The Jewish Struggle for Universal Human Rights

Posted By Isi Leibler On August 30, 2012 @ 5:43 am

One of the conundrums associated with the enduring nature of global anti-Semitism which has soared exponentially in recent years, is why, having made such disproportionate contributions towards all levels of civilization and left major imprints on science, ethics, medicine, culture and the arts, we Jews continue to act as a magnet for such virulent hatred.
Equally bizarre is the failure of formerly oppressed groups and nations to reciprocate or even acknowledge the extraordinary Jewish contributions in support of their struggles towards overcoming persecution, discrimination, abuse of human rights and achieving independence.
This is typified by the fact that whereas there is no American group comparable to the Jews who sacrificed so much to help African-Americans to overcome racial discrimination and their struggle for civil rights, ironically, today they are  amongst the foremost US racial or ethnic groups promoting anti-Israelism and anti-Semitism.  The recent loathsome outburst by the African-American writer Alice Walker who sought to prohibit her novel – relating to racism – from being translated into Hebrew, typifies this. Walker’s demonization of Israel even extended to accusing Israel of practicing “racism” in a more extreme manner than was the case in apartheid South Africa. This is all the more perverse because aside from being the only free and democratic society in the region, the Jewish State probably also comprises the greatest mélange of racial groups in the world committed to equality.
The same criticism would apply to the current South African government which is today bitterly anti-Israeli despite the fact that individual South African Jews were at the vanguard of the struggle against apartheid, many having been forced to leave the country during apartheid regime.
Yet, even Archbishop Tutu, whose anti-Israeli outbursts have now morphed into vulgar populist anti-Jewish diatribes, concedes that “in our struggle against apartheid, the greatest supporters were the Jewish people… They almost instinctively had to be on the side of the disenfranchised, of the voiceless ones”. But in the same breath he paved the way for his government’s recent anti-Israeli initiatives by calling for divestment from Israel which “has oppressed more than the apartheid ideologues could ever dream about in South Africa” and descends into primitive anti-Semitism referring to Jews as “a peculiar people” who “once oppressed and killed” are now “empowered”, and “refuse to listen and disobey God.”
Similar attitudes prevail amongst a number of Third World leaders. I will never forget a meeting in New Delhi in 1981 with the late Indian President Indira Gandhi in which she erupted in a frenzied anti-Israeli outburst laced with rage against “international Jewish power” which she claimed was responsible for having turned the US against India. In response to my rejoinder, she conceded that whilst in England, the majority of the closest friends of her family were British Jews who passionately supported their struggle against colonialism and efforts to achieve independence. Yet, this in no way mitigated her hatred against Israel or her conspiratorial fantasies about international Jewish power.
History records the numerous misguided Jewish idealists in Europe and the United States who, in the 1930s, abandoned Judaism and Zionism and devoted their lives towards promoting and even worshipping the false messianic cause of communism. Even distant members of my own family in pre-war Belgium, in their passionate desire to combat Nazism, relinquished their Jewish heritage and in 1936, needlessly sacrificed their lives for Stalin on the battlefields of Spain.
Yet these same Jewish communists who, out of a misplaced exclusive commitment to universalism, devoted their lives to fanatically serving an evil totalitarian system, subsequently themselves became victims of the anti-Semitic purges and bogus trials initiated by Stalin in the late 1930s, the murder of the Jewish writers in 1948,which culminated with the infamous  1952 Moscow Doctors’ plot. These initiatives, unquestionably motivated by feral anti-Semitism, would probably have resulted in massive deportations of Jews to the Gulag were it not for Stalin’s timely demise in 1953.
There are Jews today who still maintain that the universalist tradition in Judaism obliges us to set aside our own “parochial” Jewish interests and in order to concentrate exclusively on making the world a better place by combating injustice.
Yet in reality, the alleged tension between the Jewish role in maintaining itself as a particularistic nation and promoting universalistic ethical values is often exaggerated and not mutually exclusive. Abraham did not smash the idols and Moses did not struggle for his people’s freedom in order to create a cult. They served the Jewish people but were also providing messages of universal significance to humanity.
An example of the fusion between both concepts is reflected in the oft quoted sentence from Pirkei Avot (Ethics of our Fathers) “If I am not for myself who will be for me?”But it is balanced by the following sentence stating “And if I am only for myself, what am I? And if not now, when?”
There is thus every justification for us to take pride in the actions of Jews who contributed towards “tikkun olam” - repairing a fractured world – and making it a better place for mankind.
That many oppressed groups struggling for freedom, on whose behalf we fought frequently at considerable personal cost, subsequently turned against us, must not deter us from our universalistic obligations towards humanity and ongoing commitment to promote justice and human rights.
Yet, when viewing the world in  today’s troubled times, we, the Jewish people who have overcome powerlessness and miraculously regained nationhood, are obliged to recognize that our overriding priority must be to safeguard ourselves against those seeking to destroy us. In times of peril, it is both rational and incumbent to focus on our families and our own people before attempting to reform the world. By prioritizing the particularistic goals of defending and securing the well-being of the Jewish State and the Jewish people against those still seeking to fulfill Hitler’s objectives, we are ensuring that Jews will survive. One of the by-products of this will enable us to continue as in the past to contribute towards Tikkun Olam – repairing the world.
The writer may be contacted at ileibler@netvision.net.il
This column was originally published in the Jerusalem Post and Israel Hayom

---

Article printed from Candidly Speaking from Jerusalem: http://wordfromjerusalem.com
URL to article: http://wordfromjerusalem.com/?p=4251

IAEA Evidence Shows Israel, Not Obama, Talking Sense About Iran

Jonathan S. Tobin 

08.26.2012 

The latest report being prepared by the International Atomic Energy Agency about Iran appears to be a sobering retort to those who have spent the summer trying to claim that Israel’s warnings about the need to act should be ignored. The report, which has not yet been released but whose contents have been leaked, says that Iran has installed hundreds of new centrifuges in recent months and is devoting its efforts to refining uranium to a level of greater than 20 percent, a sign that it is working on a nuclear bomb and not, as it disingenuously contends, on medical research. Of equal concern is that all of this new equipment has been installed in facilities near the holy city of Qum and buried so far under underground that they may be invulnerable to attack.

This evidence would mean the alarms being sounded in Israel in recent months were entirely justified. If the Iranians have dramatically increased their stockpile of refined uranium and are now transferring more of their work into hardened bunkers, they may be close to what Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and Defense Minister Barak have called a “zone of immunity”: the point at which their program can no longer be halted by force. But rather than taking this as a sign that their complacent attitude toward Iran needs to be revised, the Obama administration remains in denial. Despite the obvious failure of the P5+1 talks and Iran’s determination to run out the clock on its nuclear program before the West acts, a White House spokesman said Friday there is still “time and space” for a diplomatic solution to the standoff. Indeed, as the New York Times noted, the administration seemed more intent on trying to undermine Israel’s stance on the nuclear peril than it was on actually doing anything about the problem.

President Obama has pledged to stop Iran from going nuclear, but his priority throughout the last year has been to stop Israel from acting on its own to deal with the problem. No serious observer has any confidence that the sanctions on Iran that were belatedly adopted (and loosely enforced) by Washington will force the ayatollahs to back off on their nuclear plans. The P5+1 talks led by the European Union’s Catherine Ashton got nowhere despite several tries. Any revival of these negotiations would only serve Iran’s purposes as they string Western diplomats along while their centrifuges keep spinning.

But despite the evidence of Iran’s progress, the administration is doing its best to downplay the crisis. An “administration official” speaking without attribution to the New York Times  — the White House’s favorite outlet for leaks — confirmed the latest intelligence gleaned from the IAEA report but pooh-poohed it as “not a game changer.” The argument from the source was that a “breakout” that could convert the existing Iranian stockpile to weapons grade could be rapidly accomplished. But the source said the U.S. would find out about it and still have time to deal with it. The upshot of this statement was that the world should ignore Israel’s fears and trust President Obama to deal with the problem in his own good time.

Yet how can the president be trusted on the issue if his whole focus seems to be on kicking the can down road until after the presidential election in November? It is one thing to accuse the Israelis of alarmism or of trying to exert pressure on Obama to pledge to act. But if the Iranians are able to compile enough refined uranium and store it in places that can’t be attacked, a U.S. policy rooted in a predisposition to delay action is a formula that is certain to fail.

Time is running out not only on the countdown to the day when Iran will be able to quickly assemble a bomb but until the point where it will no longer be possible to use force to prevent them from doing so. Four years of Obama policies toward Iran have shown the administration to be willing to do nothing but talk about the need to avert this danger. The latest information from the IAEA is more proof that despite the media campaign orchestrated from the White House intended to undermine Israel’s appeals, it is Jerusalem, and not Washington, that is talking sense about Iran.

World Leaders Ignore International Law

 August 23, 2012 | Eli E. Hertz

The U.S. Administration, the European Union, the United Nations, and Russia’s decision to rewrite history by labeling the Territories ‘Occupied Territories,’ the Settlements as an ‘Obstacle to Peace’ and ‘Not Legitimate,’ thus endowing them with an aura of bogus statehood and a false history. The use of these dishonest loaded terms, empowers terrorism and incites Palestinian Arabs with the right to use all measures to expel Israel.

The Jewish People’s Right to the Land of Israel

The “Mandate for Palestine” & the Law of War

United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, United States President Barack Obama, and the European Union Foreign Affairs Chief Catherine Ashton became victims to the ‘Occupation’ mantra their own organization has repeated over and over in their propaganda campaign to legitimize the Arab position.

Continuous pressure by the “Quartet” (U.S., the European Union, the UN and Russia) to surrender parts of the Land of Israel are contrary to international law as stated in the “Mandate for Palestine” document, that in article 6 firmly call to “encourage … close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.” It also requires, under Article 5 of the Mandate to “seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the government of any foreign power.”

Any attempt by the World Leaders to negate the Jewish people’s right to Palestine – Eretz-Israel, and to deny them access and control in the area designated for the Jewish people by the League of Nations, is a serious infringement of international law, and as such - illegitimate.

International Law - The “Mandate for Palestine”

The “Mandate for Palestine” an historical League of Nations document, laid down the Jewish legal right under international law to settle anywhere in western Palestine, the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, an entitlement unaltered in international law. Fifty-one member countries – the entire League of Nations – unanimously declared on July 24, 1922:

“Whereas recognition has been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country.”

On June 30, 1922, a joint resolution of both Houses of Congress of the United States unanimously endorsed the “Mandate for Palestine”:

“Favoring the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.

“Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled. That the United States of America favors the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which should prejudice the civil and religious rights of Christian and all other non-Jewish communities in Palestine, and that the holy places and religious buildings and sites in Palestine shall be adequately protected.” [italics in the original]

Law of War - Arab Unlawful Acts of Aggression in 1948

Six months before the War of Independence in 1948, Palestinian Arabs launched a series of riots, pillaging, and bloodletting. Then came the invasion of seven Arab armies from neighboring states attempting to prevent the establishment of a Jewish state in accordance with the UN’s 1947 recommendation to Partition Palestine, a plan the Arabs rejected.

The Jewish state not only survived, it came into possession of territories – land from which its adversaries launched their first attempt to destroy the newly created State of Israel.

Israel’s citizens understood that defeat meant the end of their Jewish state before it could even get off the ground. In the first critical weeks of battle, and against all odds, Israel prevailed on several fronts.

The metaphor of Israel having her back to the sea reflected the image crafted by Arab political and religious leaders’ rhetoric and incitement. Already in 1948 several car bombs had killed Jews, and massacres of Jewish civilians underscored Arab determination to wipe out the Jews and their state.

6,000 Israelis died as a result of that war, in a population of 600,000. One percent of the Jewish population was gone. In American terms, the equivalent is 3 million American civilians and soldiers killed over an 18-month period.

Israel’s War of Independence in 1948 was considered lawful and in self-defence as may be reflected in UN resolutions naming Israel a “peace loving State” when it applied for membership at the United Nations. Both the Security Council (4 March, 1949, S/RES/69) and the UN General Assembly (11 May, 1949, (A/RES/273 (III)) declared:

“[Security Council] Decides in its judgment that Israel is a peace-loving State and is able and willing to carry out the obligations contained in the Charter …”

Arab Unlawful Acts of Aggression in 1967

In June 1967, the combined armies of Egypt, Syria, and Jordan attacked Israel with the clear purpose expressed by Egypt’s President: “Destruction of Israel.” At the end of what is now known as the Six-Day War, Israel, against all odds, was victorious and in possession of the territories of Judea and Samaria [E.H., The West Bank], Sinai and the Golan Heights.

International law makes a clear distinction between defensive wars and wars of aggression. More than half a century after the 1948 War, and more than four decades since the 1967 Six-Day War, it is hard to imagine the dire circumstances Israel faced and the price it paid to fend off its neighbors’ attacks.

Who Starts Wars Does Matter

Professor, Judge Stephen M. Schwebel, past President of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) states the following facts:

“The facts of the June 1967 ‘Six Day War’ demonstrate that Israel reacted defensively against the threat and use of force against her by her Arab neighbors. This is indicated by the fact that Israel responded to Egypt’s prior closure of the Straits of Tiran, its proclamation of a blockade of the Israeli port of Eilat, and the manifest threat of the UAR’s [The state formed by the union of the republics of Egypt and Syria in 1958] use of force inherent in its massing of troops in Sinai, coupled with its ejection of UNEF.

“It is indicated by the fact that, upon Israeli responsive action against the UAR, Jordan initiated hostilities against Israel. It is suggested as well by the fact that, despite the most intense efforts by the Arab States and their supporters, led by the Premier of the Soviet Union, to gain condemnation of Israel as an aggressor by the hospitable organs of the United Nations, those efforts were decisively defeated.

“The conclusion to which these facts lead is that the Israeli conquest of Arab and Arab-held territory was defensive rather than aggressive conquest.”

Judge Sir Elihu Lauterpacht wrote in 1968, one year after the 1967 Six-Day War:

“On 5th June, 1967, Jordan deliberately overthrew the Armistice Agreement by attacking the Israeli-held part of Jerusalem. There was no question of this Jordanian action being a reaction to any Israeli attack. It took place notwithstanding explicit Israeli assurances, conveyed to King Hussein through the U.N. Commander, that if Jordan did not attack Israel, Israel would not attack Jordan.

“Although the charge of aggression is freely made against Israel in relation to the Six-Days War the fact remains that the two attempts made in the General Assembly in June-July 1967 to secure the condemnation of Israel as an aggressor failed. A clear and striking majority of the members of the U.N. voted against the proposition that Israel was an aggressor.”

Israel Has the Better Title to the Territory of Palestine, Including the Whole of Jerusalem

International law makes it clear: All of Israel’s wars with its Arab neighbors were in self-defence.

Professor, Judge Schwebel, wrote in What Weight to Conquest:

“(a) a state [Israel] acting in lawful exercise of its right of self-defense may seize and occupy foreign territory as long as such seizure and occupation are necessary to its self-defense;
“(b) as a condition of its withdrawal from such territory, that State may require the institution of security measures reasonably designed to ensure that that territory shall not again be used to mount a threat or use of force against it of such a nature as to justify exercise of self-defense;
“(c) Where the prior holder of territory had seized that territory unlawfully, the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defense has, against that prior holder, better title.
“… as between Israel, acting defensively in 1948 and 1967, on the one hand, and her Arab neighbors, acting aggressively, in 1948 and 1967, on the other, Israel has the better title in the territory of what was Palestine, including the whole of Jerusalem, than do Jordan and Egypt.”

“No legal Right Shall Spring from a Wrong”

Professor Schwebel explains that the principle of “acquisition of territory by war is inadmissible”must be read together with other principles:

“… namely, that no legal right shall spring from a wrong, and the Charter principle that the Members of the United Nations shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State.”

Simply stated: Arab illegal aggression against the territorial integrity and political independence of Israel, cannot and should not be rewarded.

Professor Julius Stone, a leading authority on the Law of Nations, stated:

“Territorial Rights Under International Law…. By their [Arab countries] armed attacks against the State of Israel in 1948, 1967, and 1973, and by various acts of belligerency throughout this period, these Arab states flouted their basic obligations as United Nations members to refrain from threat or use of force against Israel’s territorial integrity and political independence. These acts were in flagrant violation inter alia of Article 2(4) and paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of the same article.”

Thus, under international law Israel acted lawfully by exercising its right to self-defence when it redeemed and legally reoccupied Judea and Samaria, known also as the West Bank.

Legalities aside, before 1967 there were no Jewish settlements in the West Bank, and for the first ten years of so-called occupation there were almost no Jewish settlers in the West Bank. And still there was no peace with the Palestinians. The notion that Jewish communities pose an obstacle to peace is a red herring designed to blame Israel for lack of progress in the ‘Peace Process’ and enable Palestinian leadership to continue to reject any form of compromise and reconciliation with Israel as a Jewish state.

Iran ….actions the United States must take to avoid catastrophe in the Middle East

By Charles Krauthammer, Published: August 23, 2012

Either Israel is engaged in the most elaborate ruse since the Trojan horse or it is on the cusp of a preemptive strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

What’s alarming is not just Iran’s increasing store of enriched uranium or the growing sophistication of its rocketry. It’s also the increasingly menacing annihilationist threats emanating from Iran’s leaders. Israel’s existence is “an insult to all humanity,” says President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. “Anyone who loves freedom and justice must strive for the annihilation of the Zionist regime.” Explains the country’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Israel is “a true cancer tumor on this region that should be cut off.”

Everyone wants to avoid military action, surely the Israelis above all. They can expect a massive counterattack from Iran, 50,000 rockets launched from Lebanon, Islamic Jihad firing from Gaza, and worldwide terror against Jewish and Israeli targets, as happened last month in Bulgaria.

Yet Israel will not sit idly by in the face of the most virulent genocidal threats since Nazi Germany. The result then was 6 million murdered Jews. There are 6 million living in Israel today.

Time is short. Last-ditch negotiations in Istanbul, Baghdad and Moscow have failed abjectly. The Iranians are contemptuously playing with the process. The strategy is delay until they get the bomb.

What to do? The sagest advice comes from Anthony Cordesman, a military analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Cordesman is a hardheaded realist — severely critical of the Bush administration’s conduct of the Iraq war, skeptical of the “war on terror,” dismissive of the strategic importance of Afghanistan, and a believer that “multilateralism and soft power must still be the rule and not the exception.”

He may have found his exception. “There are times when the best way to prevent war is to clearly communicate that it is possible,” he argues. Today, the threat of a U.S. attack is not taken seriously. Not by the region. Not by Iran. Not by the Israelis, who therefore increasingly feel forced to act before Israel’s more limited munitions — far less powerful and effective than those in the U.S. arsenal — can no longer penetrate Iran’s ever-hardening facilities.

Cordesman therefore proposes threefold action.

1. “Clear U.S. red lines.”

It’s time to end the ambiguity about American intentions. Establish real limits on negotiations — to convince Iran that the only alternative to a deal is preemptive strikes and to persuade Israel to stay its hand.

2. “Make it clear to Iran that it has no successful options.”

Either its program must be abandoned in a negotiated deal (see No. 1 above) on generous terms from the West (see No. 3 below), or its facilities will be physically destroyed. Ostentatiously let Iran know about the range and power of our capacities — how deep and extensive a campaign we could conduct, extending beyond just nuclear facilities to military-industrial targets, refineries, power grids and other concentrations of regime power.

3. Give Iran a face-saving way out.

Offer Iran the most generous possible terms — economic, diplomatic and political. End of sanctions, assistance in economic and energy development, trade incentives and a regional security architecture. Even Russian nuclear fuel.

Tellingly, however, Cordesman does not join those who suggest yielding on nuclear enrichment. That’s important because a prominently leaked proposed “compromise” would guarantee Iran’s right to enrich, though not to high levels.

In my view, this would be disastrous. Iran would retain the means to potentially produce fissile material, either clandestinely or in a defiant breakout at a time of its choosing.

Would Iran believe a Cordesman-like ultimatum? Given the record of the Obama administration, maybe not. Some (though not Cordesman) have therefore suggested the further step of requesting congressional authorization for the use of force if Iran does not negotiate denuclearization.

First, that’s the right way to do it. No serious military action should be taken without congressional approval (contra Libya). Second, Iran might actually respond to a threat backed by a strong bipartisan majority of the American people — thus avoiding both war and the other nightmare scenario, a nuclear Iran.

If we simply continue to drift through kabuki negotiations, however, one thing is certain. Either America, Europe, the Gulf Arabs and the Israelis will forever be condemned to live under the threat of nuclear blackmail (even nuclear war) from a regime the State Department identifies as the world’s greatest exporter of terror. Or an imperiled Israel, with its more limited capabilities, will strike Iran — with correspondingly greater probability of failure and of triggering a regional war.

All options are bad. Doing nothing is worse. “The status quo may not prevent some form of war,” concludes Cordesman, “and may even be making it more likely.”

'Hezbollah drill prepares to 'occupy the Galilee"

By JPOST.COM STAFF 23/08/2012

After Nasrallah threatens to kill tens of thousands of Israelis, Hezbollah trains for war inside Israel.

A reportedly large Hezbollah military drill held in southern Lebanon is part of an Iranian-orchestrated preparation for a confrontation with Israel, a senior Israeli security analyst said.

Over 10,000 Hezbollah fighters participated in the terror organization’s largest military exercise to date last week, which included defensive tactics and “preparations to conquer the Upper Galilee,” Lebanese newspaper Al- Joumhouria reported Thursday morning.

“This is happening in full coordination with Iran,” said Dr. Ely Karmon, a senior research school at the Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya’s Institute for Counter-Terrorism. “In his last two speeches, [Hezbollah chief Hassan] Nasrallah indicated that he would join an Iranian counter-strike if Israel struck Iran’s nuclear program.”

Karmon said Hezbollah was free to operate in the area of the Litani River in Lebanon. While it had secret bases further south, nearer to the border with Israel, the presence of UNIFIL forces restricted Hezbollah somewhat, he added.

“I assume the drill was held in the Litani area, where Hezbollah stationed new outposts. It bought land in the area from Sunnis and Christians to control the territory,” Karmon added.

Iran could also be preparing Hezbollah for the possibility of ordering it to launch a provocation against Israel to preempt an Israeli strike, Karmon said.

“I wouldn’t belittle the claim that they will try and penetrate the Galilee. Even if they hold a small village for 24 hours, it would allow them to score points against the IDF,” the analyst added.

According to the report, some 2,000 elite Hezbollah fighters will continue training in Iran, a development that is indicative of the close cooperation between the two.

“Iran’s interest is Hezbollah’s interest. If Iran goes nuclear, Hezbollah can remain as a significant force,” Karmon said.

The training could also come in useful for the Iran-Assad- Hezbollah alliance, since Hezbollah can contribute a military force to defend a future Allawite enclave. The Allawite mini-state might be amalgamated to the Shi’itedominated region of the Bekaa Valley of northern Lebanon in the event that Syria collapses.

The force of 10,000 Hezbollah fighters could also be unleashed on the streets of Beirut if Sunnis rise up against Hezbollah, Karmon added.

Yoram Schweitzer, a researcher at the Institute for National Security Studies, echoed Karmon’s caution against dismissing Hezbollah’s threat of seizing sections of the Galilee.

“They can send small assault teams into the Galilee... while everyone is busy with attacks in Lebanon,” Schweitzer said. “They can try to plant their flag [in Israeli soil], as part of psychological warfare. I would suggest that the threat not be dismissed,” said Schweitzer, a former member of the intelligence community.

Schweitzer added that Hezbollah’s attempt to send a menacing message can also be understood as the product of a Hezbollah threatened by the rise of Sunni power in the region.

Last Friday, Nasrallah threatened to rain rockets onto Israel’s North as part of his public address on the Iranian-sponsored “al-Quds Day,” when Iranian leaders trumpet threats to annihilate Israel.

Nasrallah boasted of an ability to strike strategically sensitive sites in Israel, saying, “hitting these targets with a small number of rockets will turn... the lives of hundreds of thousands of Zionists to real hell, and we can talk about tens of thousands of dead,” he said.

IDF Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Benny Gantz said Wednesday that “whoever thinks he can eliminate Israel and try to harm our state will discover the deadly force of the IDF.”

Jerusalem Post staff contributed to this report.

'Hezbollah drill prepares to 'occupy the Galilee" By JPOST.COM STAFF 23/08/2012 After Nasrallah threatens to kill tens of thousands of Israelis, Hezbollah trains for war inside Israel.

A reportedly large Hezbollah military drill held in southern Lebanon is part of an Iranian-orchestrated preparation for a confrontation with Israel, a senior Israeli security analyst said. Over 10,000 Hezbollah fighters participated in the terror organization’s largest military exercise to date last week, which included defensive tactics and “preparations to conquer the Upper Galilee,” Lebanese newspaper Al- Joumhouria reported Thursday morning. “This is happening in full coordination with Iran,” said Dr. Ely Karmon, a senior research school at the Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya’s Institute for Counter-Terrorism. “In his last two speeches, [Hezbollah chief Hassan] Nasrallah indicated that he would join an Iranian counter-strike if Israel struck Iran’s nuclear program.” Karmon said Hezbollah was free to operate in the area of the Litani River in Lebanon. While it had secret bases further south, nearer to the border with Israel, the presence of UNIFIL forces restricted Hezbollah somewhat, he added. “I assume the drill was held in the Litani area, where Hezbollah stationed new outposts. It bought land in the area from Sunnis and Christians to control the territory,” Karmon added. Iran could also be preparing Hezbollah for the possibility of ordering it to launch a provocation against Israel to preempt an Israeli strike, Karmon said. “I wouldn’t belittle the claim that they will try and penetrate the Galilee. Even if they hold a small village for 24 hours, it would allow them to score points against the IDF,” the analyst added. According to the report, some 2,000 elite Hezbollah fighters will continue training in Iran, a development that is indicative of the close cooperation between the two. “Iran’s interest is Hezbollah’s interest. If Iran goes nuclear, Hezbollah can remain as a significant force,” Karmon said. The training could also come in useful for the Iran-Assad- Hezbollah alliance, since Hezbollah can contribute a military force to defend a future Allawite enclave. The Allawite mini-state might be amalgamated to the Shi’itedominated region of the Bekaa Valley of northern Lebanon in the event that Syria collapses. The force of 10,000 Hezbollah fighters could also be unleashed on the streets of Beirut if Sunnis rise up against Hezbollah, Karmon added. Yoram Schweitzer, a researcher at the Institute for National Security Studies, echoed Karmon’s caution against dismissing Hezbollah’s threat of seizing sections of the Galilee. “They can send small assault teams into the Galilee... while everyone is busy with attacks in Lebanon,” Schweitzer said. “They can try to plant their flag [in Israeli soil], as part of psychological warfare. I would suggest that the threat not be dismissed,” said Schweitzer, a former member of the intelligence community. Schweitzer added that Hezbollah’s attempt to send a menacing message can also be understood as the product of a Hezbollah threatened by the rise of Sunni power in the region. Last Friday, Nasrallah threatened to rain rockets onto Israel’s North as part of his public address on the Iranian-sponsored “al-Quds Day,” when Iranian leaders trumpet threats to annihilate Israel. Nasrallah boasted of an ability to strike strategically sensitive sites in Israel, saying, “hitting these targets with a small number of rockets will turn... the lives of hundreds of thousands of Zionists to real hell, and we can talk about tens of thousands of dead,” he said. IDF Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Benny Gantz said Wednesday that “whoever thinks he can eliminate Israel and try to harm our state will discover the deadly force of the IDF.” Jerusalem Post staff contributed to this report.

'Hezbollah drill prepares to 'occupy the Galilee" By JPOST.COM STAFF 23/08/2012 After Nasrallah threatens to kill tens of thousands of Israelis, Hezbollah trains for war inside Israel.

A reportedly large Hezbollah military drill held in southern Lebanon is part of an Iranian-orchestrated preparation for a confrontation with Israel, a senior Israeli security analyst said. Over 10,000 Hezbollah fighters participated in the terror organization’s largest military exercise to date last week, which included defensive tactics and “preparations to conquer the Upper Galilee,” Lebanese newspaper Al- Joumhouria reported Thursday morning. “This is happening in full coordination with Iran,” said Dr. Ely Karmon, a senior research school at the Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya’s Institute for Counter-Terrorism. “In his last two speeches, [Hezbollah chief Hassan] Nasrallah indicated that he would join an Iranian counter-strike if Israel struck Iran’s nuclear program.” Karmon said Hezbollah was free to operate in the area of the Litani River in Lebanon. While it had secret bases further south, nearer to the border with Israel, the presence of UNIFIL forces restricted Hezbollah somewhat, he added. “I assume the drill was held in the Litani area, where Hezbollah stationed new outposts. It bought land in the area from Sunnis and Christians to control the territory,” Karmon added. Iran could also be preparing Hezbollah for the possibility of ordering it to launch a provocation against Israel to preempt an Israeli strike, Karmon said. “I wouldn’t belittle the claim that they will try and penetrate the Galilee. Even if they hold a small village for 24 hours, it would allow them to score points against the IDF,” the analyst added. According to the report, some 2,000 elite Hezbollah fighters will continue training in Iran, a development that is indicative of the close cooperation between the two. “Iran’s interest is Hezbollah’s interest. If Iran goes nuclear, Hezbollah can remain as a significant force,” Karmon said. The training could also come in useful for the Iran-Assad- Hezbollah alliance, since Hezbollah can contribute a military force to defend a future Allawite enclave. The Allawite mini-state might be amalgamated to the Shi’itedominated region of the Bekaa Valley of northern Lebanon in the event that Syria collapses. The force of 10,000 Hezbollah fighters could also be unleashed on the streets of Beirut if Sunnis rise up against Hezbollah, Karmon added. Yoram Schweitzer, a researcher at the Institute for National Security Studies, echoed Karmon’s caution against dismissing Hezbollah’s threat of seizing sections of the Galilee. “They can send small assault teams into the Galilee... while everyone is busy with attacks in Lebanon,” Schweitzer said. “They can try to plant their flag [in Israeli soil], as part of psychological warfare. I would suggest that the threat not be dismissed,” said Schweitzer, a former member of the intelligence community. Schweitzer added that Hezbollah’s attempt to send a menacing message can also be understood as the product of a Hezbollah threatened by the rise of Sunni power in the region. Last Friday, Nasrallah threatened to rain rockets onto Israel’s North as part of his public address on the Iranian-sponsored “al-Quds Day,” when Iranian leaders trumpet threats to annihilate Israel. Nasrallah boasted of an ability to strike strategically sensitive sites in Israel, saying, “hitting these targets with a small number of rockets will turn... the lives of hundreds of thousands of Zionists to real hell, and we can talk about tens of thousands of dead,” he said. IDF Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Benny Gantz said Wednesday that “whoever thinks he can eliminate Israel and try to harm our state will discover the deadly force of the IDF.” Jerusalem Post staff contributed to this report.

Irresponsible Israeli Politicians and Media on Rampage

By Isi Leibler  August 23, 2012 

In recent weeks, the ugly side of Israeli public life has been on display with irresponsible politicians supported by the sensationalist media, engaging in cheap demagoguery in relation to the Iranian nuclear threat.

Yet simultaneously, in the course of one week, Iranian President Ahmadinejad announced that “Israel is a malignant cancer” and that “the black stain of Zionism must be removed”, Ayatollah Khomeini stated that “Israel will disappear from the map” and a prominent Iranian general proclaimed that “Israel must be destroyed forever”. In the light of such incitement, to deny that a nuclear Iran represents an existential threat to Israel is to deny reality.

Mutual assured deterrence (MAD), which prevented a nuclear conflict between the US and the Soviet Union during the Cold War, is inapplicable today. A messianic Islamic leadership convinced that by ‘nuking’ Israel it will expedite the coming of the Mahdi and obtain heavenly rewards for its adherents, is unlikely to be deterred out of fear that its people would also be incinerated.

Whilst being on the frontlines, this is far from being an exclusively Israeli problem. A nuclear Iran will alter the balance of power in the Middle East with potentially disastrous implications for global stability and as US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta warned, would pose an enormous threat to the US and the rest of the world.

Netanyahu’s campaign has certainly obliged the United States and Western countries to confront the nightmare that would ensue should Iran emerge as the dominant regional nuclear power. But I do not believe that he is simply bluffing about an independent Israeli strike.

So far, although U.S. sanctions have impacted on the Iranian economy, with China, India and Japan continuing to trade, the Iranians seem determined to press on. I avoid adopting a public position on how I believe Israel should respond because I lack access to the intelligence to enable an evaluation of Ehud Barak’s “zone of immunity” or assess the odds of a successful solo Israeli military offensive to destroy or delay the Iranian bomb.

The decision on the timing or whether or not to take military action will not be determined by Prime Minister Netanyahu alone but by a majority of the security cabinet which comprises a cross-section of responsible leaders reflecting the broad political mainstream. I have confidence in their integrity to make a rational decision on what they consider will best serve the interests of the nation. It is absurd to suggest that such policies should be determined by engaging public opinion.

We all recognize that a military operation spearheaded by the US would be far more effective than Israel going it alone. Many of us wish we could rely on President Obama’s vague undertakings that the US will ensure that Iran does not become a nuclear power. However, when we review the track record of third parties who pledged to stand by us in times of need, it would be a somewhat daunting gamble to rely exclusively on broad US undertakings in relation to such a crucial issue impinging on our future.

Besides, the US hardly has a great success rate of preventing rogue states like North Korea from developing weapons of mass destruction. That applies especially to Obama who is not renowned for taking tough global military decisions and continues to defer to the dysfunctional Islamic and rogue dominated UN. Nor for that matter to Mitt Romney who if elected, may also hesitate to inaugurate his term with a major military confrontation which may result in severe negative ramifications on the global economy.

Whilst the negative statements issued by US spokesmen in recent weeks could be highly sophisticated examples of disinformation, it is more likely that they reflect the reality that nothing has yet been resolved. Of course, when Obama meets Netanyahu in the fall, he could persuade him to suspend independent action by convincing him that a US military option is credible and committed to a timeline for acting in the absence of any diplomatic breakthrough with the mullahs.

Failing any progress, our government is now preparing the Israeli public for the possibility that Israel will be obliged to act independently.

Yet unlike previous occasions when there was little public debate prior to Israel taking unilateral military action, today we have a surfeit of politicians afflicted with flapping gums, babbling away, creating confusion and undermining unity and confidence on the home front.

The most recent outburst was from President Shimon Peres who until now had appeared to have set aside his days as a politician and committed to acting as a responsible President. Now, the man who sought to undermine Begin for taking out Saddam Hussein’s nuclear reactor, who predicted a ‘New Middle East’ after the Oslo Accords and supported the disastrous 2005 unilateral withdrawal from Gaza, is demanding that Israel not “attack Iran alone”. Such a statement contradicting government policy is totally beyond the jurisdiction of a president.

The hysterical personal attacks on Netanyahu by Opposition Leader Shaul Mofaz were simply mind-boggling. He ranted that the PM was “playing a dangerous and irresponsible game with the future of the entire nation.” He accused Netanyahu of promoting war in order to influence the outcome of the US Presidential elections, asking “why are you putting your hands deep in the American ballot boxes” and “endangering the future of our children”. So much for a responsible opposition!

In a similar vein, discredited former PM Ehud Olmert, the architect of the failed Second Lebanon War, insisted that “Iran is far from the point of no return in terms of its nuclear project” and expressed “alarm” at the “great public damage” Netanyahu’s warlike policies were inflicting on Israel which “disgusted us”.

 Aside from Israel Hayom, the Hebrew media also went overboard. Ha’aretz and even more so Yediot and the major TV stations assailed Netanyahu’s “irresponsibility” and even accused him of seeking to go to war with Iran in order to divert attention from social issues. The journalists are not privy to intelligence or inside information, yet they run scare stories on the home front and attempt to create panic. Ha’aretz even published an article headlined “Mr. Netanyahu, before you bomb Iran, say goodbye to everyone you know”.

The hysteria has extended with retired IDF chiefs of staff and former intelligence heads joining the fray, hinting that the PM would be accountable to a Commission of Inquiry if military operations failed.

There were bizarre demonstrations against military action. Artists Gila Almagor and Achinoam Nini promoted anti-war petitions. There was even a seditious petition from 400 academics, including a former head of Tel Aviv University’s Faculty of Law, calling on pilots to refuse to obey orders to bomb Iran.

Yet notwithstanding this hysteria, Israelis remain calm. Some update their gas masks and check their shelters, but overall life goes on and there is no panic. Because Israelis today are reasonably confident that our leaders will decide what is best for the nation and recognize that if necessary we must confront those who seek our demise.

The writer may be contacted at ileibler@leibler.com

This column was originally published in the Jerusalem Post and Israel Hayom

What Might Civilized People be Thinking When Sociopaths Like Tamimi Bask in Adulation?

By: Frimet and Arnold Roth

Published: August 21st, 2012

http://thisongoingwar.blogspot.co.il/2012/08/21-aug-12-what-might-civilized-people.html

After receiving some offline comments on the Tamimi speech we publicized yesterday, we have a few further thoughts to share. The urge to do this is triggered by a sense that something deeply disturbing is going on; it's being ignored or willfully not noticed by people who ought to be noticing.

When a politician or public figure on our side of the fence makes an ignorant or dumb or smart or incisive statement, particularly when it's about the Arabs (you know the examples), his/her comments are greeted with near-instant analysis and frequently with condemnation from a global array of press and politicians. The Arab media focus obsessively on such things. Outside the Arab/Islamic world, we frequently see European, American, Australian and other critics drawing wide inferences about how those specific Israeli views are going to bring on the next Black Plague or an increase in pogroms in France. The claim, at minimum, is that irreparable harm is going to be caused to the souls and DNA of innocent Israeli children, to world peace and so on.

To illustrate: when a posse of Israeli delinquents (it happens to be a very current issue here) beat up an Arab youth in a street fight, the New York Times says the event has led to "a stark national conversation about racism, violence, and how Israeli society could have come to this point" That's an actual quote: check it out. We think the Times' journalist's conclusion is overwrought nonsense, but that's not the point. Israel is not, never has been and should never be, immune to criticism, or even object to it, and mostly doesn't.

Now think for a moment about how Ahlam Tamimi and her hundreds of published interviews and speeches are treated by global public opinion. Pay attention in particular to how Arabs view her, since they are her principal audience.

No one - certainly not the woman herself - denies the fact that she planned and carried out a premeditated killing on a large and vicious scale, which was the whole point of doing it. The law convicted her on the basis that she's a murderer; she says (more or less) that she did it for the freedom and honour of her nation. The fact that she planned to kill and succeeded mightily has never been in dispute. She does not miss an opportunity to say that it was children, and specifically Jewish children, and even more specifically orthodox Jewish children like ours, who were the target. She regrets that she did not kill more - it's there in yesterday's video and in numerous other speeches and earlier videos recorded in her Jordanian freedom.

She appears on television and in front of adoring crowds (ask us if you want to view the video files) and expresses the vilest kind of racist hatred of Jews, Israelis and Zionists. She has done this many times since she unjustly got her freedom in October and her message is hugely amplified by the social media. She is a star on YouTube, a hero on Facebook. She is globally broadcast via satellite television into every corner of the Arabic-speaking world. It's arguable that she has the largest footprint of any ordinary murderer (ignoring "celebrities" like Hitler, Mao, Stalin et al) in human history. If that seems like an overstatement then we urge you to concede that she is in the major leagues. The fact that most people don't know this is largely because most people don't speak Arabic.

She smiles warmly when she says she killed those Jews, and her god wanted her to do it. She points to how she has subsequently been rewarded with freedom, fame, a wedding that received live television coverage. The adoring crowds applaud and ululate. The encouragement (and probably the will) to emulate her actions is clear.

How many Arabic speakers are there in the world? A quick query on the web turns up these numbers: "280 million native speakers, and an extra 250 million non-native speakers" [source]. How many Arabic newspapers? Many.

Here's our point: We have searched and have not yet found a blog, article, published speech or op-ed in her language, Arabic, which criticizes the woman or her views. So far, not one. If our readers can point us to exceptions, please do.

This is deeply shocking. Tamimi's message resonates throughout the Arab and Islamic world. Her views don't even rise to the level of controversial. She's simply a hero, wall to wall. She and her vile deeds, opinions and intentions appear to represent some sort of global consensus in the Arab and Islamic world. There is no public debate, no expressions of outrage - not even concerning the passivity of the Kingdom of Jordan where she lives and from where a vibrant Tamimi-focused industry of online and broadcast videos sends its message of hatred and death out to the world.

Does the absence of criticism throughout the Arab world mean they support the deliberate killing of the innocent people among their enemy? Does their silence mean they support the murder of children as Tamimi certainly does, and they want to see it happen again and again as she certainly does?

What does this say about the discourse underway in the Arab world? What light does it throw on the global news media?

What can we learn from here about the chances for ever making peace? 

About the Author: Frimet and Arnold Roth began writing and speaking publicly soon after the murder of their fifteen year-old daughter Malki Z"L in the Jerusalem Sbarro massacre, August 9, 2001 (Chaf Av, 5761). They have both been, and are, frequently interviewed for radio, television and the print media, including CNN, BBC, New York Times, Washington Post, Al-Jazeera, and others. Their blog This Ongoing War deals with the under-appreciated price of living in a society afflicted by terrorism which, they contend, means the entire world. Frimet is a native of Queens, NY while her husband was born and raised in Melbourne, Australia. They brought their family to settle in Jerusalem in 1988. They co-founded the Malki Foundation in 2001 and are deeply involved in its work as volunteers. They can be reached at thisoingoingwar@gmail.com .

Will America forsake Israel, again? August 21, 2012 By GIULIO MEOTTI

Will America forsake Israel, again? August 21, 2012 By GIULIO MEOTTI America’s interest in Israel’s strategic value has always been the primary motivation for US support.

The Israel-Iran countdown has begun, and with regard to Teheran’s nuclear race we are witnessing a great crisis in US-Israel relations.

Will America help the tiny Jewish state? Can Israel trust the word of a US administration which treated Jerusalem like a banana republic? A few days ago, Israeli officials told Yediot Aharonot newspaper that “the US’ stance is pushing the Iranians to become a country at the brink of nuclear capability.”

Very few people in Israel believe that the US will ever launch another preemptive war against the ayatollahs. The US, especially if Barack Obama is re-elected, will be tempted to reach a compromise with the Iranians.

Israel is dependent on the US for economic, military and diplomatic support.

American taxpayers fund 20%-25% of Israel’s defense budget, with the Jewish state being the largest recipient by far of American aid since World War II. Israel is required to use a portion of US aid to buy from the US defense establishment, but no other country – certainly not any European one – provides the weapons needed to protect Israeli lives. Moreover, the United States has cast 40 vetoes to protect Israel in the UN Security Council.

There is a quid pro quo for such support, but also a limit to what even that degree of dependence can buy. The current Iranian nuclear race made this very clear, just as it made clear that the US has, again, forsaken the Israelis.

Washington doesn’t support Israel because of the Jewish state’s democracy, because of the Holocaust or out of respect for human rights. America’s interest in Israel’s strategic value has always been the primary motivation for US support.

But that could change tomorrow, especially if Israel’s survival becomes a burden for Washington (France was Israel’s most important ally after the war, but Paris suddenly abandoned the Jews for the Arab world). Israel must remember that she is America’s ally and client, not its “friend.”

The first US presidents after Israel was established – Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson – gave nothing to the Jewish state. And we were in a time when the ashes of Auschwitz were still warm, while today the memory of the Holocaust is fading. Truman maintained a US embargo against arms sales to the Israeli and Arabs, which was effective only against Israel. In 1948, it was US pressure which forced Israel to withdraw from Sinai where Israeli forces were pursuing the defeated Egyptians.

In 1960 the Nazi officer Adolf Eichmann was apprehended by Israeli agents in Argentina and flown to Jerusalem for trial. Argentina turned to the UN Security Council, asking it to condemn Israel and order Eichmann’s return. Washington intended to support the Argentinean complaint and only the furious reaction of Israel’s foreign minister Golda Meir dissuaded Washington.

Prior to the Six Day War, Abba Eban approached Lyndon Johnson and all he got was an arms embargo on the Middle East. In 1970, at the height of the War of Attrition, the US turned down an urgent Israeli request for security assistance.

In 1992 the Bush-Baker administration humiliated the Israelis with an ultimatum: “Settlements or loan guarantees.”

(The later Israeli general and minister Rehavam Ze’evi dismissed Bush senior as “anti-Semitic”). The US post-Gulf War settlement included American efforts to dislodge Israel from the territories by endangering Israel’s security. The former editor of The New York Times, A.M. Rosenthal, wrote that “the Bush administration has a spiritual affinity for Arab rulers and oilmen, but bares its teeth when Jerusalem shows independence.”

Bill Clinton’s appeasement has been a tragedy for the Jewish people, since he pushed the Oslo process along and encouraged its implementation, bearing a historic responsibility for the intifada’s bloodshed, in which 2,000 Israelis paid with their lives.

In 1981 the Jewish state bombed the Iraqi Osirak reactor. Recent files released by the UK National Archives show that Britain’s ambassador to Washington, Sir Nicholas Henderson, was with US defense secretary Caspar Weinberger as the news came in.

“Weinberger says that he thinks Begin must have taken leave of his senses. He is much disturbed by the Israeli reaction and possible consequences,” Nicholas cabled London. Alexander Haig was secretary of state then. “I argued,” he recalled, “that while some action must be taken to show American disapproval, our strategic interests would not be served by policies that humiliated and weakened Israel.”

Those who remember Ronald Reagan as friendly to Israel may be startled to recall the vehemence of his reaction against Israel. His administration’s immediate response was to impose sanctions on the Jewish state, and he suspended the delivery of F-16 fighter jets, doing something even Jimmy Carter refused to do: use arms supplies as leverage against Israel.

Washington has also armed Israel’s western neighbor to the teeth. The Egyptian army today is infinitely more modern and lethal then when the Egyptians carried out their successful attack against Israel in the Yom Kippur War.

And can we forget the US treatment of Jonathan Pollard, the only American to receive a life sentence for spying for an ally? Despite the fact that nobody has given a single specific example of how Pollard’s actions harmed the US, Pollard is still being held in solitary confinement in an underground cell.

Pollard has been in prison longer than anyone ever sentenced in the US for passing classified materials to a friendly foreign power (the median sentence for someone spying for a non-Soviet power has been less than three years). For his contribution to Israel’s security and for his long suffering in prison, Pollard is an Israeli hero.

He is the source of the Israeli preparedness for the Iraqi missile attacks during the Gulf War, when Saddam’s rockets began to rain down on Tel Aviv, and Israelis wore gas masks. Pollard warned Israel of Iraq’s bellicose intentions, and that Syria’s Assad was amassing quantities of chemical weapons.

By its own agreement with Israel, the US should have given this information to Jerusalem. But it was deliberately blocked by Weinberger.

Today Israel can stand tall in the face of its important ally because it never asked American soldiers to spill their blood in its defense. It’s Washington that must beg for Israel’s alliance and protect the Jews, as it cannot afford disengagement from the only democracy in a region dominated by Islam. But will the US eventually be compelled to sacrifice Israel on the altar of “realism” and oil price, at which time Iran’s knife will descend on the Jews? And will the Jewish state’s leadership dutifully bind Israel on the altar? As Charles Krauthammer put it: “for Israel the stakes are somewhat higher: the very existence of a vibrant nation and its 6 million Jews.” If Israel is unable to change the US’ red line on Iran and Jerusalem capitulates to Washington’s appeasement, Iran will be soon armed with atomic bombs.

And the Jews? They will be psychologically weaker and totally dependent on others’ help. Like it was during the Holocaust. Does someone need to be reminded how Washington refused to help the Jews while they were entering into the gas chambers?

The writer is an Italian author.