Israel Navy submarine seen crossing Suez on Sunday
An IDF Dolphin class submarine was seen crossing the Suez canal back into the Mediterranean on Sunday two days after it was reported that one of the submarines had crossed the canal into the Red Sea and headed for Eilat.
An IDF Navy Dolphin-class submarine that participated in maneuvers off the Eilat coast last week returned to Israel via the Suez Canal on Sunday according to witnesses' reports.
The submarine was spotted returning through the waterway along with an Israeli missile boat.
However, an Israeli defense official told Reuters there would be no permanent deployment in Eilat of the German-made submarines, of which the Navy has three, with two more on order.
"If anything, we are scaling down our naval operations in Eilat," the official was quoted as saying on Sunday.
A senior naval source explained that the "submarines need the open water, and that's just not available at Eilat."
"Also, the navy cannot take on the logistical burden of setting up two bases, with all the specialized needs in terms of equipment, maintenance crews and security safeguards, for a submarine fleet that, at most, will comprise five Dolphins," he told the news agency.
Am I the only one thinking this is all too neat and tidy? I mean, they disclose it on Friday, they claim it happened a month ago, and on Sunday it just so happens that the submarine appears at the Suez Canal.
What if they had sent two submarines through and left one in the Indian Ocean so that it could get to Iran faster? Hmmm. Anyone know how long a Dolphin can stay underwater without surfacing?
Here's a Dolphin in action. Let's go to the videotape.
In a sudden turnaround, the United States and Saudi Arabia are pushing Syria to demarcate its borders with Lebanon. The reason is to remove Israel's rationale for not turning the Shaba Farms (Mount Dov) over to Lebanon without there first being a treaty between Israel and Syria. For those who have forgotten, Israel liberated Mount Dov from Syria during the 1967 Six-Day War. Lebanon claims that Mount Dov belongs to it, and Hezbullah uses Israel's 'occupation' of Mount Dov as proof that Israel is 'occupying' 'Lebanese territory' thereby justifying its existence in Lebanon. The US claims that if Syria demarcates its border with Lebanon, and puts Mount Dov on the Lebanese side of the border, it will take away Hezbullah's raison d'etre (see map below).
These moves come amid warming relations between Damascus and Washington. This past weekend Syrian President Bashar Assad issued an unofficial invitation to his U.S. counterpart Barack Obama to visit the Syrian capital.
Marking the Syrian-Lebanese border would neutralize the Israeli claim that Shaba Farms was previously Syrian territory, and that a withdrawal must be carried out only in the course of negotiations with Damascus. The United Nations also defines the area as Syrian territory, and did not call on Israel to pull back from it during its 2000 withdrawal from southern Lebanon. [The dark blue line on the map shows the internationally recognized border between Israel and Lebanon, to which Israel withdrew in 2000. CiJ].
Withdrawing from the disputed area would also obviate one of Hezbollah's primary pretexts for continuing to maintain weapons to fight Israel's presence on what it considers Lebanese soil. In marking its border, however, Syria would be sending a strong message to Hezbollah that the militant group's accumulation of arms is no longer part of the country's military strategy.
Such a move would likely bolster the position of Saad Hariri, Lebanon's pro-West prime minister-delegate, as well. Hariri has stated that the Lebanese parliament must tackle the issue of disarming Hezbollah. He has also conditioned forming a government on the Hezbollah-led opposition holding no more than a third of the seats in parliament, thus preventing it from being able to veto key government decisions. The Lebanese Constitution stipulates that certain important decisions must be made with the ascent of two-thirds of parliamentarians.
Lebanese sources said recently that they expected Syria to agree to mark the border in an effort to win favor with both the United States and Egypt.
This is mostly wishful thinking. First, the US and Saudi Arabia are going to have to offer Syria a lot more than 'warming relations' for it to give up a hard asset - land. 'Engagement' is one thing and giving up real assets (even if the asset is only a claim) is something else. Mount Dov is a very strategic point that is used for military purposes by Israel. Why would the Syrians want to let Lebanon have it? What is Lebanon giving them in return?
Second, it's questionable whether Syria has really abandoned Hezbullah. Sure, Assad is happy to invite Obama to Damascus and to have an American ambassador in the city. He got the same thing from Bill Clinton. But he also endorsed the Iranian election results and he has given no indication of abandoning Hezbullah. Why choose sides when Obama is allowing him to 'engage' on his own terms?
Third, even if Israel were to hand Mount Dov over to Lebanon tomorrow, Hezbullah would continue to exist and would continue to charge Israel with 'occupying Lebanese territory.' They have already invented the seven villages canard.
Israel should not turn over anything to Syria or Lebanon. We'd be forfeiting a vital strategic asset and getting nothing in return.
Gerald Steinberg reports that three NGO's issued reports on Israel's Operation Cast Lead this week, all of which were amateurish and hopelessly biased against Israel. Steinberg says this is just the beginning.
The three reports published and publicized last week, like dozens that have come before, combine pseudo-legal rhetoric, technical allegations regarding Israel's defense against terror attacks, automatic sympathy for Palestinian victims, and condemnation of Israel. The images and the titles reflect these biases - Amnesty's is headlined: "Operation Cast Lead: 22 Days of Death and Destruction."
Researchers led by Donatella Rovera claim they could not find evidence of the use of human shields by Hamas. In fact, the entire population of Gaza was one massive human shield, with weapons stored and fired from schools, mosques, hospitals and similar civilian structures (in one infamous case, during a live video broadcast widely viewed on Youtube.)
Similarly, the 10-page ICRC publication ("Gaza: 1.5 Million People Trapped in Despair") consists largely of pictures of Palestinians and none of Israelis in Sderot - the rights of Israelis are irrelevant, as they are in the case of the UN and the Goldstone commission.
Gilad Schalit has also been erased (Amnesty buried him in a footnote referring to Israeli policy.) The kidnapped Israeli soldier is also the missing man what has been referred to as Goldstone's "kangaroo court." Such sins of omission belie the moral claims that are the foundation of international law.
In addition to the moral facade, HRW's report ("Precisely Wrong") uses hi-tech language to attack the IDF's use of advanced drones. Here, the "war crimes" charges are based on six carefully chosen cases. The "evidence" comes from Palestinian claims of having heard and seen the arrival of these tiny and soundless weapons - a superhuman feat.
HRW's "military analyst" Marc Garlasco added dubious assumptions regarding the "impact mark of the missile and the fragmentation pattern" consistent with Spike missiles. Although a few reporters were professional enough to investigate the details, check with independent experts, and expose the dubious claims, most reports copied Garlasco's mix of fact and fiction without question. (They also omit mention of HRW fund-raising in Saudi Arabia that cites their anti-Israel campaigns.)
These events, as well as the ongoing Goldstone inquiry, are part of the broader strategy of demonization adopted at the NGO Forum at the 2001 UN Durban Conference. The goal is to brand and isolate Israel as the new "apartheid" state.
Steinberg is more concerned that we're not doing enough to counteract the threat that the NGO's represent. He believes that Israeli leaders have belittled the exploitation of human rights as a weapon for attacking Israel. I'm afraid that he's right. If 'lawfare' was a relatively minor nuisance until now, it is likely to become a bigger one in the future.
The picture at the top of this post is of Hamas 'medic' Anas Naim.
It started with Malcolm Hoenlein, it continued with Alan Dershowitz, and now comes Gary Rosenblatt, editor of the 'mainstream' New York Jewish Week, and asks "Are the Jews worried about Obama?" (Hat Tip: NY Nana)
Is it possible that the "unbreakable bonds" between Israel and the U.S. that the president referred to in his Cairo speech are on shaky grounds? And is the gap growing between leaders of mainstream Jewish organizations and the majority of American Jews, more than three-quarters of whom voted for Obama, support a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestinian crisis and may well agree that settlements are a hindrance to peace?
Several of those leaders, speaking off the record, account for the gap by pointing out that they are more knowledgeable than most people about the complexities of U.S.-Israeli policy, following it every day on a high level. They note, for example, that on the topic of settlements, most American Jews (and most Israelis, for that matter), do not distinguish between large, established suburbs of Jerusalem, like Ma’ale Adumim, with a population of 35,000, and hilltop outposts led by a handful of religious zealots attracting media attention.
Not all settlements are equal, and virtually every peace proposal under serious discussion calls for those settlements in the vicinity of Jerusalem, containing the majority of the West Bank Jewish population, to end up as part of Israel. President George W. Bush acknowledged in his 2004 letter to then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon that "in light of the new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli population centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion."
But the Obama administration has a different take, and its seemingly willful refusal to recognize past U.S. commitments makes Israeli leaders worry about the trustworthiness of guarantees in the future.
Several weeks ago Secretary of State Hilary Clinton asserted that President Obama "wants to see a stop to settlements — not some settlements, not outposts, not natural growth exceptions." Such a blunt, public statement about a close strategic ally caused a ripple of worry among Jewish leaders, one of whom told me the only conclusion he could reach was that the administration wanted to bring down the Netanyahu government, hoping it would be replaced by a more moderate one.
But both Israeli and American Jewish leaders are well aware of the widespread popularity of President Obama and are reluctant to take him on. There is a debate going on among Foreign Ministry officials in Jerusalem; some are describing the administration as unfriendly while others are urging caution and a more nuanced response.
Hoenlein says the point is to "deal honestly on the issues themselves, not the personalities. You deal with substance, and with sensitivity — not always in the media. These issues are of such consequence that we dare not avoid confronting them forthrightly, and we are respected when we do that. You don’t whitewash issues that are troubling."
Complicating the problem further is that this administration is relying less on American Jewish leaders for input because two of the most powerful men in government, with daily access to the president, are high-profile Jews: senior adviser David Axelrod and chief of staff Rahm Emanuel.
When one Jewish organizational leader questioned a White House aide as to why the president only sought advice from American Muslim leaders prior to the Cairo speech, he said he was told: "Why should we invite Jews in? We have so many here."
The ADL’s Foxman says, "What troubles me most is a lack of consultation and the need [for the administration] to do things publicly. There’s a [U.S.-Israel] relationship of 60 years and all of a sudden they’re treating Israel like everyone else. I find that disturbing."
At this point it is difficult to tell how much of the backdoor complaining from some Jewish leaders is about serious policy concerns and how much is sour grapes over reduced access. What is clear is that there is worry that this administration, with its emphasis on change, appears convinced it can resolve the complex Israeli-Palestinian conflict within two years, and seems bent on extracting concessions from Israel before getting tough with the Palestinians. And there are worries that after pledging dialogue with increasingly intractable enemies like Iran, Obama has no substantive Plan B.
None of the leaders I spoke with think this administration wants to endanger Israel in any way. Far from it. But some question whether focusing on settlements was an attempt to weaken Netanyahu and split the American Jewish community.
For now, it’s important for supporters of Israel to make their voices heard, pointing out the nuances and critical distinctions in discussing "the settlements"; emphasizing that the crux of the problem is and has always been Palestinian intransigence, terrorism and refusal to accept a Jewish state; and pressing Washington for a clear policy on dealing with Iran, and the Palestinians, beyond diplomacy.
The average American Jew may not know the difference between Maaleh Adumim and Migron, but the average American Jew definitely knows the difference between Jerusalem and Migron.If the 'leadership' is so far to the right of the flock as this article indicates, it's because the flock has become less supportive of Israel generally, which is a story we've known about for a long time. The younger generation of assimilated American Jews doesn't understand why Israel's continued existence benefits the Jewish community in the United States. And they have no Jewish education that would teach them that there is any other reason for Israel to exist except as a backstop against a future Holocaust, God forbid.
I don't buy Gary's implication that the leadership's complaints over access amount to sour grapes. If Emmanuel and Axelrod were advocating for Israel's - and the Jewish community's - interests, you wouldn't be hearing those complaints. But Emmanuel and Axelrod aren't there to advocate for Israel or the Jewish community, as Emmanuel made clear when he disavowed comments by his father about how he would protect Israel. Emmanuel and Axelrod are loyal hounds for Obama and they are trying to gauge for him the maximum that he can push the Jewish community and get away with it. The Jewish leadership knows that its interests are very different from Emmanuel's and Axelrod's. It's not comfortable with Obama's pitching to Muslims. It feels guilty that it didn't heed the cries of many who warned that Obama would be anti-Israel. It is recognizing that it should have stood up and warned the Jewish community but failed to do so.
As to the leaders not believing that the administration does not want to endanger Israel, I don't know whether that belief is sincere (I tend to doubt it) or whether it comes from a reluctance to admit the truth, whether out of fear of creating a self-fulfilling prophecy or out of fear of causing panic. They'd have to be blind to miss this administration's open hostility to Israel.
I believe we will see more and more mea culpa's from Jewish leaders over the next several months as the full extent of the Obama disaster becomes clear.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has apparently realized that he has found a sucker in American President Barack Hussein Obama. Realizing that there is nothing Ahamdinejad can do that will move Obama off his desire to 'engage' the Iranian President, Ahamdinejad is now calling for 'negotiations.' He obviously hopes that the 'negotiations' will hold the West at bay long enough for him to complete the development of nuclear weapons (Hat Tip: Memeorandum). But is Obama really a sucker?
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said he wants to engage President Obama in "negotiations" before international media, a semi-official Iranian news outlet reported on Saturday.
Speaking at a meeting of medical school deans, Ahmadinejad said Iran "will soon pursue a new round of diplomatic activity" amid a new position of strength for the Iranian government, the Iranian Student News Agency quotes him as saying.
"I will go to the United Nations and will invite Obama to negotiations," Ahmadinejad said, adding that such talks would be "in front of the international media, not a sit-down behind closed doors in order to talk about matters."
Ahmadinejad's current desire for 'negotiations' is nothing but a ploy to buy himself more time to continue building nuclear weapons. But as P.T. Barnum is known to have said, there's a sucker born every minute. But Obama is not the sucker. The American people are the suckers for having chosen him. And Israel is going to have to deal with the consequences.
The United States has forced Israel Aerospace Industries (a government company) out of the bidding for a $12 billion contract to develop a multi-purpose fighter jet for India. While the ostensible reason is the possible use of American technology in the fighter jet, the real reason appears to be the desire to protect Lockheed and Boeing from competition.
What was strange with the American request was that Boeing and Lockheed Martin - the two largest US defense contractors - are also competing for the Indian deal. For this reason, Israeli officials said it was more likely that the Americans were concerned that if IAI competed for the deal with Saab, it would force the American companies to lower their prices.
A multi-role fighter, the Gripen [pictured. CiJ] is in service in Sweden, the Czech Republic, Hungary and South Africa. IAI was supposed to provide the electronic systems - radar, communications and electronic-warfare - for the plane.
This is not the first time that an Israeli company has been forced out of a deal due to concerns that competing with American companies would endanger Israeli-US relations.
Last summer, the MoD ordered Israel Military Industries (IMI) to back down from submitting a bid for a half-a-billion dollar deal to develop and manufacture a new tank for the Turkish Armed Forces.
This sort of thing has to make you wonder whether Israel would be better off without US foreign aid and competing on its own in the arms market.
Before we start this story, let me inform you that one of its authors is Uzi Mahnaimi, who has been known to exaggerate in the past.
The Sunday Times of London is reporting that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has told Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu that it will look the other way if the IAF overflies its country on a mission to remove Iran's nuclear capability. Traversing Saudi Arabia would considerably shorten the route to Iran.
The head of Mossad, Israel’s overseas intelligence service, has assured Benjamin Netanyahu, its prime minister, that Saudi Arabia would turn a blind eye to Israeli jets flying over the kingdom during any future raid on Iran’s nuclear sites.
Earlier this year Meir Dagan, Mossad’s director since 2002, held secret talks with Saudi officials to discuss the possibility.
The Israeli press has already carried unconfirmed reports that high-ranking officials, including Ehud Olmert, the former prime minister, held meetings with Saudi colleagues. The reports were denied by Saudi officials.
“The Saudis have tacitly agreed to the Israeli air force flying through their airspace on a mission which is supposed to be in the common interests of both Israel and Saudi Arabia,” a diplomatic source said last week.
Although the countries have no formal diplomatic relations, an Israeli defence source confirmed that Mossad maintained “working relations” with the Saudis.
Two things make this report credible. One is that the Israeli press has carried reports of meetings with Saudi officials, which the Saudis have dutifully denied. Second, Mahnaimi and Sarah Baxter cite John Bolton, who calls this development 'logical.'
John Bolton, the former US ambassador to the United Nations who recently visited the Gulf, said it was “entirely logical” for the Israelis to use Saudi airspace.
Bolton, who has talked to several Arab leaders, added: “None of them would say anything about it publicly but they would certainly acquiesce in an overflight if the Israelis didn’t trumpet it as a big success.”
Arab states would condemn a raid when they spoke at the UN but would be privately relieved to see the threat of an Iranian bomb removed, he said.
They quote Bolton as going on to note that to this day, Israel has not admitted any of the specifics of the 2007 raid on Syria's nuclear reactor.
So is this going to happen? It's plausible. It's also something that no one here or in Riyadh would discuss openly (and you can expect a Saudi denial - and maybe even an Israeli one - before the morning is over). And I highly doubt anyone told Mahnaimi about it. He may have just guessed it.
Putting this together with the Suez Canal story from Friday (which was half-denied by Egypt), one can conclude that something is in the works with or without American cooperation (which won't happen so long as Obama is President). What and when remain to be seen. But I would bet on it happening sometime within the next six months. With his obsession with 'engaging' with Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs, Obama has managed to scare the Egyptians and the Saudis even more than the Israelis and has brought an attack on Iran's nuclear capability much closer than it was six months ago.
Vice President Joe Biden says the U.S. will not stand in Israel’s way if Israel believes military action is needed to eliminate Iran’s nuclear threat.
Biden says the U.S. “cannot dictate to another sovereign nation what they can and cannot do.”
I find it hard to believe that Obama approved that statement. This sounds like Biden talking out of school and not Biden leaking confidential White House conversations.
A senior Egyptian security official on Saturday denied reports that an Israeli submarine had sailed the Suez Canal last month as part of a naval drill.
"Egypt does not allow Israeli warships to enter our territory," Army Radio quoted the official as saying.
On Friday, defense sources reported that an Israeli submarine had sailed the Suez Canal to the Red Sea last month, describing the unusual maneuver as a show of strategic reach in the face of Iran.
Israel has long kept its three Dolphin-class submarines, which are widely assumed to carry nuclear missiles, away from Suez so as not to expose them to the gaze of Egyptian harbormasters.
The Egyptian official said Saturday that Cairo did not, nor will it in the future, offer Israel logistic assistance in its efforts to attack Iran.
But not all Egyptian officials are denying the story.
Egyptian officials at Suez said they would neither confirm nor deny reports regarding military movements. One official said that if there was such a passage by Israelis in the canal, it would not be problematic as Egypt and Israel are not at war.
Hmmm.
Yes, I believe it happened and the Egyptian government knew and approved it (and did not examine the sub very closely), but they don't want to be questioned about it by their Arab 'brothers.' The Egyptians fear an Iranian nuclear weapon nearly as much as we do.
Tommy Hilfiger: Iran and North Korea, but not Israel
If you want to set up an online account for Tommy Hilfiger and you have an address in Iran or North Korea (the Korean Democratic People's Republic), you can do it. But if you want to set up an account and your address is in Israel, you can't.
Jeffrey Goldberg interviews Israeli ambassador to the US Michael Oren
Shavua tov, a good week to everyone. We had no internet connection after the Sabbath ended and that's why I'm just getting online now.
For all of my American readers (including fellow ex-pats), I want to wish you all a Happy July 4Independence Day. And may your evil ruler soon be deposed (since I'm not Israel's ambassador to the US, I can say things like that).
On Friday afternoon, at the Aspen Festival, The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg spoke with Israel's ambassador to the US Michael Oren. Let's go to the videotape and I'll have more afterward.
I like that Israeli Jews live longer....
There's a summary of the interview here. The part that's in the video clip does not include the part about Iran cited in the summary.
I don't have enough time to really comment on this, but it's too astounding not to post.
The United States plans to block the imposition of another round of tougher financial sanctions against Iran at next week's G8 summit.
According to officials, sanctions against Iran are expected to top the G8's agenda. Sources are also predicting a pointed debate between the heads of the industrialized nations over an appropriate response to Iranian authorities' suppression of reformist demonstrations in Iran led by Mir Hossein Mousavi and other Iranian opposition leaders.
Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi hinted in a newspaper interview earlier in the week that the G8 is due to decide on new financial sanctions against the Islamic Republic. Berlusconi disclosed that he had spoken with the heads of the G8 nations and has discussed such steps with them.
...
However, diplomatic sources in New York reported that American officials are working behind the scenes to prevent new sanctions from being imposed against Iran.
U.S. officials claimed that a tough stance toward Iran could backfire, bringing about an opposite outcome to that desired by those who support such measures.
The Obama administration, according to the diplomatic sources, has discarded the notion of direct talks with Iran. However, the United States is still interested in re-engaging Iran through the renewed discussion of its nuclear program through the six permanent United Nations Security Council members.
American officials expressed concern that a decision to enact harsh steps against Iran during the G8 meeting could badly hurt the prospect of Tehran agreeing to renew negotiations with the permanent Security Council members.
In addition to U.S. reluctance to enact fresh sanctions, G8 members Russia and China have been known to oppose any punitive steps against Tehran.
Am I the only one wondering which side Obama is on? What a moron!
Stanford University's Peter Berkowitz has a lengthy article in the Weekly Standard in which he discusses Israel's options for attacking Iran's nuclear facilities. Not surprisingly, it's been discussed and analyzed as a realistic option by Israel's decision makers (Hat Tip: Memeorandum).
Conversations over the last few weeks with more than a dozen members of Israel's larger national security community--right and left, scholars and military men and women, some coming out of the army and others the air force, some with decades of experience in military intelligence and others in clandestine operations, some former Knesset members and others former, current, and soon-to-be advisers to prime ministers--suggest it is fair to conclude that the professionals agree with the public that Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons is a game changer. Among them, there is a consensus that Israel has the technological capacity to undertake a military strike that would inflict heavy damage on Iran's nuclear program. Such a strike, they also believe, would involve unprecedented challenges and risks, including the likelihood of a significant military response by Iran and its allies. Accordingly, an urgent internal debate is well underway in Israel concerning the circumstances in which the country should strike, alternative options, and, in the event that Iran does acquire nuclear weapons, the structure of an effective containment regime.
...
Most countries are reluctant to discuss the details of their offensive capabilities because they don't want to provide useful information to their enemies. Israel is no different. Nonetheless, the experts with whom I spoke were willing to discuss in broad outline Israel's capacity to destroy or substantially degrade Iran's nuclear facilities. All would be delighted to see engagement, diplomacy, or sanctions succeed. All emphasized that a military strike must be the last resort, chosen only after every other option has been fully exploited. All believe that a green light from the United States, or at least a yellow light, would be indispensable. And they seem convinced that Israel has good intelligence about vital Iranian targets and could, if necessary, with a combination of aircraft and ballistic missiles, bring enough firepower to bear to set the Iranian program back far enough to justify the substantial risks.
Unfortunately, the odds of Israel getting a 'green or yellow light' from the United States with the Obama administration in power are somewhere between slim and none. The real question is what Israel can do without a green or yellow light. Berkowitz claims that an attack would
involve about 80 F-15s and F-16s (almost a fifth of their fighter aircraft); all 9 Israeli aerial tankers to refuel the fighters on their way to and from Iran; a likely flight route north over the Mediterranean, then east along the Syria-Turkey border, crossing briefly over Iraq, before heading into Iran. The strike would probably concentrate on three "critical nodes in Iran's nuclear infrastructure": the Natanz uranium enrichment facility, the Esfahan nuclear research center and uranium conversion facility, and the Arak heavy water plant and future plutonium production reactors. The authors [Abdullah Toukan and Anthony H. Cordesman's "Study on a Possible Israeli Strike on Iran's Nuclear Development Facilities" published in March CiJ] stress that the mission would be complex, high-risk, and without solid assurance of success.
Would the Obama administration order our planes shot down if we fly over Iraq as contemplated above? If not, then most of the damage Israel would suffer as a result of the failure to get clearance from the US would be political damage. The Obama administration would not defend us in the UN. They wouldn't defend us against international sanctions. It hurts to even contemplate that kind of fallout with our principal ally. But contemplating a nuclear Iran hurts even more, because as Berkowitz shows, there really is no workable containment strategy.
Are there other alternatives? The IAF may be able to use a different route to get to Iran (which Berkowitz does not discuss); the IDF may be able to Jericho III surface-to-surface missiles (which he does discuss, but which appears less likely), or some combination of fighter jets and missiles may be used.
Berkowitz dismisses retaliation because the IAF believes that the Arrow anti-missile system will shoot down any missiles shot at us. I agree with him. But if we do attack Iran, I don't believe that retaliation will come from Iran. Neither Iraq in 1981 nor Syria in 2007 retaliated. I believe that retaliation will come from Hamas and Hezbullah. If that happens, I would look for a massive aerial bombardment of Lebanese infrastructure (what Olmert, Peretz and Halutz should have done but were afraid to do in 2006) and an invasion and possible reoccupation of Gaza (what Olmert and Barak should have done but did not do last winter), depending on who retaliates. I believe Hezbullah is much more likely to retaliate with missiles than Hamas is ; Hamas is still substantially weakened from Operation Cast Lead. It is more likely that Hamas will retaliate with kidnappings and the like.
And then we will have to deal with sanctions and with attacks on our nuclear ambiguity policy, if not worse.
Given the world's unwillingness to act, at some point there will be no choice. As John McCain said during the campaign, the only thing worse to contemplate than a strike on Iran is a nuclear Iran. Israel cannot take that risk.
Hamas has succeeded in dropping the depth of its smuggling tunnels underneath the Philadelphi corridor between Gaza and the Egyptian border to 60 meters, making them much more difficult to detect and destroy with the equipment currently in use.
The American engineers, deployed as consultants along the Philadelphi Corridor in Egyptian Rafah, have been using technology that can detect seismic movements to uncover tunnels. But it is more difficult to detect them once they have reached the 60-meter depth, the engineers told their Israeli counterparts.
According to IDF assessments, Hamas now has several hundred active tunnels under the Philadelphi Corridor, even though close to 300 were reportedly bombed by the Israel Air Force during Operation Cast Lead in December and January.
Digging to the new depths required special techniques, one official said.
"The Palestinians are experts at digging tunnels," the official said. "They reach 60 meters, pump out the groundwater, and pump in air so they can continue digging."
Defense officials said that since Cast Lead, Cairo had increased its efforts to uncover and destroy smuggling tunnels. The Egyptian efforts have also focused on stopping weapons before they reach the Philadelphi Corridor and as they make their way to the border with Sinai.
A senior IDF officer said the army was reassessing the effectiveness of bombing tunnels from the air. "We found that it takes the Palestinians just a few days to rebuild the tunnels after we bomb them," the officer said.
According to a recent report on Al-Arabiya TV, the tunnel-smuggling industry in Gaza is valued at $200 million annually, yielding huge profits for the Palestinian and Egyptian owners of the tunnels. There are 800 tunnels along the Gaza-Egyptian border, Al-Arabiya said.
"These tunnels are the lifeline of the Gaza Strip. This is the only place where you don't feel you are in a besieged city. All products are available - electronic appliances, flour, sugar and all other food products - and even diapers and Viagra pills," according to a transcript of the TV report provided by MEMRI: The Middle East Media Research Institute.
Awww.... 'Palestinian' 'activists' had to sleep with roaches
Huweda Araf, one of the founders of the terror-facilitating International Solidarity Movement (ISM), and one of the passengers on the SS Moonbat, the ship intercepted by Israel on Tuesday for trying to run the Gaza blockade, complained to the Israeli media on Thursday that she and another 'Free Gaza activist' who are Israeli citizens were forced to sleep with cockroaches.
Houida Araf, who was released on Wednesday, told Ynet that she and a fellow Israeli peace activist were separated from the group and taken to the Ashdod Port.
"They put us in a warehouse, where we slept on a cockroach-infested cement floor, as armed soldiers were monitoring us," she said. "They didn't say a word to us. They confiscated all our personal belongings and phones, and they didn't let us contact anyone. A day later they left us at the Ashdod central bus station without any money or belongings."
"What they did to us is unforgivable, but we're not the story here," Araf said. "The fact they threatened us with violence because we wanted to transfer medical supplies and drawing equipment for children is simply absurd."
Awww.
And I would have thought that, being married to Adam Shapiro, Araf would be used to sleeping with cockroaches.
Hmmm... Israel sends Dolphin class submarine through Suez Canal
For the first time since 2005, Israel has sent a Dolphin class submarine through the Suez Canal according to an exclusive report in Friday's JPost. According to the Post, the submarine passed through the Canal last month for exercises in the Red Sea, and did so openly (i.e. above water).
The significance of the move was debatable, but it could be interpreted as a message to Iran and a demonstration of strengthening ties between Egypt and Israel.
In the event of a conflict with Iran, and if Israel decided to involve its three Dolphin-class submarines - which according to foreign reports can fire nuclear-tipped cruise missiles and serve as a second-strike platform - the quickest route would be to send them through the Suez Canal.
The only way to get to the Gulf of Oman without refueling would be to go through the canal. With their reported 4,500 nautical mile range, taking the long way, around Africa, would require the Dolphins to make at least two stops for refueling at a friendly port, or for fuel to be replenished at sea.
Survey: Most 'Palestinians' believe Jews have no rights to Jerusalem
This is from a 'Palestinian' survey about President Obama's Cairo speech in June and other places he visited on his trip. The three numbers for each question are 'West Bank,' Gaza and combined.
7. In his speech in Cairo on the 4th, President Obama said that Jerusalem should be (a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims." Do you agree or disagree with his statement?
8. In his speech in Cairo on the 4th, President Obama said that "Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and it does not succeed. … Violence is a dead end.....That's not how moral authority is claimed, that's how it is surrendered." Do you agree or disagree with his statement?
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has invited American President Barack Hussein Obama to a summit meeting in Damascus (Hat Tip: NY Nana).
Bashar al-Assad told Sky's Middle East correspondent Dominic Waghorn he wanted to meet the US President on Syrian soil to discuss peace in the region.
He asked Sky News to relay the invitation to Mr Obama.
When asked when the visit could take place, he said it was up to the Americans to decide.
Asked if it the meeting could usher in a new era in the region, he said yes, if peace could be secured.
...
Mr al Assad said: "We would like to welcome him in Syria, definitely. I am very clear about this."
Asked whether this could happen soon, the president said: "That depends on him."
Smiling, he added: "I will ask you to convey the invitation to him."
He said that "any summit between any two presidents is something positive".
"That doesn't mean you have to agree about everything. But when you discuss, this is how we can close the gap.
"It's normal to have differences between different cultures, between different nations and states.
"But I think the United States has a special role as the greatest power. I think President Obama should visit as many countries as he can in order to make these dialogues.
"And of course that includes Syria."
He acknowledged that a meeting with the US president would constitute only the first step in a rapprochement.
"A big change comes when you make actions. An invitation is about dialogue, dialogue is about having common ground, a common vision. Then you have to make a plan then, later, you take action."
Let's go to the videotape.
I'm sure Obama is jumping for joy, but Israelis ought to be very wary of this.
Victor Davis Hanson notes many columnists (whom he does not name) shouting mea culpas for criticizing the Bush administration for not talking to Iran. But these columnists - liberals who have now been mugged - were amazingly naive about Iran.
And as a result they seem to be "shocked" that 1) Iran is really not a democracy after all, and that, after 30 years, it still rigs elections, preselects candidates, and kills off opponents, confident that its thin veneer of voting fools Western elites; 2) does not much care whether we talk or not to its clerics, and whether we act nicely or badly toward them; 3) long ago figured that what little downside there was to getting the bomb was far outweighed by the upside (cf. the deference showed to Pakistan post-1998), and nothing was/is going to stop them.
And I'm still shocked that there are intelligent people who couldn't figure all this out when Ahmadinejad took office in 2005.
Moonbat McKinney refuses to sign deportation papers, will be deported in 3 days
CNN is reporting that former Congresscritter Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga.) is being held in a detention center in Ramle and will be deported to the United States in three days. The only reason she is not being sent back sooner is that she refuses to sign the deportation papers.
McKinney was arrested along with 20 other people trying to run Israel's blockade of the Gaza Strip on Tuesday.
The ex-lawmaker is in the Givon immigration detention center in the central Israeli city of Ramle, the U.S. Embassy said.
She has been given deportation papers but has refused to sign them, the embassy said.
She will be held for three more days, assuming she does not sign the papers, and then will be sent back to the United States, the embassy added.
The location of others taken into custody was not immediately known.
The IDF said the ship, which it called the Arion, had been warned while at sea that it would not be allowed to enter Gazan waters "because of security risks in the area and the existing naval blockade."
The IDF said the cargo boat disregarded all warnings and entered Gazan coastal waters. An Israeli navy force intercepted, boarded and took control of the vessel, directing it toward Ashdod, Israel, the IDF said.
The boat's crew would "be handed over to the proper authorities," the military said.
I wonder if she's in a cell with running water. Speaking of which, waterboarding anyone? (I don't think we do that stuff - just sleep deprivation). Heh.
I am an Orthodox Jew - some would even call me 'ultra-Orthodox.' Born in Boston, I was a corporate and securities attorney in New York City for seven years before making aliya to Israel in 1991 (I don't look it but I really am that old :-). I have been happily married to the same woman for twenty-seven years, and we have eight children (bli ayin hara) ranging in age from 5 to 25 years and one grandson. Our eldest daughter and eldest son are married! Before I started blogging I was a heavy contributor on a number of email lists and ran an email list called the Matzav from 2000-2004. You can contact me at: IsraelMatzav at gmail dot com
An IDF Dolphin class submarine was seen crossing the Suez canal back into the Mediterranean on Sunday two days after it was reported that one of the submarines had crossed the canal into the Red Sea and headed for Eilat. 
