Shavua tov, and a good week to everyone from Boston.
If you think friends don't spy on friends, you're wrong. Of course, when the friends are doing the spying on behalf of Israel, they end up in jail for 30 years and then cannot leave the United States once they are released. But it's perfectly okay for the United States and Britain to spy on Israel.
The
United States and Britain have monitored secret sorties and
communications by Israel's air force in a hacking operation dating back
to 1998, according to documents attributed to leaks by former U.S. spy
agency contractor Edward Snowden.
Israel voiced
disappointment at the disclosures, published on Friday in at least two
media outlets and which might further strains ties with Washington after
years of feuding over strategies on Iran and the Palestinians.
Israel's
best-selling newspaper, Yedioth Ahronoth, said the U.S. National
Security Agency, which specialises in electronic surveillance, and its
British counterpart GCHQ spied on Israeli air force missions against
Gaza, Syria and Iran.
The spy operation, codenamed "Anarchist", was run out of a Cyprus base and targeted other Middle East states too, Yedioth said.
Online
publication The Intercept, which lists Snowden confidant Glenn Greenwald
among its associates, ran a similar report, with what it said were
hacked pictures of armed Israeli drones taken from cameras aboard the
aircraft.
Yedioth said German news-magazine Der
Spiegel, whose publication day is Saturday, also planned to run an
article based on Snowden's leak.
...
[Energy Minister Yuval] Steinitz said Israel was "not surprised" by the hacking described in the latest Snowden leak.
"We
know that the Americans spy on the whole world, and also on us, also on
their friends," he said. "But still, it is disappointing, inter alia
because, going back decades already, we have not spied nor collected
intelligence nor hacked encryptions in the United States."
Hey Yuval - are you sure they're our friends? After all, they've been telling us for 30 years that friends don't spy on friends.
Surprise: Ehud Barak tells biographers Israel canceled plans to attack Iran in 2010, 2011 and 2012
Israel's Channel 2 television obtained recordings of former Defense Minister (and Prime Minister and IDF Chief of Staff) Ehud Barak telling biographers that Israel planned to strike Iran in 2010, 2011 and 2012... and then called off the strikes because someone in the IDF (Gabi Ashkenazi) or the cabinet (Boogie Yaalon, Yuval Steinitz) objected . You can watch a CNN report about the recordings here.
Here in Israel, there is outrage over the report. Yisrael Beiteinu party leader Avigdor Lieberman is accusing Barak of giving away state secrets.
Liberman told Army Radio that he was “more
than surprised” at Barak, and said statements such as those given by the
former minister would ultimately strengthen Iran.
“I think that when moves and discussions that
should have been closely guarded state secrets are discussed by the
press, it relays that you are a talker, that you aren’t serious, that
you’re unreliable,” he said.
“That is why, among other reasons, Iran is
being coddled by the international community, and we have been backed
into a corner… These things should only have been discussed in closed
forums.”
Asked whether he believed Barak was guilty of
revealing state secrets, Liberman responded that he had “no doubt” that
was the case.
And the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee is opening an investigation... into how the tapes got out.
Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee Chairman Tzahi Hanegbi (Likud) said on Sunday he intends to investigate whether information divulged by former Defense Minister Ehud Barak regarding a possible Iran strike was properly cleared for publication, and if so, why.
...
Speaking to Israel Radio on Sunday, Hanegbi said such publications do not serve Israel's security interests. When asked if Barak harmed Israel's security, Hanegbi refuse to answer, but said that as the head of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee he plans to summon officials from the censor's office and hear their explanation.
Barak spoke of the plans in conversations with his biographers, Dani Dor and Ilan Kfir. Excerpts from the recordings were aired on Israel Channel 2’s weekly news magazine on Friday.
Channel 2 said Barak did not want the material released, but the IDF military censor approved the publication.
This could yet be President Hussein Obama's second biggest foreign policy 'accomplishment'... after warming US relations with the Communist dictatorship in Cuba.
Several years ago, we heard a lot about the on-again-off-again sale of the S-300 anti-missile system by Russia to Iran. Now, with the 'framework agreement' between the P 5+1 and Iran, Russia has announced that the sale is on again. Russia is removing a ban on the sale that was imposed by Dmitry Medvedev in 2010, because after all, 'everyone knows' that the sanctions against Iran are going to be lifted.
The Russian foreign ministry says that the sale of the S-300 to Iran doesn't threaten Israel or other regional countries.
No, of course it doesn't. It just makes an Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear facilities that much harder to carry out.
Here in Jerusalem, the government is furious, blaming the sale (correctly) on the 'framework agreement.'
Cabinet minister Yuval Steinitz said the framework agreement helped
legitimize Iran and cleared the way for Monday's announcement by Russia.
"This is a direct result of the legitimacy that Iran obtained from
the emerging nuclear deal," he said. Steinitz added that the arms deal
shows that Iran plans to use the relief from economic sanctions to buy
weapons, not improve the living conditions of its people.
Why would anyone have thought otherwise?
In the meantime, US Secretary of State John Kerry is said to be 'raising objections' - but not 'deeply concerned' which is a different level altogether and is largely reserved for Israeli actions - about the deal.
Secretary of State John Kerry is raising objections with Moscow over a plan to sell anti-aircraft missiles to Iran.
The
White House says Kerry made the U.S. opposition clear in a phone call
to Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov (SEHR'-gay LAHV'-rahf). The
call came as Lavrov argued that a preliminary agreement over Iran's
nuclear program made a 2010 ban on sending missiles to Iran no longer
necessary.
White House press
secretary Josh Earnest indicated the move could endanger plans to
ultimately lift sanctions on Iran as part of a final nuclear deal. He
says unity and coordination with nations like Russia is critical to the
success of the negotiations.
The
agreement is supposed to be finalized by June 30. There is no firm
agreement yet on how or when to lift the international sanctions on
Iran.
But Kerry's chief negotiator and military tactician, the 'brilliant' Wendy Sherman, says that a military strike on Iran wouldn't succeed anyway.
Sherman told the reporters that a military operation against Iran would
not stop its nuclear program. "A military strike by Israel or the U.S.
would only set back the nuclear program by two years," she said. "You
can't bomb their nuclear know-how, and they will rebuild everything. The
alternatives are there but the best option is a diplomatic negotiated
solution."
Well, yeah, you assume that they have the resources with which to rebuild and they are left alone to do so. But why would anyone assume that to be true?
"The fraudulent claims against the Mossad Head were raised by the
Americans yesterday, despite a message that had been transmitted to them
on Tuesday by Intelligence Minister [Yuval] Steintz,” the senior
Israeli source told Channel 2 news.
He added that Israel had gone over the minutes of the meeting between
Pardo and the delegation of senators, and that Pardo had not said what
was attributed to him.
"Leaking the Mossad Head's statements, even if they had not been
falsified, is a serious breach of all the rules,” the senior source
added. “Friends do not behave like this. Information from a secret
meeting must not leak out.”
Pardo denied on Thursday the report – which was carried by Bloomberg news – claiming that the Mossad disagrees with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu about the need to press new sanctions on Iran.
Oh my... Steinitz tells the Beeb Gaza op 'for nothing'
Intelligence Minister Yuval Steinitz, one of the Prime Minister's closest confidantes, has told the BBC that Operation Protective Edge was 'for nothing.'
Intelligence Minister Yuval Steinitz, who is one of Prime Minister Netanyahu's closest confidantes, said on Saturday that the current operation in Gaza may end in the reoccupation of the entire Strip.
The price that both sides will pay is yet unknown. 270 Palestinians
have been killed so far in this most recent wave of violence, and more
than 2,000 have been injured, while two Israelis have been killed and
about 10 Israelis injured. The human cost of the conflict is
unpredictable in part because Israel has not yet decided how far it’s
going in Gaza, and, therefore, what its exit strategy should be. Israeli
Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon said Friday that the operation would
continue “until it’s necessary and until the quiet returns.”
The main target of Israel’s ground invasion of Gaza are secret
tunnels linking it to Israel, like the one Israel says Hamas militants
used this week in an attempt to infiltrate and attack it. Still, Yuval
Steinitz, Israel’s Minister of Strategic Affairs, said that Israel’s
“Operation Protective Edge” could result in Israel taking control of the
entire Gaza Strip.
“The tunnels are the target of this operation, but alongside that, I
don’t rule out the possibility of addition stages, of Stage B and Stage
C, and the expansion of this operation,” Steinitz said in a speech
following Netanyahu’s and broadcast on Israel Radio. “We will weigh all
options in coordination with the needs of the operation, and even though
we’re not interested in it, the possibility of taking control of the
entire Gaza Strip to eliminate the possibility of launching missiles
from there.”
Some members of Netanyahu’s cabinet, such as Foreign Minister Avigdor
Lieberman, have been vocal about their assessments that the only
solution in Israel’s eyes is a reoccupation of the Gaza Strip. Israel
seized Gaza in the 1967 Six-Day War, and didn’t remove its settlers and
soldiers from the region until 2005, nearly 40 years later.
But Azriel Bermant, a research fellow at the Institute for National
Security Studies at Tel Aviv University, says that re-taking control of
the Gaza Strip is considered an extreme option among Israel’s security
policy-making circles, and is probably some combination of bluster and
wishful thinking on the part of rightists like Lieberman. Netanyahu,
Bermant says, is more “risk-averse” and unlikely to want to make a move
that would not only be condemned internationally and lead to casualties
on both sides, but could also further complicate things in Gaza.
“The problem with talk of overthrowing Hamas is that you don’t want
to leave Gaza in a state of chaos, and you have no idea what will
replace it. Given what’s going on in the region, I don’t think anyone
really wants to take that risk,” Bermant said, referring to ISIS, the
Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, which has taken control of major swaths
of Iraq after pouring over from Syria’s border amidst that country’s
ongoing civil war.
On Friday, I reported that eliminating Hamas could take 8-12 months. The source of that assessment - which I did not mention at the time - was allegedly Prime Minister Netanyahu himself in a meeting with Haredi MK's that was reported in Haredi media.
I doubt Israel will ever go back to the situation in Gaza as it was before 2005. But I could see a temporary reoccupation and de-Nazification of Gaza, which would include an attempt to totally disarm all Islamist groups. While the 'international community' mightwill complain about that, the al-Sisi government in Egypt would likely be supportive. They feel at least as endangered as we do.
“We are currently expanding our ground operation against Hamas in Gaza,” the IDF Spokesperson’s Unit tweeted.
“Our goal remains, to strike a significant blow to Hamas' terror
capabilities so that the citizens of Israel can live in safety and
security,” read another tweet.
In a statement, the IDF said that ground forces in large numbers have
joined the military activities which are focusing on the terrorist
infrastructure in Gaza.
“The IDF operation was carried out pursuant to the decision of the
political echelon and according to the IDF's operational plans and will
continue, depending on a security assessment by the IDF General Staff,”
said the statement.
“The forces are at high readiness and are prepared for the mission
after a period of increased training and planning and thorough
preparation,” the statement emphasized.
Here's how the Time Magazine article described Phases B and C.
The stage B and C that Steinitz referred to could include going into
urban areas – Gaza City as well as the strip’s many refugee camps – in
search of rocket launchers and rocket stockpiles. Israeli soldiers were
sent to do this kind of high-risk, house-to-house combat during
Operation Cast Lead in 2008-9, and also in the West Bank during the
Second Intifada. Few want to get to a Stage C, which could mean a
reoccupation of the Gaza Strip for a period of months, says Dr. Jonathan
Spyer, an analyst at the Gloria Center at the IDC Herzliya.
“As of now, they’re not headed that far into Gaza. If it stays
focused on the tunnel openings, then they might stay quite close to
Gaza’s border. But my sense is that if the rocket fire on Israel
continues, it raises the possibility of a further incursion.
“A large element of this is punitive: to punish Hamas in order to
build deterrence,” Spyer adds. “But I don’t think there’s any intention
of reoccupying Gaza and bringing down Hamas as an authority. Israel has
no realistic options in that matter – I don’t think that [Palestinian
President] Mahmoud Abbas can just receive the Gaza Strip from Israel on a
silver plate. We’re also not going back to 1992 with an open occupation
of the Gaza Strip.”
For those who have forgotten, here's a video from 2004 that highlights the debate over Israel's expulsion of Gaza's Jews and abandonment of the territory. Who was right and who was wrong?
Let's go to the videotape (with English subtitles).
Speaking of history, for what it's worth, one of my children told me last night that he had a conversation with Mrs. Carl while I was in the US in which he said "I remember Abba telling me all about Obama eight years ago. Every single thing he said would happen has come true." I invite you to go back to my archives from 2006 and 2007 and see how many more things I predicted correctly.
Unfortunately. this blog did not exist until January 2006, and my predictions with respect to the Gaza expulsion were wiped out when Charles Johnson purged all comments on his blog from those who did not agree with his new political views.
Media reports surfaced last week that Israel’s intelligence operations
in the US are “unrivaled and unseemly,” extending to surveillance of
senior White House officials.
...
Strategic Affairs Minister Yuval Steinitz, who holds the
intelligence portfolio in the Netanyahu government, accused “someone of
trying to maliciously and intentionally harm relations between Israel
and the United States.”
Steinitz “unequivocally” denied the report, featured in Newsweek magazine, as having “no basis” in fact.
But
the initial report was followed by one that detailed alleged US
efforts to “cover up” Israel’s spying on then vice president Al Gore in
1998. It claimed that the US Secret Service caught an Israeli “agent”
in an air duct in the process of bugging the vice president’s hotel
room.
Since National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden
leaked classified documents on American intelligence tactics, President
Barack Obama has suggested that the US spies on its allies – with the
tacit understanding being that the practice is mutual.
Publicly,
Obama has drawn the line at spying on foreign leaders, after
revelations that the US had tapped the cellphone of German Chancellor
Angela Merkel. But the US president has said that foreign allies would
conduct greater surveillance if they had the capability to do so.
...
Former Military Intelligence chief Maj.-Gen. (res.) Amos Yadlin also dismissed the allegations.
“Israel
is certainly not spying in the United States,” Yadlin said. “This is a
former Military Intelligence head telling you this. If you bring all
of the past Military Intelligence chiefs from the past 29 years, since
the of [the arrest of Jonathan] Pollard, or the past heads of the
Mossad, they will tell you the same .”
Yadlin said he expects the
leaders of the US intelligence community to address the American
public in response to the report, and to “either say that this is
baseless, or present facts.”
You don't think the Obama administration would cook up something like this to cover for the fact that they have spied on every country in the world, do you?
Congress wants to deny aid to 'Palestinians' until incitement stops: Will Obama veto it?
The House Appropriations Committee is taking up a bill to suspend aid to the 'Palestinian Authority' until a reliable report is issued that shows that incitement against the Jewish State is on the decline.
Channel 2 reports Saturday night that the US Congress House
Appropriations Committee is debating cutting off aid to the Palestinian
Authority (PA) unless its ongoing incitement against Israel stops or is
significantly curtailed.
Under the new law, aid to the PA will be frozen until a reliable
report is released proving that it has begun cutting down its incitement
against the Jewish state.
US lawmakers believe that the bill is expected to pass by a large
majority vote in Congress, according to the daily. Intelligence Minister
Yuval Steinitz spoke with several US Congress members earlier this week
and expressed his appreciation about the legislative initiative.
"I met this week with members of Congress and thanked them for
proposing a law designed to stop the incitement against Israel in the
Palestinian Authority," Steinitz stated Saturday. "The initiative would
curtail the aid that the US gives to the Palestinian Authority until it
stops or at least significantly reduces the level of incitement it
levies against Israel." Steinitz added that the precondition of
reliable accountability for PA incitement before aid resumes is a major
step to solving the ongoing incitement problem.
Steinitz recently turned down a joint committee with the US over the
PA's incitement against Israel, citing concerns that a committee would
be ineffective.
"There is no point in convening a committee that will be a
cover-up for continued incitement by the Palestinian Authority," he
stated.
But here's the real question: Will Obama veto any legislation on the issue? Because you can bet that President Hussein Obama and his Secretary of State John FN Kerry are going to oppose this....
As Kerry makes deal, Steinitz calls 'Palestinian Authority' anti-Semitic
With US Secretary of State John FN Kerry touting 'progress' in the 'negotiations' and heading for an unscheduled visit to Saudi Arabia on Sunday, Strategic Affairs Minister Yuval Steinitz acknowledges the reality that the 'Palestinian Authority' is anti-Semitic.
Speaking at a live interview panel in Nes Tziona, Steinitz said: “We
see the bitter incitement and the anti-Semitism of the Palestinian
Authority under Abu Mazen (a.k.a. Mahmoud Abbas) as a primary obstacle
on the way to an agreement. My impression is that Abu Mazen wants a
Palestinian state, without peace, without security and without a real
end to the conflict.”
Steinitz promised to raise the subject in Sunday's weekly cabinet
session. “In tomorrow's session, I will present new and worrisome
findings regarding the incitement index
– the messages in the PA's educational system and television. According
to these messages, there is a need – sooner or later – to destroy the
state of Israel and drive out the Jews," he warned.
"When you examine the level of Palestinian incitement, you cannot
avoid the conclusion that Abu Mazen wants a Palestinian state as another
stage in the continued conflict with Israel," Steinitz added..
"I am not giving up,” he said. “We want to reach peace, but we must
not ignore these things, because peace is not just a peace of paper.”
Steinitz: Bennett signed on 'Palestinian' terrorists' release, Netanyahu would not have gone forward without him
In a shocking interview with Israel's Channel 2 on Saturday night, Strategic Affairs Minister Yuval Steniitz said that Jewish Home party leader Naftali Bennett approved the release of 'Palestinian' terrorists as part of the 'peace process' and that Prime Minister Netanyahu would not have undertaken the terrorists' release without Bennett on board.
Speaking on Channel 2's "Meet
the Press" about Bennett's vocal opposition to the release of 26
Palestinian prisoners last week, Steinitz said: "Netanyahu told Kerry,
'I cannot give you a final answer as long as I do not have agreement on
this process from all members of my coalition. This is a large and
significant process, I need to speak to Naftali Bennett.' It was very
clear that Netanyahu told Kerry that he would not go forward without a
green light from Bennett."
Ahead of Kerry's visit to Israel this week, it
appears that the storm surrounding the prisoner release last week
demonstrated to the U.S. how sensitive and complex the issue was and the
degree of opposition from within the government and Israeli society to
the release of more Palestinian prisoners.
Steinitz went on to say: "I understood that we
all saw eye-to-eye. No one was excited about the release of terrorists,
but it was clear to everyone that a settlement freeze would be even
more difficult."
"Prime Minister Netanyahu said things clearly
and precisely, [and the words of Bennett and Habayit Hayehudi] were
imprecise understatements," he went on to say. "Habayit Hayehudi was in
the wrong about the subject. I am sure that at the end of the day,
Bennett understands this week that he was mistaken in his delayed
opposition to the problematic proceedings. You cannot act in favor while
feeling opposed. In any case, after a government decision has been
made, you cannot come out against it. I have no doubt that there was
agreement to the process. Even if there was a feeling of discomfort
shared between all of us, there was an agreement in advance of the
process."
While this is entirely plausible, I have pointed out before that other parties in and out of the coalition may have an interest in turning this issue into the 'settlers' v. the rest of the country, and that Bennett's party more than any other symbolizes the 'settlers.' But that doesn't change the fact that it's entirely possible that Bennett went along with this, and if he did he's a fool and a political neophyte. Anyone could have seen how this would play out.
And Bennett's response?
Bennett's office responded: "Minister Bennett was among
the only ministers to oppose the prisoner release and he voted against
the release in the government. With that, when the plan was presented,
he clarified that he would oppose but not resign from the coalition." An
official from Habayit Hayehudi commented, saying, "Steinitz, who voted
in favor of the prisoner release, is better off not preaching to
Bennett, who voted against the release."
In this country's coalition politics, it's very common that someone will vote against something to keep their voters happy because 'my vote won't matter anyway.' A vote in favor by Bennett in the cabinet would not have made a difference (the terrorist release passed by something like 21-7) but many of those 21 may only have gone along because they knew that Bennett, as self-proclaimed representative of the 'settlers,' agreed.
Iran proposes 'drastic' reduction in nuke capability: From 6 per year to 5
The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Iran will propose a 'drastic' reduction in its nuclear program when the P 5+1 talks resume next week . According to the report, Iran will offer to stop enriching uranium to levels of 20%
purity, and will offer
to open the country's nuclear facilities to more intrusive international
inspections. According to the report, Iran is also considering offering to close the underground
uranium-enrichment facility near Qom, according to the report. In return, Iran wants an easing of sanctions.
Israel's Strategic Affairs Minister, Yuval Steinitz, says 'not good enough.' He calls the proposal a joke.
Intelligence Minister Yuval Steinitz called the reported proposals a "joke."
"Closing
the Qom facility means Iran will be able to produce five instead of six
nuclear bomb in the first year, and giving up enrichment at 20% is less
meaningful now that Iran has 20,000 centrifuges," Steinitz said.
"Israel
will agree to a real and serious diplomatic solution... [in which] Iran
could continue producing electricity at the reactor, but will have to
purchase the nuclear fuel to operate the reactor from other countries,"
he continued.
Saying that Iran is six months from a nuclear weapons capability, Israel's Strategic Affairs Minister, Yuval Steinitz, who is known to be close to Prime Minister Netanyahu, has told Israel Hayom that it's too late for negotiations with Iran.
"There is no more time to hold negotiations,"
Steinitz, who is close to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, said in an
interview with the Israel Hayom daily published on Friday.
The
United States and its allies suspect Iran is working towards a nuclear
weapons capability despite Tehran's insistence that its atomic program
has only peaceful aims.
...
"If the Iranians continue to run, in another half a year they will have bomb capability," he said.
Israel
has dismissed overtures to the West by new Iranian President Hassan
Rouhani, and his pledge in an interview on U.S. television that Iran
would never develop nuclear weapons.
"One
must not be fooled by the Iranian president's fraudulent words,"
Netanyahu's office said in a statement on Thursday. "The Iranians are
spinning in the media so that the centrifuges can keep on spinning."
Both Israel and the United States have hinted
at possible military action to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran should
sanctions and diplomacy fail to curb its atomic programme.
But
Steinitz said a phrase used often in the past by U.S. and Israeli
leaders - that "all options are on the table" in confronting Iran - was
not enough to persuade Tehran to stop its uranium enrichment.
"I am sure that had there been three aircraft
carriers with an American declaration that in the event the Iranians do
not honour the Security Council decisions, the Americans are expected to
attack by 2013, they would have acted differently," he said.
"Today the Iranians take into account that they have room to manoeuvre, and that is the most dangerous thing," he said.
Steinitz goes on to say that Israel has learned a lesson from Syria. Sounds like we're going to be going it alone....
This one by Strategic Affairs Minister Yuval Steinitz seems likely to happen.
Steinitz: ~"I predict that we will see an Iranian attack of niceties in the coming weeks. Rohani is going to laugh all the way to the bomb."
— Ben Birnbaum (@Ben_Birnbaum) September 8, 2013
The assessment in Israel over the weekend was that the United States is going to attack Syria... sooner or later.
America's
change of course in its policy toward Syria is a result of what seems
to be the Syrian military's massive use of chemical weapons against
civilians last week near Damascus. The casualty numbers and horrific
images coming out of the targeted areas left no other choice, even for
the vacillating Obama administration and General Martin Dempsey's
stuttering military. This is the same president who refrained from
responding after every red line he declared was brazenly crossed, and it
is the same joint chiefs of staff that claimed it would be "impossible"
to implement a no-fly zone over Syria -- and these are now the people
expected to act in contravention to their desires and put the U.S. army
right back into a Middle Eastern war zone.
In Israel, officials
think that in its first phase, at least, the American attack will be
limited and focused (possibly against the precise Republican Guard unit
that launched the chemical weapons), so as to avoid complicating the
mission and because of the concern that a wide-scale strike will
actually prompt Assad to unleash his unconventional weapons against his
rivals (he might calculate that he has nothing to lose).
An important question
must also be asked: How will Russia respond to the expected strike
against its Middle Eastern protégé? American procrastination will allow
Russia to pull its diplomatic levers in the United Nations and military
levers in the Mediterranean Sea, which could alter the nature of the
conflict into a direct clash between major blocs.
As far as Israel is
concerned, the challenge will be to continue to stay out of the picture.
The natural concern is that if its back is against the wall, Syria (or
Hezbollah and Iran) could aim the shooting towards us as well. We should
thus see tight coordination between Jerusalem and Washington,
accompanied by American guarantees to protect Israel if it is attacked
(as was the case in the first Gulf War).
Actually, the US did not do much of a job of protecting Israel during the first Gulf War. Apparently one of the conditions for that protection was that someone had to be killed. Only one person was actually killed by Saddam's SCUD's.
But Assad has much more of an arsenal than Saddam had. Assad has 100,000 missiles and rockets that can be aimed at Israel.
According to estimates,
the Syrian army has in its possession some 100,000 missiles and rockets.
Several thousand of them, such as the Scud-D missiles, are considered
very powerful and accurate and can reach any target in Israel.
President Bashar Assad's army also has Russian-made SS-22 medium-range
surface-to-surface ballistic missiles, which can carry some 120
kilograms of explosive material.
The Syrian army is not
only weary from fighting the rebel forces over the past two-and-a-half
years, it has also used up a fair amount of its weapons. However, Russia
continues to send arms shipments to Syria and is making certain the
regime is Damascus receives more rockets, anti-tank missiles, small arms
and ammunition. The Syrian army also receives logistical support from
Iran.
The events of the past week have raised fears in Israel that Assad will use chemical
weapons not only against his own people. The Syrian army is capable of
arming its missiles with chemical agents, as it did this week prior to
the attack on rebel strongholds on the outskirts of Damascus, and use
them against Israel, although such a scenario seems unlikely at the
moment.
...
A response to an
American attack could also come from Syria's regional allies. Israel is
convinced that Hezbollah will not take action against "the Zionist
enemy" without a direct order from Iran, and thus, in the event of a
Western attack that may break the Tehran-Damascus-Hezbollah axis, Israel
may take a blow from the north.
...
The Israeli response
will start with an attack which will be primarily based on intelligence
that will allow the IAF to launch a powerful opening blow to Hezbollah's
strategic assets in southern and central Lebanon.
"I'm not so sure that any American strike on Syria will
lead to a Syrian attack on Israel. I believe that the chances of that
are actually slim," Steinitz said. "Regardless, we have to be ready in
terms of both our defensive options and our offensive ones."
My guess is that if the United States hits Syria, we will at least see a symbolic retaliation against Israel. How far that retaliation goes will determine whether we go to war.
Steinitz: Israel willing to make serious territorial concessions
In an interview with London's Daily Telegraph, International Affairs Minister Yuval Steinitz says that Israel is willing to make 'serious territorial concession' for 'peace.'
In order to reach agreement, Israel was willing to relinquish territory in the
West Bank. “We are prepared to make considerable concessions and it’s not
going to be easy,” said Mr Steinitz. “Both sides will have to make very
significant concessions and very difficult concessions. We will probably
have to make very serious territorial concessions. And the Palestinians will
have to make also both territorial concessions - because there will be
settlement blocks - but more important still they will have to recognise the
very existence of the Jewish people and the Jewish state.”
The Palestinians must recognise not only Israel’s right to exist but its
status as a Jewish state, said Mr Steinitz. They will also have to abandon
the “right of return” for refugees who were driven from Israel during the
war of 1948. As for Jerusalem, which the Palestinians claim as their
capital, Mr Steinitz said the status quo was the only option.
“We are ready for a two states for two people solution,” he said. “If we reach
an end of conflict peace agreement with the Palestinians, we will have a
referendum. I can tell you, I am confident that most Israelis will support
it - even if we will have to make considerable and difficult concessions,
including territorial concessions. But on one condition: that Israelis will
be totally convinced that what we are getting in return is genuine, enduring
peace and real security.”
This doesn't sound great, but let's think about it for a second. Note what's not mentioned here. Steinitz says we're not making concessions on Jerusalem or on 'refugees.' And there's no mention of 'land swaps.' What do you think the odds are of reaching an agreement on this basis? It won't happen. If this is the government's true stand, there's not going to be an agreement. Bibi is just playing for time. Which is really all he can do unless he's willing to openly confront Obama and parts of his own coalition.
US Secretary of State John Kerry announced on Friday night that 'peace talks' will resume in Washington.
Kerry specified that Juctice Minister Tzipi Livni and Palestinian
negotiator Saeb Erekat could come to Washington "within the next week or
so, and a further announcement will be made by all of us at that time".
Asked if that meeting of envoys would be considered the start of negotiations, a US official said: "Yes."
"I
am pleased to announce that we have reached an agreement that
establishes a basis for resuming direct final-status negotiations
between the Palestinians and the Israelis," Kerry told reporters in
Amman.
"The best way to give these negotiations a chance is to
keep them private," he said. "We know that the challenges require some
very tough choices in the days ahead. Today, however, I am hopeful."
If you think anyone other than Kerry is happy about this, think again.
Kerry's announcement, on the eve of the Jewish sabbath and as Muslims
ended their daily Ramadan fast, may have been meant in part to deflect
domestic scrutiny from Netanyahu and Abbas.
I believe that the announcement was after the Sabbath started in Jerusalem.
And now the (avoidance of) blame game starts in earnest.
That is where the difficulties will begin for the United States. In both
Israel and the PLO, major coalition players have threatened revolt over
basic negotiation points: prisoner concessions, a preliminary
acceptance of pre-1967 borders, and settlement construction, among other
issues. If these players genuinely threaten to disrupt their respective
governments, Kerry may see an end to the negotiations he fought so hard
for before they even begin in earnest.
Kerry may have also exhausted a unique brand of political leverage: low
expectations. Afraid of embarrassing the secretary of state, both
parties have now handed him a much-needed victory. The parties can now
say they have made an authentic effort at talks and bail under the
excuse of intense domestic political pressures.
Reluctance from the White House to comment on the development may
demonstrate trepidation: Kerry still owns the process, and the president
can be expected to enter the fray only if he sees genuine partners in
peace from both sides.
...
"It's the first direct talks in several years, and that's
significant. But it shouldn't be overblown. They basically agreed to
disagree, and to talk about that," says Natan Sachs, a fellow at the
Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution.
"There's
a sense the parties are entering the talks with an eye on the blame
game. So the challenge now for Kerry is to remain quiet, to avoid that."
Meanwhile, Israeli lawmaker Tzachi Hanegbi, a confidant of Netanyahu,
suggested the United States could have found a formula that would avoid
the 1967 border issue torpedoing resumption of negotiations.
"The
talks should be possible when both sides feel they have not conceded
their basic positions. The Americans are entitled to say whatever they
want. For instance, they could say that they think the talks should be
based on the 1967 borders, but that this does not bind us," Hanegbi told
Israel Radio.
"I suppose they will also say that the goal of the
negotiations is to reach a deal in which the Palestinians recognize
Israel as Jewish state, something that at least at the moment the
Palestinians are unwilling to accept," Hanegbi said.
"There will be some release
of prisoners," [International Affairs Minister Yuval] Steinitz told Israel Radio. "I don't want to give
numbers but there will be heavyweight prisoners who have been in jail
for dozens of years," he said. The release would be carried out in phases, he added.
...
Steinitz indicated that some of those who would be released had been convicted of violent crimes against Israelis.
"It will not be simple, but we will make that gesture," he said.
Steinitz said that Israel did not
acquiesce to freeze settlement construction or base the negotiations on
the pre-1967 borders as part of the agreement to return to negotiations.
"There is no chance that we will agree to enter any
negotiations that begins with defining territorial borders or
concessions by Israel, nor a construction freeze."
...
The Likud minister told Israel Radio
that the Palestinians committed to enter talks that would continue at
least nine months and the PA agreed to cease unilateral efforts to gain
statehood at the UN during this period.
But apparently no one told the 'Palestinians' they'd agreed to that.
Senior PLO official Wasel Abu
Youssef said of Kerry's initiative, "The announcement today did not mean the return to
negotiations. It meant efforts would continue to secure the achievement
of Palestinian demands ... Israel must recognize the 1967 borders."
Kerry
said on Friday that the deal between Israel and the Palestinians was
still being "formalized" and he would therefore not discuss it in
detail, but that negotiators for both sides could begin talks in
Washington "within the next week or so."
Nabil Amr, a senior Fatah official and
former PA minister, said the way the PA leadership dealt with the issue of
resuming negotiating with Israel was "frustrating."
He added: "Although what
Kerry achieved was expected, the way the Palestinian leadership handled the
return to the negotiating table over the past two days was frustrating." Amr
said that the Palestinians were suffering from a "leadership crisis more than a
crisis in the policy adopted by the Palestinian leadership, which excels in
hardline talk but eventually succumbs to the fait accompli."
The Palestinian
National Initiative, a political movement headed by former presidential
candidate Mustafa Barghouti, announced that it was opposed to the resumption of
the peace talks with Israel "without clear and specific terms of reference."
The
movement said that any negotiations should be based on the pre-1967 lines and a
full cessation of settlement construction "in all Palestinian territories,
including Jerusalem."
The movement warned that conducting negotiations while
settlement construction was continuing "means that Israel would exploit them as
a cover for its expansionist settlement projects."
It said that there was no
peace partner in Israel because the Israeli government was busy building in the
settlements and creating new facts on the ground.
"The alternative is
popular resistance, boycotting and imposing sanctions on Israel and restoring
Palestinian national unity," the movement added.
Hamas spokesman also
condemned the PA for "succumbing to American extortion and complying with
Israel's demands." Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhoum said that the PA's decision was
a "big gift to the extremist occupation government and a loss for the
Palestinian people."
I don't expect these talks to go anywhere. Just to move the goalposts so that the next time, Israel is expected to concede even more before we start.
Russia to 'just fulfill contracts' by sending S-300 to Syria; Israel threatens to prevent deployment
Russia has announced that it will send the S-300 anti-missile system to Syria.
Al-Jazeera reports that Russia claims it's just going to fulfill its contracts to send the S-300 anti-missile system to Syria.
Let's go to the videotape.
What's unmentioned here is that there were hints from Israel today that it mightintervene militarily to prevent the S-300 from being deployed. Strategic Affairs Minister Yuval Steinitz fears that the S-300 could be used against commercial aircraft arriving and departing from Israel.
“Clearly this move
is a threat to us,” Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon said as he stood outside the
Home Front Command Headquarters in Ramle.
“At this point I cannot say
that there is a step-up in the shipment of the S-300. The deliveries have not
taken place, I can attest to this, and I hope they do not. But if, by some
misfortune, they arrive in Syria, we will know what to do,” Ya’alon
said.
...
Strategic Affairs Minister Yuval Steinitz (Likud) said of Russia
decision, “one can not understand or justify such behavior. It is totally
wrong.”
He spoke in Jerusalem at a one day conference called, “Israel: A
new reality?” hosted by the Israel Project. Steintiz explained to the audience
of diplomats and journalist that the S-300 could be used both as a defensive and
offensive weapons. It is capable of hitting aircraft, including civilian planes,
he said.
“Supply such weapons to Assad in the middle of a civil war,
while he is slaughtering his own people,” Steinitz said, could be seen as a sign
of encouragement and support.
Russia used a European Union decision not to renew its boycott of weapons shipments to the Syrian rebels as an excuse to justify shipping the S-300 to Assad.
Erekat says Peres has to convince Netanyahu to make peace, Steinitz says Peres doesn't speak for the government
With all of the problems with the world economy, it seems that the only issue of interest at the World Economic Forum in Jordan is Israel and the 'Palestinians.' Shimon Peres, who has never won a national election in this country, has become the star of the show, with many so-called 'leaders' deciding that Peres represents Israeli aspirations rather than our elected government.
This is from the first link.
"What
holds back the renewal of the peace negotiation are some gaps in the
bridge between the beginning and the conclusion. Knowing very well the
nature of the missing link, I am convinced that this gap can be
bridged," Peres said calling on leaders of both sides to advance peace
initiatives.
Peres called Palestinian Authority PresidentMahmoud Abbas a partner of Israel's and praised
recent US efforts to contribute to completing the peace process and the
the Arab Peace Initiative as a strategic opportunity for approaching
peace.
"We must depart from the skepticism that claims that war is inevitable. War is not inevitable. Peace is inevitable." he said.
"Despite
the many hurdles on the way to peace, we must never lose sight of the
positive developments in our region," Peres said citing peace agreements
that have been fostered between Egypt and Israel and Jordan and Israel.
Abu Bluff gave us his vision of peace, which ought to be enough to ensure that there will never be an agreement.
Just
peace must include the right of return to Palestinian refugees and the
release of Palestinian prisoners from Israeli jails, Palestinian
Authority President Mahmoud Abbas said.
The PA president also
called on Israelis to read the Arab Peace Initiative, withdraw to the
pre-1967 lines, and allow Jerusalem to be the capital of both states.
For most Israelis the 'right of return' (a code word for democratically destroying the Jewish state by overwhelming it demographically) and the 'pre-1967 lines' (the 1949 armistice lines) are non-starters. You can read more about Abu Bluff's speech at the link, but I want to skip ahead to 'Palestinian' chief negotiatorbottle washerSaeb Erekat (and yes, I know he promised to resign, but he lied), who gave an incredible interview to Army Radio on Monday morning.
Speaking in an interview with Army Radio, Erekat welcomed President Shimon Peres's call
for an immediate resumption of peace talks in his speech to the World
Economic Forum in Jordan on Sunday, however, he stated that the
reactions of several ministers to Peres's speech was troubling.
Erekat said that after hearing Peres's speech, he woke up Monday morning and saw in the Israeli newspapers
Strategic Affairs Minister Yuval Steinitz saying Peres was not a
government spokesman and Tourism Minister Uzi Landau referring to the
pre-1967 lines as "Auschwitz borders."
"I know you are a
democracy, but usually a coalition has a program," Erekat said in
response to the different opinions being voiced by Israeli politicians.
The
PA negotiator said that "everyone on Earth is convinced that a state on
the 67 borders is the answer, but the one person we must convince is
[Prime Minister Binyamin] Netanyahu.
Erekat stated that the PA's
insistence that talks not resume until Netanyahu accepts a Palestinian
state based on the pre-1967 lines does not constitute a pre-condition,
but rather is an Israeli obligation to conform to UN resolutions as set
out in the Oslo Accords.
Bill Clinton and Barack Obama could not have done a better job than Saeb of explaining why a precondition is not a precondition, but Steinitz and Landau aren't the only government ministers who didn't find Saeb amusing.
Home Front Defense Minister Gilad Erdan (Likud) accused Erekat of
"chutzpa," pointing out differing opinions among Israeli politicians
while the PA holds reconciliation talks with Hamas, which rejects a
two-state solution.
Erdan said that Netanyahu has made clear that he supports a two-state solution.
I think we ought to ask Saeb to point out where in the Oslo Accords or in UN resolutions 242 or 338 it says that Israel will or ought to return to the 1949 armistice lines. The answer is, it doesn't.
If Lieberman convicted, Steinitz to be Foreign Minister; current 'deputy' doesn't speak English!
JPost is reporting that if Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman (for whom Prime Minister Netanyahu is holding the seat) is convicted in his corruption trial, former Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz will become Foreign Minister.
The title of international affairs minister that the Likud’s Yuval Steinitz
received could be a stepping stone to the Foreign Ministry, Prime Minister
Binyamin Netanyahu reassured Steinitz this week, Likud sources revealed
exclusively to The Jerusalem Post Tuesday.
The sources said that at a
marathon meeting with Netanyahu on Sunday, in which Steinitz let Silvan Shalom
have the Energy and Water Ministry, Steinitz raised the issue of what would
happen if Yisrael Beytenu leader Avigdor Liberman is
convicted.
...
If Liberman is convicted,
multiple Likud ministers will seek the Foreign Ministry, including Steinitz,
Gideon Sa’ar, Gilad Erdan, and Shalom, who held the post under former prime
minister Ariel Sharon. But Likud sources said Netanyahu’s mind was made up, and
he made clear to Steinitz that the job would be his.
As to Lieberman, between his interests and the country's interests, guess whose interests he has chosen to protect.
Liberman did not
permit Netanyahu to appoint another minister in the Foreign Ministry during his
absence and insisted that MK Ze’ev Elkin be appointed deputy foreign minister,
even though he does not speak English.
Steinitz is not a bad choice. He has a PhD from Tel Aviv University and has written extensively on military and strategic affairs. Prior to serving as Finance Minister, he chaired the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee. He is probably one of the most competent MK's in the Knesset.
And from Netanyahu's perspective, Steinitz is known as a Netanyahu loyalist....
I wish I could tell you that the rest of our cabinet ministers are fit for their positions:
A poll
sponsored by the Israel Democracy Institute (IDI) and Tel Aviv University found
that a majority of Jewish Israelis (56%) believe that Yair Lapid is not suited
to be finance minister, while 33% think he is. Even among Yesh Atid voters, 50%
believe he is not suited while 42% think he is.
Jewish Israelis are
closely divided on Tzipi Livni’s suitability to coordinate negotiations with the
Palestinians, with 46% seeing her as suitable and 50% seeing her as not. Nearly
all Hatnua voters (95%) see her as suitable for this role.
More than
two-thirds (69%) of Jewish Israelis supported a coalition with Yesh Atid and
Bayit Yehudi, while the ultra-Orthodox parties remain outside; a minority (28%)
opposed this.
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 thirty-five years, and we have eight children (bli ayin hara) ranging in age from 13 to 33 years and nine grandchildren. Four of our children 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
