Archive for April 24, 2018

« WarSclerotic home page
« Older Entries

Is Israel-Iran clash imminent?

April 24, 2018

Ben Caspit April 23, 2018 Al-Monitor

Source Link: Is Israel-Iran clash imminent?

{A sustained war with Israel would drain an already faltering Iranian economy and I suspect they know it. – LS}

Senior members of the Israeli security establishment are predicting that the month of May will be one of the most volatile periods in the current era. Maj. Gen. (Res.) Amos Yadlin, the former head of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) Military Intelligence Directorate, said in an interview published April 22, “I have not seen a May this dangerous since May 1967.”

Of particular note, two of the five military fronts concerning Israel have rapidly escalated in recent months. In the campaign against Iran being waged in Syria, the two sides have inched closer to an unprecedented tipping point. The situation in Gaza has worsened, with mass marches and protests held at the border fence every Friday for the past four weeks, in addition to the ongoing humanitarian crisis in the enclave.

The odds for an all-out war between Israel and its opponents this summer are no longer miniscule. As I wrote April 18 in Al-Monitor, Defense Minister Avigdor Liberman said at a Cabinet meeting that it is possible that war will, indeed, erupt, and if so, Israel will have to cope with Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and the Lebanese army as well as Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Salafist groups in Gaza.

Many Israeli legislators are worried, because for the first time in a long time, consensus exists among Israel’s top brass about the situation and how to deal with it. There are no dissenting or minority opinions on the subject, no moderate voices warning against escalation and the possible results. It reminds some of Israel’s statesmen of the heady days between the 1967 war and before the eruption of the 1973 Yom Kippur war, which resulted in one of Israel’s greatest military catastrophes.

“The fact is that the entire military elite, the prime minister and the defense minister, all the Cabinet ministers, and almost all members of the opposition — even almost all of the media — are united behind the government’s policy,” said one source to Al-Monitor who served in several senior ministerial positions and requested anonymity. “This [unity] arouses my suspicions. It creates an unhealthy situation in which the prime minister and ministers do not stop for a minute to ask themselves, ‘Is this scenario truly unavoidable? Do we have an iron-clad reason to embroil ourselves in a war that might cause thousands of deaths on the Israeli home front as well?’”

An examination of Israel’s strategic situation shows the current period to be ripe in terms of a possible confrontation with Iran. Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is busy trying to survive and therefore would have no intention of taking an active part in such a conflict. Hezbollah, meanwhile, wants to retain its arsenal of rockets and missiles for “Judgement Day,” and therefore is distancing itself from possible conflict. Thus, assuming Iran has to face Israel alone, this scenario would be a golden, one-off opportunity for Israel to create new rules of the game and secure its redlines in Syria — that is, it will not tolerate an Iranian presence in Syria, period.

Such is the current thinking of Israel’s leadership. The problem is that in the case of a serious flare-up, basic working assumptions can vanish into thin air with the launching of hundreds or thousands of missiles from both sides.

In the last few days, Israel and Iran have found themselves fighting a war of words. Hossein Salami, the vice commander of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), threatened Israel with annihilation, claiming that all of Israel’s air force bases would be destroyed if a confrontation erupts. Meanwhile Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu retorted with equally harsh threats. Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif assumed the role of the responsible adult, dismissing a “regional war.” He also stated, however, “If they [Israel] continue to violate [the] territorial integrity of other states, there’ll be consequences.”

Israel views Gen. Qasem Soleimani, the head of the IRGC’s elite Quds Force, as the “head of the snake,” the man behind Iranian efforts to put Israel in a stranglehold. Soleimani leads the aggressive faction surrounding Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, while President Hassan Rouhani and his people share more moderate views and oppose Iran’s increasing involvement in Syria and the efforts expended to “export the revolution.”

According to intelligence that reached the West, Soleimani was behind the Iranian decision to disclose that seven IRGC members were killed in the April 8 assault attributed to Israel on the T4 air base near Homs. The names of the guards were released, and mass public funerals were held. Western intelligence sources believe that this was an attempt by Soleimani to force the Iranian leadership, mainly Rouhani, into acting against Israel and support a harsh military reprisal, for which Israel is waiting.

According to some assessments, Iran will try to retaliate using an Israeli approach: hitting a military base, inflicting losses on soldiers, but not targeting civilians. It is believed that the strike will be carried out from Syrian territory against a military target in northern Israel. The IDF is preparing for such a scenario, but what will Israel’s political echelon do after the Iranian reprisal? Will it decide to “contain” it and forgo retaliation? Undertake a symbolic reprisal or launch an aggressive assault to eliminate additional Iranian targets on Syrian territory? This last option might serve to turn the entire northern front into one big conflagration.

All eyes are focused on two triumvirates: Khamenei, Rouhani and Soleimani in Iran and Netanyahu, Liberman and IDF Chief of Staff Gen. Gadi Eizenkot in Israel. For the first time in ages, both sides are not certain they want to avoid a confrontation at all costs.

Netanyahu might well use the heating up on the northern front to neutralize or delay his trials and tribulations on the legal-criminal front. According to one scenario, he could try to assemble an emergency government by asking the opposition, led by Isaac Herzog in the Knesset and including the Zionist Camp (led by Avi Gabbay, chair of the Labor Party) and Yesh Atid (led by Yair Lapid), to join. This would enable him to appear as the nation’s leader in a time of crisis and downplay the police investigations tightening around him.

The chances that such a scenario will play out are not as low as they used to be. The closer the decisive moment gets, the more and brighter the warning lights. The traditional restraining elements in Israeli politics have been weakened, the consensus in Israel is worrisome and the slope is more slippery than ever. To this, one should add revelations in the April 23 edition of the Russian newspaper Kommersant, according to which Russia plans to supply Syria with an S-300 aerial defense system in the near future, free of charge. These revelations might generate a preventive Israeli strike, which could not only ignite that arena, but also drag Russia deeper into it.

 

Categories: Iran / Israel War
Tags:

Comments: 1 Comment

Trump: Denuclearization of North Korea ‘Means They Get Rid of Their Nukes’

April 24, 2018

BY:

Trump: Denuclearization of North Korea ‘Means They Get Rid of Their Nukes’

President Donald Trump said Tuesday he defined denuclearization of North Korea as the rogue country getting rid of all its nuclear weapons.

“Meetings are being set up, and I want to see denuclearization of North Korea. A lot of concessions have already been made,” Trump said at a White House press conference alongside French President Emmanuel Macron.

Trump said he had made no concessions on his side ahead of a planned summit with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un. North Korea announced last week through state media that it would immediately suspend nuclear and missile tests, as well as abolish a nuclear test site in what it called an effort to bring peace to the peninsula.

Trump tweeted Sunday North Korea had “agreed to denuclearization,” although Kim had not done so as defined by the Trump administration.

Asked how he defines denuclearization, Trump said it meant “they get rid of their nukes.”

“It means they get rid of their nukes. Very simple,” Trump said. “They get rid of their nukes, and nobody else would say it. It would be very easy for me to make a simple deal and claim victory. I don’t want to do that. I want them to get rid of their nukes.”

Categories: Uncategorized

Comments: 1 Comment

Donald Trump Warns Iran Against Restarting Nuclear Program: ‘They Restart it, They’re Going to Have Big Problems’

April 24, 2018

by Charlie Spiering 24 Apr 2018 Breitbart

Source Link: Donald Trump Warns Iran Against Restarting Nuclear Program: ‘They Restart it, They’re Going to Have Big Problems’

{I recommend the Iranians renegotiate this hideous nuke deal.  Trump won’t back down, and honestly, I think you’ve been warned. – LS}

President Donald Trump did not restrain giving his opinion about the “terrible” Iran nuclear deal on Tuesday during a meeting with French President Emmanuel Macron, warning Iran against restarting its nuclear program.

“You’ll find out about that. It won’t be so easy for them to restart. They’re not going to be restarting anything. They restart it, they’re going to have big problems, bigger than they’ve ever had before,” Trump said during his meeting with Macron at the White House.

The Iranians warned that if the United States withdrew from the deal, they would restart their efforts to develop nuclear weapons.

Trump repeated that the deal reached under the Obama administration was a “terrible deal.”

“It’s insane. It’s ridiculous,” Trump said when reporters about the deal. “It should never have been made, but we will be talking about it.”

Macron said the Iran deal was an important part of stabilizing the region, pointing out that it was important to contain Iranian influence.

Trump agreed that Iran was a problem.

“It just seems that no matter where you go, especially in the Middle East, Iran is behind it. Wherever there’s trouble — Yemen, Syria, no matter where you have it — Iran is behind it,” he said.

He added that, “unfortunately,” Russia was also getting more involved in the region.

Trump ridiculed former Secretary of State John Kerry for not addressing other important issues in the Iran deal at the time of the agreement.

“The Iran deal is a disaster,” he said, pointing out that Iran was continuing to test ballistic missiles and fund terrorism in the Middle East.

Categories: Iran nuclear deal
Tags:

Comments: 2 Comments

US admiral outlines new military buildup to counter China

April 24, 2018

The man nominated to run the US Pacific Command spells out his plans to contain Beijing on a number of fronts, from the oceans to space

By Bill Gertz April 24, 2018 1:43 PM (UTC+8)

http://www.atimes.com/article/us-admiral-outlines-new-military-buildup-to-counter-china/

The USS Carl Vinson aircraft carrier with Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force destroyers conducting an exercise in the Philippine Sea. Photo: US Navy via AFP

The American admiral slated to head the US Pacific Command is planning a buildup of American forces in the region along with closer alliances as part of the Pentagon’s new strategy to counter China.

Admiral Philip Davidson, the nominee for the command job, revealed in little-noticed testimony to a US Senate committee how he will restructure the 375,000 military and civilian personnel, 200 ships and nearly 1,100 aircraft in the region.

If confirmed for the position, a prospect likely in the coming weeks, Davidson said he would “recalibrate” the command in line with the Pentagon’s new national defense strategy.

“This effort entails ensuring the continued combat readiness of assigned forces in the western Pacific; developing an updated footprint that accounts for China’s rapid modernization and pursuing agreements with host nations that allow the United States to project power when necessary,” Davidson stated in written answers to questions posed by the panel.

Davidson did not elaborate on the plans.

But likely improvements in the US military posture are expected to include expanded naval forces with additional submarines and warships, including possibly a second forward-deployed aircraft carrier strike group. New deployments to Asia of advanced warplanes and drone aircraft also are expected, along with regional arms sales to American allies of ships, aircraft, missiles and drones.

Confronting China

“In the future, hypersonic and directed energy weapons, resilient space, cyber and network-capabilities, and well-trained soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and coastguardsmen, will be crucial to our ability to fight and win,” he said.

Current forces in the region do not support Pacom’s defense requirements, Davidson noted.

The comments by the admiral reflect the more muscular policies of US President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, who have made confronting Chinese aggressiveness in Asia and around the world a strategic priority.

In addition to building up partnerships and alliances in Asia, Davidson stated bluntly he will “collaborate with other elements of the US government and our allies to confront regional competitors.”

Based on China’s development of asymmetric warfare capabilities like anti-satellite weapons, cyber weaponry and high-speed hypersonic missiles, Davidson urged Pacific Command to rapidly field its own advanced war fighting capabilities.

“Pacom is heavily dependent on high-end warfare capabilities, including fifth-generation aircraft; munitions capable of penetrating China’s anti-access/area-denial environment; undersea warfare dominance capabilities; and survivable logistics and mission partner networks,” he said.

“With China, the United States should expand the competitive space by investing in next-generation capabilities, for example, hypersonic technology, while simultaneously recognizing that China is already weaponizing space and cyber.”

Hypersonic missiles are weapons that travel at speeds of more than 7,000 miles per hour and can maneuver, making them difficult systems to counter with increasingly sophisticated air and missile defenses.

The United States is readying forces that would be used to counter what the admiral described as “Chinese malign activities,” ranging from the militarization of built-up islands in the South China Sea to anti-democratic subversion through the Beijing development program called Belt and Road.

Military modernization

“China claims that these reclaimed features and the Belt and Road Initiative will not be used for military means, but their words do not match their actions,” he said. “Our defense strategy provides the necessary guidance that will drive our actions.”

The Belt and Road program is part of Beijing’s bid to “shape a world aligned with its own authoritarian model while undermining international norms such as the free flow of commerce and ideas,” he said. Predatory loans and other actions used in the program are indicators China is using its Belt and Road program to coerce states into greater access and influence for China, he added.

On China’s military buildup, the admiral described it as “the most ambitious military modernization in the world.” And on China’s large force of missiles, Davidson said: “The threat to US forces and bases is substantial and growing.”

Specifically, the new US defense strategy outlines two military components that have not been clearly revealed in public. The concepts are part of Mattis’ military reform efforts that seek to produce more lethal and agile global forces.

American military forces are now structured on a post-Cold War posture when the United States was the dominant military power and the main threats were rogue states.

The first new concept is called “dynamic force employment” that seeks to increase military options for responding to conflict, ranging from major wars to regional actions in Asia and Europe.

Key capabilities

The second concept is called the global operating model that outlines how military forces would be structured and used in both pre-conflict global competition and wartime missions.

Key capabilities include nuclear arms, cyber warfare and space warfare arms, advanced command, control and communications, strategic mobility and forces for countering weapons of mass destruction.

The model calls for utilizing four layers described under the phrase “contact, blunt, surge and homeland.”

One key aspect involves contact with competitors that will seek to better position American military forces to compete more effectively against foreign threats below the level of armed conflict.

This is what military analysts call “gray zone conflicts,” like the covert Russian takeover of Ukraine’s Crimea in 2014, and China’s covert militarization of built-up islands in the South China Sea that started in 2013.

Davidson testified that both concepts will guide forces in dealing with China.

“Due to the distances involved in the Indo-Pacific, we cannot rely solely on surge forces from the Continental United States to deter Chinese aggression or prevent a fait accompli,” the four-star admiral said. “Pacom must maintain a robust blunt layer that effectively deters Chinese aggression in the Indo-Pacific.”

To ensure China will be deterred from expansionism or aggression, whether in the South China Sea, East China Sea or against Taiwan, Davidson vowed to regularly assess the military footprint in Asia.

 

Categories: Uncategorized

Comments: 2 Comments

Iranian president to Trump: Stay in nuke deal or face ‘severe consequences’

April 24, 2018


“If anyone betrays the deal, they should know that they would face severe consequences,” Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said Tuesday. “Iran is prepared for all possible situations.” | Iranian Presidency Office via AP

By LOUIS NELSON 04/24/2018 07:14 AM EDT Politico

Source Link: Iranian president to Trump: Stay in nuke deal or face ‘severe consequences’

{Here we go again. More threats from Iran. You’d think they were speaking from a position of strength but their economy is failing, their people are suffering, and their currency is being devalued daily. Any more resistance by the Mullahs will result in tighter sanctions and an eventual collapse. With Trump, economic power backed up by the world’s largest military is a huge bargaining chip. I wouldn’t want to call his bluff if I were them. He just might not be bluffing as many others have found out. – LS}

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani warned Tuesday of “severe consequences” for the U.S. should it withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal, a step President Donald Trump has indicated he will take if certain changes to the agreement are not made.

“I am telling those in the White House that if they do not live up to their commitments … the Iranian government will firmly react,” Rouhani said in a speech, according to a Reuters report.

The Iranian president’s warning coincides with the visit of French President Emmanuel Macron to Washington, where he is expected to urge Trump to keep the U.S. in the deal, which was negotiated under former President Barack Obama and agreed to by the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, plus Germany and Iran.

Complaints about the Iran deal were among Trump’s most frequent talking points on the 2016 campaign trail, including a pledge to pull the U.S. from it. The president has yet to follow through on that promise, opting instead to continue extending the deal while demanding that it be altered to address other behavior by the Iranian government, including its funding of groups deemed by the U.S. to be terrorist organizations, that currently falls outside the scope of the nuclear deal.

Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif wrote on Twitter that his nation’s compliance with the deal was “either all or nothing,” indicating that Iran would not remain party to the deal if the U.S. withdraws, even if the other nations do not. Rouhani, delivering a speech in the city of Tabriz, said Iran is prepared for whatever move Trump makes.

“If anyone betrays the deal, they should know that they would face severe consequences,” the Iranian president said. “Iran is prepared for all possible situations.”

 

Categories: Funding and protecting Iran's nukes, Iran, Iran - American relations, Iran - regime change, Iran - sanctions, Iran - sanctions enforcement, Iran and JCPOA
Tags:

Comments: 1 Comment

Report: Israel asks Russia not to deliver S-300 systems to Syria

April 24, 2018

undefined

Source: Report: Israel asks Russia not to deliver S-300 systems to Syria – Israel Hayom

Russia has not yet decided whether it would deliver the advanced missile systems to Syria, says Russian FM Sergey Lavrov • Western military strikes on Syria have removed any moral obligation Russia had to withhold the system from its ally, he adds.

Reuters and Israel Hayom Staff

Israel has asked Moscow not to deliver advanced S-300 anti-aircraft missile systems to Syrian President Bashar Assad’s regime, a Russian diplomat who spoke on condition of anonymity said Monday.

An Israeli government spokesman declined to comment on the report.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Monday that Russia had not yet decided whether it would deliver the missile systems to Syria, but would not make it a secret if the matter is decided, the TASS news agency reported.

Earlier Monday, citing unnamed military sources, Russia’s daily Kommersant newspaper reported that Russia might start supplying the anti-aircraft missile systems to Syria in the near future.

Lavrov said Friday that Western military strikes on Syria earlier this month, launched in response to alleged poison gas attacks on a rebel-held town near Damascus, had removed any moral obligations the Russians may have had to refrain from supplying the Syrian regime, Russia’s ally, with the missile systems.

“We’ll have to wait to see what specific decisions the Russian leadership and representatives of Syria will take,” TASS cited Lavrov as saying Monday during a visit to Beijing.

“There is probably no secret about this and it can all be announced,” Lavrov added.

Kommersant reported Monday that experts believed Israel would react negatively to any move to deliver the missiles and might bomb the area where they would be deployed.

Israel has made repeated efforts to persuade Moscow not to sell the systems to Syria, as it fears this would hinder its aerial capabilities against arms shipments to the Iranian-backed Lebanese terrorist group Hezbollah. Israel has carried out multiple air strikes against such suspected shipments.

Justin Bronk, an analyst from the Royal United Services Institute in London, said previous attempts by the Assad regime to buy the S-300 were never concluded because Israel managed to persuade Russia, through the supply of unmanned drone technology, not to go through with the deals.

He said he thought it was now likely that Russia would supply Syria with the S-300 system, although it was unclear which of the several versions, with significantly differing capabilities, Syria would receive.

Categories: Uncategorized

Comments: 1 Comment

Delusions of Justice

April 24, 2018

by Joel Kotkin April 19, 2018 The City Journal

Source Link: Delusions of Justice

{Interesting read.  I’ve often wondered why the American Jewish community seemed a bit out of step with Israel.  – LS}

Since the election of Donald Trump, prominent American Jews, notably in the Reform movement and among the intelligentsia, have lamented the resurgence of right-wing anti-Semitism, seeing it as the greatest threat to their community in the United States. The rise of xenophobic and often marginally anti-Jewish parties in Eastern Europe—even with fewer Jews left there to persecute—has deepened the alarm. Yet by far the greatest threat to Jews, not only here but also abroad, comes not from zombie fascist retreads, but from the Left, which is increasingly making its peace with anti-Semitism.

This shift was first made clear to me about 15 years ago when, along with my wife Mandy, whose mother is a Holocaust survivor from France, I visited the legendary Nazi-hunters Serge and Beate Klarsfeld. They predicted that the primary threat to Jews in Europe increasingly would come not from the centuries-old French Right, some of whom had supported the Nazis, but from the Left, in alliance with a growing Muslim population. Time has proved their assertion to be, for the most part, on target. In Sweden, for instance, never known for its persecution of Jews, only 5 percent of all anti-Semitic incidents, notes the New York Times, involved the far Right, while Muslims and leftists accounted for the rest. Germany’s recent rash of anti-Semitic incidents has coincided with the mass migration of people from regions where hostility to both Jews and Israel is commonplace. At European universities, where pro-Nazi sentiments were once widely shared, anti-Israel sentiments are increasingly de rigueur. The growing Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, aimed at cutting all ties with Israel, often allies itself with anti-Jewish Islamist groups, some with eliminationist agendas for Palestine’s Jews.

Of course, anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism are not identical. One can criticize some Israeli policies—as many American Jews do, for example, on the expansion of settlements—without being an anti-Semite. But, as the liberal French philosopher Bernard-Henri Levy argues, targeting the Jewish state while ignoring far more brutal, homophobic, and profoundly misogynist Muslim states represents a double standard characteristic of anti-Semitic prejudice. European progressives increasingly embrace this double standard. Generally speaking, the further left the European politician, the closer his ties to Islamist groups who seek the destruction of Jews in Palestine. Many left-wing parties—the French socialists, for example—depend more and more on Arab and Muslim voters, who come from countries where more than 80 percent of the public holds strongly anti-Jewish views. The Left’s animus toward Jewish causes has spread to Great Britain, where Labour Party head Jeremy Corbyn counts the leaders of openly anti-Semitic groups like Hamas and Hezbollah as allies. If Corbyn becomes Britain’s next prime minister—no longer inconceivable, given his strong showing in the last election—the consequences for Israel, and for Britain’s dwindling Jewish community, could be troubling.

Some, like Barcelona’s chief rabbi, think that it’s time for Europe’s Jews to move away, and many, particularly in France, are already doing so. Europe’s Jewish population (roughly 1.4 million) is less than half what it was in 1960, and a mere fraction of its pre-Holocaust size (9.5 million).

Israel and the Anglosphere—the United States, Canada, and Australia—look like the remaining safe harbors for Jews. To date, anti-Semitism in America has been more restrained than in Europe, both on the right and on the left. But mainstream Jewish leadership and its progressive intellectuals are stuck in an historical loop where it is always 1940; Hitler now takes the form of Donald Trump. The notion that Trump, however unattractive in his xenophobia, is anti-Semitic—a commonplace among progressive Jews—seems absurd, given his Jewish grandchildren and pro-Israel policies. Yet some progressive Jews even sat shiva—the traditional period of mourning following the death of an immediate relative—after Trump’s election. The disdain toward Trump among the rabbinate—often more liberal than congregants—was reflected in the cancellation of this year’s annual Rosh Hashanah call with the president.

Trump, as these Jews allege, has at times seemed to encourage the white supremacist “alt-right,” but the alt-right, while loud, is marginal. Groups like the Ku Klux Klan and various National Socialist wannabes exist more vividly in the literature and imagination of fundraisers than they do in the real world. The far Right has no political leader of consequence, and its media presence is limited, to say the least. As the Los Angeles Times reported last year, the nine major alt-right sites received nearly 3 million visits and 839,000 unique visitors, compared with 236 million visits and 102 million unique visitors for the mainstream Left, and 264 million visits and 111 million unique visitors for the mainstream Right.

As in Europe, the danger to Jews primarily lies not in the white nationalist fever swamps but on the left. Much of the Democratic Party coalition—the progressive Left, minorities, and millennials—has turned decisively against Israel. The most anti-Israel members of Congress tend to come not from the backwoods of Alabama but from “progressive” inner cities, coastal tech-burbs, and academic communities. In polls, minorities and millennials are consistently less sympathetic to Jews and Israel than older, generally white Republicans. According to the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), African-Americans are twice as likely to be anti-Semitic than the general population; roughly 12 percent of blacks express anti-Semitic views. The attitudes of native-born Americans of Hispanic descent track fairly closely with those of other Americans, but Hispanics born abroad are three times as likely to dislike Jews. Equally disturbing, notes Pew, warm feelings toward Jews are strongest among seniors, at 74 percent, but drop to 62 percent among millennials.

To be sure, anti-Semitism is not rampant in America today, but the political evolution of progressive Democrats points to a troubling future. Last year, the party almost named Minnesota congressman Keith Ellison as its chairman (he became vice chairman). Ellison has met repeatedly with Louis Farrakhan, though he claims to have broken all ties with the notorious Jew-baiter. Many Jewish Democrats, particularly in the Reform movement, seem more concerned with maintaining unity among the anti-Trump “resistance” than about their party’s growing anti-Jewish sentiment. To some extent, their silence reflects the progressive logic of intersectionality, which envisions a popular front made up of oppressed people—and excluding anyone with a Zionist taint. Some Jewish progressives won’t even denounce anti-Semites like Linda Sarsour, a prominent leader of the anti-Trump women’s march on Washington earlier this year. Like other march organizers, Sarsour celebrates her ties to Farrakhan. She is also a devoted anti-Israel activist, supporter of the BDS movement, and Hamas admirer who once tweeted that “nothing is creepier than Zionism.” Tamika Mallory, another women’s march co-founder, recently joined Sarsour in denouncing Starbucks for inviting the ADL to help run racial-bias training sessions for its employees—because the ADL, as they see it, instructs local police departments in Israeli techniques of controlling and killing people of color.

Other outsider groups have played the intersectionality card to justify discrimination toward Jews. Organizers of a gay rights march this summer in Chicago moved to exclude marchers who put Jewish stars on their banners; organizers explained that Zionism is “an inherently white supremacist ideology.” Never mind that Israel is infinitely more tolerant of homosexuality than its Muslim neighbors.

American college campuses have become, as in Europe, major incubators of anti-Israel and anti-Jewish agitation as well. Ironically, much of the worst abuse occurs on the most liberal campuses—San Francisco State, the City University of New York’s Brooklyn campus, and the University of California—while more conservative Southern schools seem more welcoming. Like European Jews in the early 1930s, young Jews on campus are living in an increasingly authoritarian atmosphere, with the shouting down of speakers, limits on free speech, and roughing-up of Trump supporters. More than half of Jewish students, notes a Trinity College study, have experienced anti-Semitism in some form. Most incidents are perpetrated by anti-Israel activists, not wannabe brownshirts from the alt-right.

How can American Jews avoid the increasingly marginalized fate of their European counterparts? Performing good deeds, or mitzvot, and speaking for tolerance, remain critical, but more attention needs to be paid to the 40 percent of Jewish millennials who are already unaffiliated, compared with just 25 percent among baby boomers. Younger Jews are also increasingly indifferent to Israel; a quarter of Jews under 30 feel that American support for the Jewish State is excessive, compared with just 5 percent of their elders.

But above all, Jews should remember what they owe in allegiance to America and its fundamental ideals. The basic principles of due process, equality under the law, free speech, and religious freedom—not the vaporous promises of “social justice”—represent the best guarantee that in this country, at least, the historically miserable experience of Jews will not be repeated.

Categories: Anti-Israel Jews, Antisemitism and the left
Tags:

Comments: Be the first to comment

Carter Center Sued for Providing Support to Terrorists, Defrauding Taxpayers

April 24, 2018

Trump admin says case too expensive to prosecute, seeks dismissal

Former President Jimmy Carter / Getty Images

BY:

Carter Center Sued for Providing Support to Terrorists, Defrauding Taxpayers

The Trump administration is seeking the dismissal of a suit alleging the nonprofit helmed by former president Jimmy Carter has used taxpayer funding to provide material support to international terrorist groups, including Hamas.

The Zionist Advocacy Center, which filed the recently unsealed suit in 2015, alleges the Carter Center received more than $30 million in taxpayer grants while violating federal statutes barring it from using the cash to provide material support to terror groups.

The plaintiffs maintain the Carter Center has violated the law by hosting designated terrorists at is facilities, as well as by providing various forms of assistance to the Palestinian terror group Hamas and other known terror entities, according to recently unsealed court documents.

The Department of Justice surprised pro-Israel insiders recently when it moved to have the case dismissed on the grounds it is too expensive to prosecute, according to court filings the administration had requested remain secret.

A hearing on the dismissal motion will occur on April 25, though legal experts handling the case are hoping to convince the DOJ to reverse its opinion beforehand, according to those familiar with the proceedings.

Evidence presented in the case purports to show the Carter Center accepted millions in government grants while falsely certifying it was not violating prohibitions on providing material support to terror groups, which include a broad range of factors including lodgings, expert advice, and other types of support.

Former President Carter’s ongoing and well-documented interactions with Hamas and Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) are tantamount to material support for terror groups, the suit alleges citing evidence Carter hosted these officials at his Center’s offices.

This also includes providing services and advice to Hamas and other individuals and organizations designated as terrorists by the U.S. government.

While the Trump administration’s lawyers admit in their motion to dismiss that Carter has in fact met with designated terrorists and terror groups, they are seeking to have the case tossed because it would be too expensive to adjudicate in court.

“Representatives of the Carter Center have engaged in discussions and meetings with members of Hamas and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine,” the government’s motion states.

However, “the primary purposes of these activities were to facilitate dialog between the Palestinian factions and to urge Hamas to recognize Israel’s right to exist, forgo violence, and accept previous peace agreements,” Trump administration lawyers maintain, adding that these activities were not concealed from the public.

Due to the publicly available nature of these interactions, the DOJ maintains the activity should not be classified as material support for terrorists, according to the government’s dismissal motion.

The DOJ did not immediately have comment on the case. A representative for the Carter Center did not respond to multiple Free Beacon requests for comment.

The DOJ maintained in its motion to dismiss the case that the core issue represents “a difference of opinion with the Carter Center about how to resolve conflict in the Middle East” and, for that reason, does not violate laws barring material support to terror groups.

“If the United States were to decline to intervene in the case … the United States, as the real party of interest, likely would be required to devote considerable resources to the litigation,” the DOJ argued.

“The United State has determined that this action should not proceed,” the DOJ wrote.

Yifa Segal, director of the International Legal Forum, a group involved in the case, told the Free Beacon that DOJ’s legal arguments do not hold water.

“According to U.S. law, the provision of expert advice or assistance otherwise known as material support, even if meant to promote peaceful and lawful conduct, can facilitate terrorism,” Segal said.

“The logic is simple. Any service provided to a terror group can help free up other resources within the organization,” Segal explained. “Taking into account that a terror organization, ultimately, aims at executing acts of terror, by freeing resources from other needs, you are very likely to contribute to the organization’s illegal acts of violence, whether you intended to do so or not.”

Services like those provided by the Carter Center can in fact “contribute to the terrorist organization’s own legitimacy,” according to Segal, who said arguments revolving around the Carter Center’s intentions in providing such services are irrelevant to the legality of the case.

“It seems that the DOJ is attempting to bury this case by making technical arguments as to this procedure,” Segal said. “Beyond our professional disagreement regarding these particular claims, the question is this: Even if their arguments are correct, why isn’t the government taking different measures to put a stop to this illegal activity?”

Update: The Department of Justice declined to comment.

Categories: Uncategorized

Comments: 1 Comment

Russia: Israel will suffer ‘catastrophic consequences’ if it attacks future S-300 system in Syria

April 24, 2018

A Russian newspaper reported today that Syria will soon receive the advanced S-300 missile system from Moscow free of charge. The military sources who spoke with the newspaper added that Israel will suffer “catastrophic consequences” if it attacks the system.

Becca Noy
http://www.jerusalemonline.com/news/world-news/around-the-globe/russian-officials-caution-israel-ahead-of-s-300-missile-systems-arrival-in-syria-35528
Russian President Vladimir Putin and Assad Photo Credit: Russian Presidential Press and Information Office
Moscow will supply the Syrian government with the advanced S-300 missile system, the Russian Kommersant newspaper reported on Monday, according to Hadashot news. Citing two Russian military sources, the newspaper said that the system, which will be provided to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for free, will arrive in Syria very soon.

he sources added that the components of the system will be transferred to Syria on transport aircraft and naval ships. The military officials added that if Israel attacks the system in Syria, it will suffer “catastrophic consequences.”

Other sources who spoke with Kommersant said that the system will be set up in several strategic areas, including Damascus. Initially, only Russian officials will be allowed to operate the system. However, Syrian Army officers will eventually learn the technology and be allowed to operate it.

Last week, JOL reported that Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that Moscow may provide Damascus with the missile system in response to the coordinated airstrikes carried out by the US, Britain and France in Syria. Speaking to the BBC, Lavrov said that the attack, which he called an “outrageous act of aggression,” convinced Russia that the Syrian Army needs the system.

“Several years ago, we decided not to supply S-300 systems to Syria at our partners’ request,” he explained. “Now, we will consider options to ensure the Syrian state’s security after this outrageous act of aggression from the United States, France and Great Britain.”

In the past, Israeli officials have expressed concerns about the S-300 system’s possible arrival in Syria, claiming that the system would limit Israel’s freedom of action in the region and threaten the Israeli Air Force’s superiority.

Categories: Uncategorized

Comments: 1 Comment

Trump starts indirect negotiations with Iran ahead of his summit with Kim

April 24, 2018

Source: Trump starts indirect negotiations with Iran ahead of his summit with Kim – DEBKAfile

  , , , , , , , 

The French president, the German Chancellor and the Iranian Foreign minister are present in the US this week, all bent on saving the 2015 nuclear accord. 

French President Emmanuel Macron begins a state visit to Washington Monday, April 23; German Chancellor Angela Merkel is due on Friday, while Iranian foreign minister Javad Mohammed Zarif is spending the week in New York. The two European leaders will try and persuade the US president not to quit the nuclear accord, while the Iranian foreign minister is already playing hard ball through the US media.
In a word, indirect negotiations were launched this week on the future of the 2015 nuclear accord with Iran.

DEBKAfile’s sources report that these under-the-table negotiations are not restricted to the nuclear issue, but also touch on Iran’s interests in Syria. A month or more before his summit with North Korea’s Kim Jong-un, US President Donald Trump has therefore set his feet on a negotiating track with supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, channeling it through the two European leaders and the Iranian foreign minister.

Our sources reveal that working papers were prepared for the US-European summit in Washington by a team of US, French, German and British diplomats. They are to be the agreed guidelines for a new common Western policy line on Iran, on which the four allies were hitherto at odds. The paper has four parts:

  • General Intent
  • Iran is prohibited from developing nuclear weapon after the expiry of the nuclear accord in 2025.
  • International watchdog IAEA inspections will be intensified on site, including the military compounds where nuclear activity is suspected, and which Tehran closed to the monitors.
  • Tehran’s continuation of ballistic missile development will incur fresh sanctions.

In his interviews to the US media, Foreign Minister Zarif played Iran’s opening gambits for the bargaining process. His diplomatic style is typically offensive rather than defensive. Tehran would not stand for any amendments being inserted in the original nuclear accord text, he said, and warned that his country would resume its nuclear program “at much greater speed,” if Trump withholds the next round of Iran sanctions waivers due for renewal on May 12, effectively taking the US out of the accord. Zarif also insisted that staying in the accord was not enough. The US must lift the sanctions strangling the Iranian economy. He also dismissed as “misguided” French and German efforts to pressure Tehran into curtailing its regional policies and missile program in exchange for Washington staying in the deal.

On Syria, Zarif dropped six points onto the virtual negotiating table.

  1. An imminent military clash between Iran and Israel is not envisaged at present.
  2. All the players in the Syrian crisis [US in particular] must stop seeking military solutions and take to the path of diplomacy.
  3. They must all acknowledge Bashar Assad’s continued rule in Damascus
  4. Iranian forcers must remain in Syria to fight “terrorist elements.”
  5. Iran has no territorial or other claims on Syria. Proof? Iranian forces have never raised their national flag at any place of their deployment in the country.
  6. The Hizballah contingents are deployed in Syria to safeguard national security [of Lebanon]. Once their mission is accomplished, they will withdraw.

It may be understood from these points that Tehran won’t object to Hizballah forces exiting Syria – but Iran is there to stay.

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman referred to Iran’s latest war threats against Israel in a toast to Israel’s 70th anniversary on Sunday, April 22, at the IDF high command. Netanyahu addressed Zarif as “the foreign minister of a nation that sends armed UAVs against Israel and ballistic missiles against Saudi Arabia.” He said: “I listened to his diplomatic language and noticed the huge gap between his words and the deeds of the Revolutionary Guards, who are deploying an army for the explicit goal of destroying Israel.”

However, the upshot of these events is that Iran, whose motives are malign, is an active participant in talks that affect the future of Syria, while Israel has no role in the process.

President Macron is close to the Israeli position on Syria: He reiterates his opposition to President Trump’s determination to pull US troops out of Syria, because, he says, that “will leave the floor,” to Iran, as well as ISIS and Bashar Assad. Israel is taking no part in this argument, although the US troop withdrawal would leave its borders dangerously exposed to its arch-enemy, Iran.
Trump, for his part, is indirectly keeping the ball rolling with Tehran, while juxtaposing it with his forthcoming face to face with Kim Jong-un in May or June. He appears to calculate that if Kim agrees to US troops remaining in South Korea as part of a denuclearization deal, then Iran would appreciate that the US withdrawal from Syria is a very big concession indeed, for which Tehran ought to pay a high price.

DEBKAfile’s sources predict that Trump will come to terms with Macron and Merkel on both items at issue between them. They will find a compromise for preserving the nuclear deal with Iran and a formula on the US troop question in Syria. This formula appears to consist of taking US military strength out of Syria but remaining “beyond the horizon.”
Netanyahu and Lieberman must therefore contend first with the fallout from the US troops’ exit from Syria, before confronting Iran’s long-term presence just across its northern border.

Categories: Uncategorized

Comments: Be the first to comment

« Older Entries