control all of Eretz Israel. If we insist on fulfilling the dream in its entirety, we are liable to lose it all.

Reaching a peace agreement with the Palestinians would help turn the tide of international sentiment and sideline violent extremists, further bolstering Israels security. We know all too well the troubles that can arise for Israel internationally when there is no movement on the political track, especially when settlement activity continues to make the potential peace map more difficult and to undermine international support for Israel. On this, I should also be clear of the United States longstanding position: we consider settlements illegitimate and an impediment to progress on peace negotiations. Settlement announcements would be a counter-productive reaction to the kidnapping and murder of the three Israeli teenagers.

Really? How about this undeniable reality: Any Palestinian State will be a racist, terrorist state which will be fully militarized and which will not just “tear at Israel’s democratic fabric,” but will tear at – perhaps tear apart – Israel completely, which is the goal of most of the leadership of the Palestinian Arabs.

And thanks for that shot about the scariest thing in the Middle East, oh, not ISIS, not masked terrorists who love to plunge their hands into the carved open bodies of dead Jews, and not young adults who revel in sawing off the heads of Jewish infants, no, not those, but the far scarier houses for Israeli families!

Gordon continued:

In contrast, if we fail to come back to peace talks, renewed efforts to isolate Israel internationally and legitimize Palestinian statehood unilaterally are all but certain. The United States will do all it can to fight boycotts and other delegitimization efforts. But in many of these realms, particularly outside the Security Council, our ability to contain the damage is limited, and becoming more and more challenging. This is what American friends of Israel mean when they express concerns about the potential for Israeli isolation if peace talks do not succeed. Let me be absolutely clear that these are not threats. The United States will always have Israels back. Thats why we fight for it every day at the United Nations, where we have worked diligently to ensure Israel is treated fairly and on par with all other states.

But as Israels greatest defender and closest friend we owe it to you to ask fundamental questions which in fact many Israelis are asking themselves: how will Israel remain democratic and Jewish if it attempts to govern the millions of Palestinian Arabs who live in the West Bank? How will it have peace if it is unwilling to delineate a border, end the occupations and allow for Palestinian sovereignty, security, and dignity? How will we prevent other states from isolating Israel or supporting Palestinian efforts in international bodies if Israel is not seen as committed to peace?

As becomes clear from reading Gordon’s speech, his information about the Middle East must come from the New York Times or the Guardian. Did you notice that only Israel will be a pariah if the peace talks fail? The Palestinian Arabs, with no obligations, no responsibilities and no punishment if peace doesn’t break out, is the pitiable party suffering from occupation and deserving of “sovereignty, security and dignity.”

The remaining problematic paragraphs follow. Please note that Gordon takes arrogance to a new level by demanding Israel be prevented from undertaking any steps that are not dictated by the United States, and where the Arab Peace Initiative is portrayed as a great deal for the Jewish State. And Gordon, apparently one not able to omit a single failed policy from his noxious stew of Israeli Insults also slips in that adjective beloved by all haters of Israel: contiguity, and the insistence on the Green Line with land swaps, as the only permissible peace template. How’s that for patent support for this devil spawn of a creature, the Palestinian Unity Government?

Given where we find ourselves, it is understandable that some on both sides are looking at other options, some of which were presented at this conference today. But most of these are stop-gaps at best. At worst, they are a recipe for continued or increased conflict or isolation. A one-state solution is implausible, and would effectively mean an end to the Jewish and democratic nature of your state. Unilateral annexation of West Bank territories populated by Israelis is wrong, illegal, and a recipe for Israels isolation. The United States could never support it, and I doubt any of Israels other friends would. Other unilateral or interim measures may appear tempting alternatives, but they do not solve Israels and the Palestinians long-term problems. In fact, they could deepen them. The fact remains, only a negotiated solution two states for two peoples can give Israelis and Palestinians the futures they need and deserve.

Israel should not take for granted the opportunity to negotiate that peace with President Abbas, who has shown time and again that he is committed to nonviolence and coexistence with Israel.

President Obama has articulated his vision for what peace looks like on several occasions. It hasn’t changed. But it bears repeating today, and at this forum.

A lasting peace will involve two states for two peoples: Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people, and the state of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people, each state enjoying self-determination, mutual recognition, and peace. While the core issues of the conflict must be negotiated, the basis of those negotiations is clear: a viable Palestine, a secure Israel.

Negotiations should therefore result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. Any peace agreement will require robust security provisions that safeguard Israels security. And the Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their full potential, in an independent, sovereign and contiguous state.

Gordon’s presentation was a paean to appeasement and anti-Israel racism. It alone could have triggered the tzeva adom.

To Win This War, Israelis Must Believe in Justice of Zionism, The Jewish Press, Meir Halevi Siegel, July 9, 2014

Rather than settle for ceasefire, Israel needs a total Palestinian surrender – and then a serious long-term plan.

Damage from Qassam rocket attack at a home in Sderot, southern Israel, November 2012. (archive) Photo Credit: Edi Israel / Flash 90

In truth, wars have never ended with a simple military clop. Look at the American Civil War, in which the North which vastly outnumbered the south in terms of manpower, per capita income, industrial power and international diplomacy. But nonetheless, it took the North four-and-a-half years to emerge victorious, and decades longer of Reconstruction to restore the broken ties between civilians in the Union and former Confederate States of America.

Same for World War II – the fighting ended only when Germany and Japan surrendered to Allied forces unconditionally. After that, the Marshall Plan took a long-term approach to rebuilding Europe, and particularly Germany, in a manner to ensure that the country that had dragged the country into two world wars would not do so again. Same again for World War I, and other notable conflicts.

The common denominator that links these examples is that idea that a military victory, no matter how convincing, must be a first stage of a larger plan by the victors to remake the situation that led to the war in the first place.

That is where Israel has failed, time after time after time. In 1948, the War of Independence marked a clear victory over Arab attackers. But little thought was given to “what now” and to ways to remake Arab education in ways that would ensure equal minority rights and responsibilities in the new country in order to avoid a re-do of that war. We saw the results of that failure over the past week, in Kfar Manda, Tamra, Nazareth and other Arab-majority towns and neighborhoods around Israel.

Eitan Haber, who once served as right-hand man to Yitzhak Rabin, is right. Writing in this morning’s Yedioth Aharonoth, Haber notes that the rules of war have changed, and that nation states no longer have the ability to deliver a strong knockout punch to an enemy in the traditional sense.

What Haber, omits, of course, is that the reality he describes is not new, and is not limited to the Israel-Arab issue. As Haber himself notes, Israel’s most convincing military victory – the mythical Six Day War – was followed just two weeks later by a massive Egyptian attack at the Suez Canal, causing heavy casualties on our side.

More importantly, Haber is also shows once again that he is one of the prime examples of the Middle East’s cardinal rule: Never, ever learn from a mistake. “There is no military solution to the conflict [with Hamas, and with the Palestinians]. The solution must be political.” As proof of political success, he cites Israel’s relationships with Jordan and Egypt.

(So what if Dany Nevo, Israel’s ambassador to Jordan, says he has never walked around the neighborhood of the Israeli embassy in Amman, nor could he do so safely? Remember that attack on the Israeli embassy in Cairo back in 2011? Here’s a good experiment for Haber to test the “success” that he claims for those peace deals: Walk around either country with a kippa, or even a simple t-shirt with an Israeli flag on it. Then lets talk about how “successful” those treaties have been. But I digress.)

In truth, wars have never ended with a simple military clop. Look at the American Civil War, in which the North which vastly outnumbered the south in terms of manpower, per capita income, industrial power and international diplomacy. But nonetheless, it took the North four-and-a-half years to emerge victorious, and decades longer of Reconstruction to restore the broken ties between civilians in the Union and former Confederate States of America.

Same for World War II – the fighting ended only when Germany and Japan surrendered to Allied forces unconditionally. After that, the Marshall Plan took a long-term approach to rebuilding Europe, and particularly Germany, in a manner to ensure that the country that had dragged the country into two world wars would not do so again. Same again for World War I, and other notable conflicts.

The common denominator that links these examples is that idea that a military victory, no matter how convincing, must be a first stage of a larger plan by the victors to remake the situation that led to the war in the first place.

That is where Israel has failed, time after time after time. In 1948, the War of Independence marked a clear victory over Arab attackers. But little thought was given to “what now” and to ways to remake Arab education in ways that would ensure equal minority rights and responsibilities in the new country in order to avoid a re-do of that war. We saw the results of that failure over the past week, in Kfar Manda, Tamra, Nazareth and other Arab-majority towns and neighborhoods around Israel.

This point is even more clearly illustrate ion the context of 1967. After the destruction of the Egyptian and Syrian air forces, Israel accepted a ceasefire instead of absolute surrender from Egypt and Syria.  In Judea and Samaria, following 19 years of Jordanian occupation, Israel transformed what had been a third-world country into a first-world one under Israel. Roads and schools were built, universities established, electricity and water grids built and more.

I fear the common denominator between all these examples is a lack of belief in the moral and historical justice of Zionism. Could it be that we, as a society, ultimately do not believe in the justice of Zionism, in the right of Jews to live and prosper in the Land of Israel?

Too many Israelis, to say nothing of Jews around the world, are uncomfortable quoting the exalted words of our Declaration of Independence – “Eretz Yisrael was the birthplace of the Jewish people. Here their spiritual, religious and political identity was shaped. Here they first attained to statehood, created cultural values of national and universal significance and gave to the world the eternal Book of Books.” Too many Jews wilt when confronted with a fictional Arab narrative that accuses Jews of “stealing” a land to which Jews have no true connection. Because there were Arabs living in the Land of Israel during the 19th century, they believe the Zionist project was born in sin.

Ultimately, then, Haber is right: There is no such thing as a “z’bang and done” approach to war and peace. Israel must demand unconditional surrender from – all Palestinian groups, Fatah and Hamas alike- before agreeing to stopping Operation Protective Edge. But that must only be a first stage. Israelis want victory, but even more Israel must define what “victory” looks like. We must remove, once-and-for-all, Hamas’ ability to attack our civilians, but what then? The victory must be accompanied by a long-term plan to prevent future flare ups of the sort we are experiencing once again.

But that requires solid belief in the justice of our existence here. We must remember and internalise the message of the late Menachem Begin: “Our lives in Israel are not dependent on the principle of ‘might makes right.’ Our lives here because of the moral power of the justice of our cause.”