How will Obama's final days in office play out for Israel?
From an al-Monitor piece discussing why Prime Minister Netanyahu is likely to conclude a new defense package with the United States before President Obama leaves office come
these disturbing thoughts.
“We are talking about a comprehensive deal,” one senior political
source in Jerusalem told Al-Monitor on the condition of anonymity.
“Netanyahu is trying to clear the table and move toward the demands made
by Obama’s people in the hope that the aid agreement will be finalized.
For the same price, Netanyahu is trying to assuage any desire for
retribution that Obama might still nurture. He is also trying to
increase his own chances of getting through the Obama era in peace,
without any new diplomatic initiative, a formative presidential address or some problematic Security Council resolution.
Right now, the chances of Netanyahu succeeding are reasonable. Within
President Obama’s circles, there is, as of yet, no decision as to what
the final chord of his administration’s Middle East policy will be. Some
are pressuring Obama to reveal the draft of the framework agreement (as
reported in previous articles
in Al-Monitor) that he reached with Netanyahu and his staff, or to
allow the French to bring their own initiative to the Security Council
and then not veto it. Obama will only decide what to do at the very last
minute.
The question now being asked in Israel is which of the two
temperaments will ultimately triumph. Will it be Obama’s desire to get
back at Netanyahu, who taunted him for the last eight years and dragged
him into ugly and unnecessary mud-slinging matches? Or will it be
Obama’s cool, collected temperament, which will keep him from
reshuffling the deck and shaking everything up just moments before he
exits the arena?
People close to Netanyahu say that Obama has no plans to disappear.
Even after he leaves office, he will remain an active and influential
figure in America. It could, therefore, be worth it for him to maintain a
reasonable relationship with the Israeli government.
What could go wrong?
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Binyamin Netanyahu, defense spending, Obama's legacy, Obama's obsession with Israel
Obama: World would have been a better place had Bush NOT toppled Saddam Hussein
Okay, so that cartoon came from the
People's Cube, which is a satire site (Hat Tip:
Jack W). But is it that far from reality?
The Wall Street Journal's Bret Stephens says that the
pace of Obama's disasters is gaining speed.
Was it only 10 months ago that President
Obama
capitulated on Syria? And eight months ago that we learned he had no idea the U.S. eavesdropped on
Angela Merkel
? And seven months ago that his administration struck its
disastrous interim nuclear deal with Tehran? And four months ago that
Chuck Hagel
announced that the United States Army would be cut to numbers not
seen since the 1930s? And three months ago that Russia seized Crimea?
And two months ago that
John Kerry's
Israeli-Palestinian peace effort sputtered into the void? And
last month that Mr. Obama announced a timetable for total withdrawal
from Afghanistan—a strategy whose predictable effects can now be seen in
Iraq?
Even the Bergdahl deal of
yesterweek is starting to feel like ancient history. Like geese,
Americans are being forced to swallow foreign-policy fiascoes at a rate
faster than we can possibly chew, much less digest.
Consider the liver.
On Thursday, Russian tanks rolled across the
border into eastern Ukraine. On Saturday, Russian separatists downed a
Ukrainian transport jet, murdering 49 people. On Monday, Moscow stopped
delivering gas to Kiev. All this is part of the Kremlin's ongoing
stealth invasion and subjugation of its neighbor. And all of this barely
made the news. John Kerry phoned Moscow to express his "strong
concern." Concern, mind you, not condemnation.
If
the president of the United States had any thoughts on the subject, he
kept them to himself. His weekly radio address was devoted to wishing
America's dads a happy Father's Day.
Also
last week, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria seized Mosul. Then ISIS
took Tikrit. Then it was Tal Afar. Mass executions of Shiites in each
place. The administration is taking its time deciding what, if any, aid
it will provide the government in Baghdad. But it is exploring the
possibility of using Iraq's distress as an opportunity to open avenues
of cooperation with Tehran.
So because
the administration has a theological objection to using military force
in Iraq to prevent it from being overrun by al Qaeda or dissolving into
potentially genocidal civil war, it will now work with Tehran, a
designated state sponsor of terrorism for 30 years and a regime that
continues to arm Hezbollah in Lebanon, Islamic Jihad in Gaza and
Bashar Assad
in Syria, to help "stabilize" Iraq. At least the White House has
ruled out military cooperation with Iran. But give it time.
Read the whole thing.
Anyone want to predict the next disaster? Here's a hint: Last night, the White House announced that Obama has
ruled out airstrikes in Iraq - at least for now.
FORE!
Labels: Angela Merkel, Barack Hussein Obama, chemical weapons, Chuck Hagel, defense spending, Iranian nuclear threat, Iraq, John Kerry, Middle East peace process, Saddam Hussein, Shiites v. Sunnis, Syrian uprising
Israel overcomes Obama, upgrades Apache helicopters
A report at the website Before It's News indicates that Israel has upgraded its own Apache AH-64 attack helicopters after the
Obama administration prevented Boeing from doing the job (Hat Tip:
Sunlight).
The sources said the Air Force was equipping the Apaches with two new electronic warfare systems developed in the Jewish state.
“They are based on the huge operational experience of the force in
using the Apache Longbow in a variety of combat scenarios,” an officer,
identified only as Maj. Yonatan, said.
The upgrade has been developed amid the U.S. refusal to modernize
Israel’s Apache fleet, employed in attacks on the Hamas-ruled Gaza
Strip.
The sources said the administration of President Barack Obama blocked
Israeli efforts to modernize the Apaches or purchase new helicopters
from Boeing.
The new Israeli systems were cited by the official magazine of the
Air Force. The sources said the sensors underwent trials in early 2014
and would be integrated on the Apaches later this year.
The sources said the Air Force would enhance the AH-64A helicopter to
D configuration. They cited such capabilities as avionics, EW and
advanced munitions, including the AGM-114 Hellfire, produced by the U.S.
firm Lockheed Martin.
“The upgraded Apaches now also carry several new Israeli missiles,” a source said.
The sources said the modernization, conducted in the air force base
of Ramon, was also meant to ensure interoperability between the Apaches
as well
as fixed-wing aircraft and ground assets.
They cited communications and
common digital maps of the helicopters and the Merkava Mk-4 main battle
tank.
Smart Jews.
Labels: Apache helicopter, Barack Hussein Obama, Boeing, defense spending, Hamas, IAF
'Most pro-Israel administration evah' systematically bars Shin Bet and Mossad agents, IDF representatives and defense industry execs from visiting US
In an earlier post, I reported that the 'most pro-Israel administration evah' has presided over an
80% increase in the rate of visa denials for Israelis traveling to the United States. Maariv on Tuesday reports on some of those being denied visas.
Maariv reports (link in Hebrew) that the US has been systematically denying visas to Shin Bet (General Security Service) and Mossad agents, to representatives of the IDF and to executives of companies in Israel's defense industry. The denials have an economic cost to the United States, as Israel's defense industries do not place orders for American products unless they are able to travel to the United States to see them.
Neither government has commented on the report, but the defense industry has been discussing behind closed doors tens of instances in which visas to travel to the United States were denied.
In addition to the denials, many visas have been limited to three months once the applicant's workplace was disclosed.
Additionally, the IDF's representatives in the US (who usually work on defense procurement) have been given visas for one year, and then have to leave to Canada for weeks on end to await visa extensions.
Behind closed doors, Israeli defense officials reject the possibility that the denials are connected to Defense Minister Yaalon's
sharp comments about US Secretary of State John FN Kerry. However, they believe that they may be connected to an attempt to prevent Israel's defense industries from competing effectively with US defense industries.
The US embassy in Tel Aviv would not comment, but they did say that each visa request is examined individually.
Part of the story is summarized in English
here.
In other news, two weeks ago, President Obama
unilaterally eased the requirements for foreign terrorists seeking to immigrate to the United States.
Labels: defense spending, IDF, John Kerry, Moshe Yaalon, Mossad, Shin Bet, travel visas, US embassy in Tel Aviv
Budget cuts hit IDF
The IDF is suspending all operational training for reserve units from now until the end of the year due to
budget cuts.
The IDF has cancelled all reserve operational duty for the remainder
of the year due to the cut in the defense budget for 2013 and 2014.
Reserve
soldiers from four battalions who received call-up notices in the past
two weeks will soon be notified that their duties have been cancelled
for the remainder of the year.
...
The coming months will also see a significant reduction in reserve
training. The priority in advanced training will be placed on infantry
and armored corps reserve forces that are expected to take part in a
land maneuver during a future potential war.
The rest of the
reserves will undergo basic battle fitness training only. Slashes in
training activities for regular soldiers will also be felt, among units
belonging to the Home Front Command, Engineering Corps, Artillery Corps.
Training programs for the Armored Corps will be cut by a number of
weeks. The IDF is also expected to cancel General Staff exercises this
year, including one set for the air force and the Central Command.
Read the whole thing.
The priorities in this country never cease to amaze me. Forget for a minute that in the middle of all these budget cuts, the IDF is going to be forced to draft thousands of soldiers who don't want to be there, and to arrest them if they don't show up. Forget that the NIS 40 million budget gap could be closed in its entirety by ending the ridiculous tax concessions enjoyed by the country's largest corporations. Worst of all, the IDF itself is still expected to be the great assimilator, taking in soldiers who have
no business being in any country's army, let alone the army of a country that is surrounded by implacable enemies.
What could go wrong?
Labels: defense spending, IDF, Israeli economy
Hagel on board of Soros' Ploughshares fund
Here's your daily discomforting fact about the Chuckster, Chuck Hagel, President Hussein Obama's nominee to be US Secretary of Defense. Hagel is a member of the board of the
Ploughshares fund, a George Soros-funded group that advocates for nuclear disarmament, massive cuts in defense spending, communism and a whole slew of radical Leftist (and 'Palestinian,' of course) groups.
The Ploughshares Fund has a long history of anti-war advocacy and is a
partner of the Marxist-oriented Institute for Policy Studies, which has
urged the defunding of the Pentagon and massive decreases in U.S.
defense capabilities, including slashing the American nuclear arsenal to
292 deployed weapons.
The Poughshares Fund has also partnered with a who’s who of the
radical left, including Code Pink, the pro-Palestinian J Street, United
for Peace & Justice, the U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation
and the Demos progressive group, where Obama’s former green jobs czar,
Van Jones, serves on the board.
Ploughshares Fund identifies itself as a “publicly supported
foundation that funds, organizes and innovates projects to realize a
world free from the threat of nuclear weapons.”
The fund calls itself “the largest grant-making foundation in the U.S. focusing exclusively on peace and security issues.”
Since its founding in 1981 by San Francisco philanthropist and
activist Sally Lilienthal, Ploughshares says it has awarded many
hundreds of grants “whose aggregate value exceeded $60 million.”
The fund is in turn financed by a small number of foundations,
including Soros’ Open Society Institute, the Buffett Foundation, the
Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller
Brothers Fund and the Rockefeller Foundation.
Read the whole thing.
Shabbat Shalom everyone.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Chuck Hagel, defense spending, George Soros, nuclear disarmament
Krauthammer on the meaning of Hagel
Here's Charles Krauthammer on the meaning of
the Chuck Hagel nomination to be Secretary of Defense.
So what’s going on? Message-sending. Obama won reelection. He no
longer has to trim, to appear more moderate than his true instincts. He
has the “flexibility” to be authentically Obama.
Hence the Hagel
choice: Under the guise of centrist bipartisanship, it allows the
president to leave the constrained first-term Obama behind and follow
his natural Hagel-like foreign policy inclinations. On three pressing
issues, in particular:
...
Hagel himself doesn’t matter. He won’t make foreign policy. Obama
will run it out of the White House even more tightly than he did in the
first term. Hagel’s importance is the message his nomination sends about
where Obama wants to go. The lessons are being duly drawn. Iran’s
official media have already cheered the choice of what they call this “anti-Israel” nominee. And they fully understand what his nomination signals regarding administration resolve about stopping them from going nuclear.
The
rest of the world can see coming the Pentagon downsizing — and the
inevitable, commensurate decline of U.S. power. Pacific Rim countries
will have to rethink reliance on the counterbalance of the U.S. Navy and
consider acquiescence to Chinese regional hegemony. Arab countries will
understand that the current rapid decline of post-Kissinger U.S.
dominance in the region is not cyclical but intended to become
permanent.
Hagel is a man of no independent stature. He’s no
George Marshall or Henry Kissinger. A fringe senator who left no trace
behind, Hagel matters only because of what his nomination says about
Obama.
However the Senate votes on confirmation, the signal has
already been sent. Before Election Day, Obama could only whisper it to
his friend Dmitry. Now, with Hagel, he’s told the world.
Emily Landau, director of the
Arms Control and Regional Security Project at the Tel Aviv-based Institute for
National Security Studies
agrees that Hagel's appointment may constitute a shift toward containment in Obama's Iran policy.
“Without economic
hardship and the threat of attack on its facilities, why should Iran negotiate?
If it can reach its goal on its own, why would it want to make a deal that means
giving up that goal, unless it was suffering and afraid of attack? This is where
Obama’s choice for secretary of defense – Chuck Hagel – becomes relevant to the
debate,” said Landau.
Landau wondered whether the choice of Hagel
reflected a move by the second Obama administration toward containment as an
acceptable position vis-a-vis a nuclear Iran. Containment is a stance that is in
direct contradiction to Obama’s statements on Iran made in March 2012, when the
American president vowed to prevent a nuclear Iran, rather than contain
it.
Should the appointment signify a change, “Israel’s uncertainty as far
as its ability to trust that Obama has ‘its back’ on the Iranian nuclear issue
would prove to have been well-founded.
“Moreover, it would be a sad day
for nuclear non-proliferation and American leadership on crucial international
security issues,” Landau added.
...
Two months after the US elections,
President Obama has shown no urgency in pushing forward with the Iran issue,
Landau said, citing remarks he made in mid-November about getting back to talks
with Tehran “in the coming months.” There are no signs of progress on US-Iran
bilateral talks, or on discussions between the P5+1 countries and
Iran.
Some of us tried to warn that this was coming. But 70% of American Jews decided that they knew better or didn't care enough. If you're Jewish and you voted for Obama, you ought to be ashamed of yourself. You've put the lives of six million of your brethren at risk, God forbid.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Chuck Hagel, defense spending, Iranian nuclear threat, Israel
It starts: Boeing announces huge layoffs in defense division
That sure didn't take long. In a 'cost-cutting' measure, Boeing announced that it will lay off 30% of its management employees and close facilities in California. What's unstated is that the move is undoubtedly motivated by anticipation that the Obama administration will further cut defense spending. According to Wikipedia, Boeing has
65,014 employees in its defense divisions and 22,650 employees in California.
So
22,000 layoffs (Hat Tip:
Memeorandum)?
Boeing, the Pentagon's second-largest supplier,
said the changes were the latest step in an affordability drive that
has already reduced the company's costs by $2.2 billion since 2010,
according to the memo.
The
measures come as U.S. weapons makers are under pressure to cut costs
and preserve profit margins amid dwindling defense spending in the U.S.
In
a message to employees, Dennis Muilenburg, chief executive of Boeing
Defense, Space & Security, said the company aimed to cut costs by an
additional $1.6 billion from 2013 through 2015.
"We
are raising the bar higher because our market challenges and
opportunities require it, and our customers' needs demand it,"
Muilenburg said.
He said the total savings would reach $4
billion, making the company healthier and better able to deal with a
tougher marketplace.
He
said Boeing would cut the number of executive jobs an additional 10
percent by the end of 2012, bringing overall cuts in its executive team
to 30 percent for the past two years, a move that would result in a 10
percent cut in management costs.
Oh, and get this....
Boeing said the changes were not a response to the threat of additional,
across-the-board U.S. budget cuts due to take effect on Jan. 2, or the
outcome of U.S. elections, but represented another step in its
continuing drive to "be more competitive while investing in technologies
and people."
Right....
Anyone want to make aliya?
Labels: Boeing, defense spending
US wants development rights to Iron Dome
The House Armed Services Committee is seeking
development rights to Israel's Iron Dome anti-missile system in exchange for funding the Israeli technology (Hat Tip:
MFS - The Other News).
Defense lawmakers in the House have agreed to invest millions of dollars in the Iron Dome anti-missile weapon for Israel, as long as the United States can acquire the development rights to the weapon system.
Members of the House Armed Services Strategic Forces subcommittee elected to set aside $680 million to assist Tel Aviv in buying the Iron Dome weapon in its version of the fiscal 2013 defense spending bill.
In fiscal 2011, Congress approved roughly $200 million for Iron Dome buys. The Pentagon claims the weapon has been vital in repelling short-range rocket and mortar attacks from the Gaza Strip into Israeli territory.
...
The funding would work to "ensure long-term cooperation" between the United States and Israel on Iron Dome development, according to members.
But before any money is moved, House members want Missile Defense Agency chief Lt. Gen. Patrick O'Reilly to "ensure the United States has appropriate rights to this technology."
The United States has invested nearly $900 million into Iron Dome work, "yet the United States has no right to the technology involved," according to the subcommittee's legislation.
The House proposal would share rights to the weapon's proprietary technology "as is consistent with prior U.S.-Israeli missile defense cooperation," according to the subcommittee.
In addition DOD and O'Reilly "should explore any opportunity to enter into co-production of the Iron Dome system with Israel, in light of the significant U.S. investment in this system," according to the panel's draft bill.
Based on past agreements, Israel should be seeking (a) the right to sell the system to whomever it wants (remember the China story several years ago), (b) the right to veto sales to countries that are hostile to Israel (e.g. Turkey) and (c) royalty rights on any sales not to the United States.
Lest you think this is nasty, let's face reality: Israel developed Iron Dome because the United States and the Europeans don't want us to do what really needs to be done, namely to flatten Gaza. I still think we ought to get rid of the terrorist vipers in Gaza, but if we're not going to do that, we at least ought to retain some control over the technology we developed to keep them under control.
Labels: defense spending, Iron Dome, US-Israel relationship
Peace dividend?
We are constantly told that when there is peace, our economy will flourish. We will save on all that defense spending (nearly triple what other OECD countries spend as a percentage of our GDP). And all will be well.
Because of that, some of the tent protesters want to add 'end the occupation' to the protests' slogans. They aren't doing so because most Israelis know better, and it would cost the radical Leftist leadership much of its popular support. In an article that's behind the JPost paywall, Evelyn Gordon explains what Israel's experience with
withdrawing from 'occupied territory' has taught us.
[A]nnual defense spending has risen by about NIS 10 billion over the last 18 years, since every new territorial withdrawal merely produced new threats. In 2009, according to Central Bureau of Statistics data, defense spending was 25% higher than it was in 1995, in constant shekels.
Last year’s official defense budget totaled NIS 55.4 billion, or about 17% of the total budget, while actual defense spending totaled NIS 60.9 billion (according to the Bank of Israel, defense spending has exceeded the official budget in each of the last six years). By contrast, most OECD countries devote no more than 6% of their budget to defense. This year, the defense budget is once again slated to total about NIS 55 billion, so even if no supplementary funds materialize, defense will once again be the largest single item in the budget. For the last few years, it has surpassed even debt servicing, which occupied the number-one slot for decades.
Nor is this surprising: The territorial withdrawals of the last 18 years produced unprecedented terrorism. This not only precluded cuts in defense spending, but necessitated additional spending to counter it.
Some of this extra spending has gone to new technologies. The deadly suicide bombings of the second intifada, for instance, forced Israel to build the security fence, which has thus far cost more than $2.1 billion (NIS 7.45 billion at current exchange rates), and still isn’t finished. The surge in rocket fire from both post-withdrawal Gaza and post-withdrawal Lebanon forced development of the Iron Dome rocket interception system; aside from billions of shekels in development costs, each Iron Dome system costs $15 million (NIS 53 million) for the battery plus $40,000 (NIS 142,000) per missile. During the Second Lebanon War of 2006, Hezbollah fired some 4,000 missiles at Israel; intercepting them all with Iron Dome (had it been available) would thus have cost about NIS 568 million for the interception missiles alone.
Far more expensive, however, are major military operations, of which Israel has conducted three in the last decade in response to escalating terror from territories it quit: Operation Defensive Shield in 2002, to combat the wave of suicide bombings from portions of the West Bank ceded to the Palestinians under Oslo; the Second Lebanon War, in response to cross-border terror from southern Lebanon, which Israel left in 2000; and Operation Cast Lead in late 2008, to combat escalated rocket fire from Gaza, which Israel quit in 2005.
For starters, such operations always involve mobilizing the reserves, and while conscripts receive about NIS 600 a month for combat service, reservists are paid their full civilian salary. Hence calling up 60,000 reservists, as Israel did in the Second Lebanon War, would cost the state NIS 246 million a month even if all earned only the minimum wage, and NIS 507 million a month at the average wage – not counting the cost to the economy of their absence from their regular jobs.
More significantly, however, major military operations always involve massive quantities of ammunition, air force flying time, etc. Hence the 2006 war in Lebanon cost an estimated NIS 11 billion, while the war in Gaza in early 2009 cost an estimated NIS 5 billion.
Then there’s the fact that the government picks up the tab for all damage caused by hostile enemy action, aka suicide bombings and rocket fire. For the Lebanon war, for instance, the bill for property damage alone was expected to total some $335.4 million (about NIS 1.2 billion). And the bill for long-term medical and psychological treatment for the injured, along with financial assistance to the families of those killed, is often much higher. In the second intifada, for instance, almost 1,100 Israelis were killed and almost 7,500 wounded; the latter figure includes many who were seriously injured, and thus incurred major medical expenses.
All these extra government outlays to counter post-withdrawal terror obviously mean less money for the kind of social spending the tent protesters seek. But perhaps even more significant is the general cost to the economy of this terror. The second intifada, for instance, caused a two-year recession (2001-2002) and three years of over 10% unemployment; needless to say, recession and high unemployment make it far harder to achieve the comfortable standard of living the protesters seek.
And you're still looking for our peace dividend? For that, we'd need real peace. Since most 'Palestinians' still view a two-state solution as
a step on the way to destroying Israel, real peace is not going to happen anytime soon.
Labels: defense spending, peace dividend, two-state solution
