OVER THE YEARS IT'S BEEN A STATE DEPARTMENT PRACTICE NOT TO  UTTER THE WORD" TERRORISM" UNTIL ABSOLUTELY FORCED TO DO SO

The extreme reluctance of the Obama administration to define the attack on the American Consulate in Libya as a terrorist attack is not unique to the Obama State Department. Rather, over the years it's been a State Department practice not to  utter the word" terrorism" until absolutely forced to do so

The Bush administration was similarly guilty. For example ,on July 6, 1989, Abd al-Hadi Ghneim, a Palestinian terrorist grabbed the steering wheel of a bus traveling on the Tel Aviv-Jerusalem highway. Shouting “Allahu Akhbar!” (Allah is great), Ghneim drove the bus off the road and into a steep ravine. As it careened down the rocky slope, the bus caught fire and exploded.

This was the first recorded instance of Palestinian suicide terrorism. Sixteen passengers were killed, including 39 year-old Rita Levine, of Philadelphia, and two Canadians, Winnipeg teenager Fern Rykiss and Dr. Shelley Volokov Halpenny, of Vancouver. Among the 27 injured passengers were six Americans, including a woman on her way to see her daughter, a gymnast, compete in the Maccabiah games in Jerusalem. The terrorist survived.

State Department spokesman Richard Boucher called the attack a “senseless, tragic incident,” but declined to use the word “terrorism.”

Calling the attack a “terrorist act” presented a political problem for the Bush administration. Seven months earlier, the U.S. had initiated contacts with Yasir Arafat and the Palestine Liberation Organization, claiming the PLO had renounced terrorism. If the PLO was involved in the attack and the U.S. verified that it was terrorism, the administration might have had  to end its dealings with Arafat.

New York Times  columnist William Safire was blunt. He wrote that the State Department was “worried about upsetting Mr. Arafat’s followers.”

In fact, 25 year-old Gaza Strip resident , Ghneim,, was not a member of Arafat’s PLO, but rather of Palestinian Islamic Jihad. But PLO spokesman Bassam Abu Sharif complicated matters by praising the terrorist attack as “a human reaction” to “desperate conditions.” Sharif said, “He who protects his rights and opposes occupation is not a terrorist. If it were so, George Washington himself would be a terrorist. "The State Department ignored Sharif’s statement.

Arafat did not directly condemn the attack. However,The State Department praised Arafat for telling an interviewer, “It is painful for me to witness the loss of all these civilian lives.”

Also, journalists used numerous terms to avoid using the word “terrorist”.” Washington Post correspondent Nora Boustany described Ghneim as an “activist.” NEW YORK TIMES REPORTER JOEL BRINKLEY CALLED HIM AN “ASSAILANT.” IN HIS FIRST DISPATCH ON THE SUBJECT, BRINKLEY CHARACTERIZED THE MASSACRE AS AN “ATTACK,” AN “ACCIDENT,” AND A “BUS CRASH.” IN HIS SECOND ARTICLE, HOWEVER, HE DID CALL IT A “TERRORIST ATTACK.”

Israeli officials were very upset  by Washington’s position. Baruch Binah, spokesman for the Israeli Consulate in New York, said Sharif’s statements represented “the true feelings of the PLO,” and a letter circulated by the Israeli ambassador to the United Nations, Yochanan Bein, said Sharif’s remarks “provide clear evidence that the PLO never had any intention of renouncing terrorism and violence.” An Israeli official in Washington said the episode showed that the PLO’s alleged renunciation of terrorism, in order to begin talks with the United States, was “meaningless.”

In Jerusalem, Foreign Ministry spokesman address the issue: directly He said at a press conference that, “IF THE UNITED STATES DOES NOT CALL IT TERRORISM, IN FACT IT GIVES A LICENSE TO KILL TO EVERY PALESTINIAN INDIVIDUAL OR ORGANIZATION.”

Capitol Hill and the American Jewish community criticized the Bush administration.

Congressman Tom Lantos (D-CA) said that while even Radio Moscow was calling the attack terrorism, “the State Department was diddling about trying to get answers.”   Abraham Foxman Anti-Defamation League head said the administration’s reluctance to call it terrorism indicated a softening of the U.S. condition that the PLO had to sincerely oppose terrorism in order to qualify for dialogue with Washington.

Even some who favored U.S.-PLO contacts protested. Ten leaders of the International Center for Peace in the Middle East, including five who had recently met with Arafat, called on the PLO leadership to “strongly condemn” the attack and “all other acts of violence against innocent civilians.”

The PLO  never condemned the attack nor did they ever call it “terrorism”.. However, the Bush administration finally gave in. Six days after the attack, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said, “It was clearly an act of violence against innocent civilians. I think in everybody’s minds that would constitute an act of terrorism.” Although Boucher hedged by using the term “in everybody’s minds,” this statement by the State Department was  sufficient to put that controversy to rest.

 Ghneim, he was finally convicted of 16 counts of murder and sentenced to 16 life sentences. But he was released in October 2011, together with other terrorists who were set free in exchange for captive Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit.

.

ONLY YOU CAN HELP SAVE ISRAEL FROM DESTRUCTION BY IRANIAN NUCLEAR WEAPONS 9-29-12

THIS IS NOT A PRO-OBAMA NOR AN ANTI-OBAMA MESSAGE. All of the materials presented below (for your reference) are by well recognized,  well informed individuals. Some are strong Obama supporters, others are  strong Obama detractors, others are members  or former members of the US and/or Israeli governments.

 Although this e-mail is extensive, reading it is simple. I urge you to read section #1 and then  read #2  Rabbi Wolpe's article: Why I’m A One-Issue Voter    By RABBI DAVID WOLPE  September 19, 2012. Then ,refer to the other articles as  background , to be read at  your convenience.(Listing Provided.)

 I.    INTRODUCTION /BACKGROUND

#1  WHY THIS E-MAIL?

 ONLY YOU CAN HELP SAVE ISRAEL FROM DESTRUCTION BY IRANIAN NUCLEAR WEAPONS

IN IRAN the centrifuges are being speeded up; the hardening of  their crucial nuclear facilities is nearing completion; and Iran has begun construction on a $300 million anti-aircraft missile base near Abadeh, in southern Iran. The announcement was shortly followed by a claim by the Iranian air defense commander that Iran's indigenously-developed air defense system, the Bavar 373 plan, is 30% complete and will be completed by March 2013. The Bavar 373 is intended to replace the canceled sale of the Russian S-300 system. Tehran also announced it would hold its largest-ever anti-aircraft exercise later this fall.

  An associate of yours who is held in the highest esteem by both the Jewish and the academic communities, warns:

 At this time of year, I hesitate to circulate a message so foreboding, but I fear I have no choice.  The Jewish People today are imperiled more than at any time since the holocaust, when we lost 6 million of our fellow Jews, ominously the current Jewish pAtopulation of the land of Israel.  Let us all pray for the survival of Israel--but let us not imagine that prayer alone can do more than it did during 1938-1945

Listing of articlesI take his warning seriously, and so should you.

Dr. David Sternlight (check out his extensive credentials in intelligence, military affairs, international relations, etc. on the Internet) shares this concern.

Subject:  IRAN'S  NUCLEAR PROGRAM AND PRESIDENT OBAMA . To: Rabbi David Wolpe <dwolpe@sinaitemple.org>, 

  

As the former Chief Economist of a major international oil company, and one who lives across the street from and has davened in your shul, I want to associate myself with the materials Howard Laitin has sent you. I, too, have much direct experience with Israel, Iran, and the Arab Middle East, and have spent many years taking advice from some of the best academics and policy- makers in the region, and conducting policy studies thereon. 

 II.  Listing of articles:

#2:Why I’m A One-Issue Voter    By RABBI DAVID WOLPE | September 19, 2012

 |I have never voted in a Presidential election on one issue alone, but I will this yearMy decision this year will be simple: I will vote for whichever candidate seems likelier to stop Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

There are two words that symbolize the terror of the twentieth century: Auschwitz and Hiroshima. An Iranian bomb threatens to combine them both. It portends the destruction of an entire nation and an entire people in a moment. However hard it may be to imagine such wholesale slaughter, if history has taught us nothing else, it has taught that today’s delusions of madmen can become tomorrow’s reality.

#3.Koch slams Obama 

Ed Koch Reverses Position, Slams Obama’s “Weakness” on Muslims
Former NYC Mayor, Democrat Ed Koch, on Rosh Hashannah: “No one understands what ‘we have Israel’s back’ means”.“President Obama is refusing to publicly make clear to Iran that ‘If you get the bomb, we will take you out.’”Former Mayor Koch went on to say “President Obama is showing weakness to the Muslim world.”

#4A.'It's not about elections in America, but centrifuges in Iran'  PM Benjamin Netanyahu 

#4B.Israel PM Benjamin (Bibi) Netanyahu's Address to the United Nations on Iran and Radical Islam

#5. 'US will strike Iran in early 2013' - former American ambassador to Israel

Published: 17 September, 2012, 22:42
Edited: 17 September, 2012, 22:42

The former US Ambassador to Israel predicts that war  with Iran is likely to occur in early 2013.

#6.   'I’m always happy to mediate between Obama and Netanyahu'     Professor Alan Dershowitz,

Famed jurist, author Professor Alan Dershowitz, in an exclusive interview, states: “Obama needs to look straight into the television camera and say to the leaders of Iran, 'We will never allow you to develop a nuclear weapon"

#7 Former IDF Chief Halutz Is Hawkish on Iran

What is Halutz saying?

On negotiations: “negotiations have failed”;  on diplomacy: “enough Viennese coffee without results”; on sanctions: without the participation of China, Russia and India – all of which have been given exemptions by the US government – the sanctions will take too long to work; and on the issue of “red lines,” the problem isn’t that they are too bellicose, it is that they give the enemy an advantage you don’t want it to have. Halutz even says that Israel may have to “go it alone.”

#8 What If Israel’s ‘Peace Partners’ Actually Prefer War?

By: Louis Rene Beres Published: September 21st, 2012

At this point in Israel’s problematic diplomatic agenda, there is really only one overriding policy question: Can any form of negotiation with the Palestinians, Fatah and/or Hamas, ever 

prove reasonable and productive?

#9 Syria: Is the Proposed Cure Worse than the Status Quo? By:Barry Rubin Published: September 23rd, 2012

The Obama Administration is backing (Islamist) Turkey as the distributor of weapons supplied by (opportunistically pro-Islamist) Qatar.  Turkey and Qatar want to give the Muslim Brotherhood a monopoly over receiving weapons even though most of the rebels are non- and even anti-Islamist. As this happens, the Obama Administration is thus working directly to install a revolutionary Islamist regime in Syria that will disrupt the region, help shred, U.S. interests, and battle with Israel for decades to come. A number of Republican senators see no problem with this strategy.

III. Articles

#2.  Why I’m A One-Issue

Voter    By RABBI DAVID WOLPE | September 19, 2012 |

The rabbi who gave the benediction at the DNC asks, Which candidate will prevent nuclear terror?

in

I have never voted in a Presidential election on one issue alone, but I will this year.

We all know there are crucial economic and social issues. If you are out of a job, what could be more pressing? There are foreign policy challenges with Russia, China, North Korea and the Middle East. I do not mean to minimize the urgency of these issues. But this year, for me, they must all take a back seat.

Although I recently delivered the benediction at the Democratic National Convention, I considered the act religious, not political — a blessing, not an endorsement. My decision this year will be simple: I will vote for whichever candidate seems likelier to stop Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

There are two words that symbolize the terror of the twentieth century: Auschwitz and Hiroshima. An Iranian bomb threatens to combine them both. It portends the destruction of an entire nation and an entire people in a moment. However hard it may be to imagine such wholesale slaughter, if history has taught us nothing else, it has taught that today’s delusions of madmen can become tomorrow’s reality.

The problem is not one person. True, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad describes Israel as an “insult to humanity” and “a cancerous tumor,” and calls for its “disappearance.” But it is equally true that in May, the chief of staff of the Iranian armed forces, Major-General Seyed Hassan Firouzabadi, said: “The Iranian nation is standing for its cause [and] that is the full annihilation of Israel.” And in June, Iranian Vice-President Mohammad Reza Rahimi told a United Nations-sponsored anti-drug conference that the Jews were responsible for the spread of illegal drugs around the world, that the Zionists control the international drug trade, and that they had ordered doctors to kill black babies.

Experts from Israel’s former Mossad Chief Meir Dagan and others point to a genuine concern that Iran would bomb Israel. So those like The New York Times‘ Bill Keller who declare that Iran would not use the bomb are foisting their own humanitarian criteria on people who do not share them. The reasoning seems to be: “Since for me it is unthinkable, it must be impossible.” But we have learned to our cost in the twentieth century, when it comes to atrocity, the unthinkable is indeed possible. “Containing” a nuclear Iran is the opposite of real politik; it is fantasy politik.

After all, even if we stipulate for a moment that Iran would not bomb Israel, the problem is hardly solved. Would they give nuclear weapons to proxies in Hezbollah? Of course not, right? Who would trust Hezbollah with a nuclear weapon? But we have seen in Pakistan that a single brilliant, unscrupulous man can change the nuclear balance. And even if the regime were itself restrained, and exercised an improbable degree of discipline, what would its nervous neighbors do? Saudi Arabia is not likely to stand idly by while its neighbor attains instant hegemony. They know with whom they are dealing, even if we sometimes forget: After all, the long, savage Iran–Iraq war was fought largely by children given a “token” to ensure their entrance to heaven should they be martyred. That is not a mentality designed to encourage confidence in international restraint and wisdom.

This week was Rosh Hashana, the day in the Jewish tradition that the world was created. Another sacred scripture, the Bhagavad Gita, went through the mind of Robert Oppenheimer as he saw the first atom bomb explode near Los Alamos: “Now, I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.”

With the exception of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, humanity has managed to restrain itself from deploying this most awful of weapons, the one that can indeed destroy worlds. We stand before an iron law of history: you cannot unmake what has been made. Once Iran has a nuclear bomb, the world will never look the same. Not only Israelis, but the West will never sleep easily in its bed. Stopping Iran will not feed your family, get you a job or open a factory. It will not elevate the level of public discourse or bring manufacturing back from China. It will merely ensure that the free world, beginning with Israel but not ending there, will not live under the shadow of annihilation. To our presidential candidates: show me you have a way to do that, and you’ve got my vote.

Wolpe is the Rabbi of Sinai Temple in Los Angeles and the author of seven books. The views expressed are solely his own.

#3.Koch slams Obama 

Ed Koch Reverses Position, Slams Obama’s “Weakness” on Muslims
Former NYC Mayor, Democrat Ed Koch, on Rosh Hashannah: “No one understands what ‘we have Israel’s back’ means”.

By Mark Langfan, INN

At Park East Synagogue’s Rosh Hashannah High Holiday service, September 17, 2012, Former Mayor Ed Koch during his annual “sermon” from the pulpit, in front of over a thousand worshippers, said “I’m distressed.”
“President Obama is refusing to publicly make clear to Iran that ‘If you get the bomb, we will take you out.’”

Mayor Koch previously had publicly boasted of his close ties to President Obama. Mayor Koch also said “Nobody understands what ‘We have your back’” means. We shouldn’t have Israel’s ‘back’ we should have Israel’s ‘front’.
“As the brave Senator Inouye from Hawaii said last year, the President should say ‘An attack upon Israel will be deemed an attack against the United States.’:

Former Mayor Koch went on to say “President Obama is showing weakness to the Muslim world.”

Koch said the entire country should call and send letters to President Obama and their senators and congressmen expressing their outrage at the weak United States stance taken in the face of the murder and violence against our embassies, and demand that the US take a clear firm stance.

Koch added, “Any other self-respecting western country where their embassy was attacked, their ambassador and his security detail murdered, and the local police ran away would withdraw their embassy immediately in protest.”

Koch concluded by demanding that the US should stop all US foreign aid and tourism to countries like Egypt where they have allowed US embassies to be attacked.

What made Mayor Koch’s current stance on Obama a dramatic shock is that Koch was, until recently, a staunch supporter of President Obama. Throughout Koch’s short and to the point speech, the stunned worshippers broke into repeated, thunderous, and prolonged applause. altogether about eight times.

Mayor Koch opened his talk by saying he had just gotten out of the hospital where they took 55 pounds of water out of his body, and he “weighed the same weight as when he came out of the army in World War II – 67 years ago.” A listener commented to Arutz Sheva that from the clarity of his speech, Koch sounded as if his mental faculties are also the same as when he got out of the army 67 years ago.

#4A.'It's not about elections in America, but centrifuges in Iran'  PM Benjamin Netanyahu 

This is a long , MUST READ article. It counters those who take their view of Prime Minister Netanyahu as it is precooked by the media, which largely opposes him.

It takes a lot of personal effort to formulate a responsible opinion.

 I urge that you do the necessary work. 

Then, form your own judgments.

PM Benjamin Netanyahu addresses claim that he is using Iran issue to harm the Obama re-election bid: "The only thing guiding me is centrifuges in Iran. It's not my fault that the centrifuges aren't more considerate of the Americans' political timetable."

*************************

The time was 11 p.m. and Netanyahu and his team were still hard at work. It was a long workday that began at midnight the previous day, with a long-distance telephone conversation with U.S. President Barack Obama, followed by several additional important calls with other world leaders: Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and French President Francois Hollande. There was also a long discussion on economic issues.

The prime minister dedicates a lot of time to thinking about how to handle the Iranian nuclear issue. It is an existential threat that is rapidly approaching, Netanyahu believes. That is the main topic on his agenda, and a central issue in talks with American officials as well.

************************************ What did you say, and what did you hear, in your conversation with the U.S. president? "It was a good conversation that revolved around significant issues and our desire to prevent Iran from progressing any further with their military nuclear program. It is natural to have disagreements. Israel is closer [to Iran] and more vulnerable. The U.S. is big, far away, and less vulnerable. Naturally we have diverging views on certain things. In the face of a threat like Iran's nuclear armament, I believe that it is important that the international community set a clear red line. Iran has taken obvious steps in recent years and months toward developing nuclear weapons capability. Do you believe Obama when he says, "We will not allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons"? "I'm certain that he means what he says, just as the Europeans mean it when they say it and the same way we mean it when we say it. But the question is how to achieve this in a practical fashion — that is what we discussed. This is the main issue affecting our future. Naturally, a prime minister should be looking out for Israel's essential interests. I do so in conversations with world leaders and in public remarks." It appears as though you are currently in conflict with Obama. Is Israel in conflict with the U.S.? "It is not a conflict. It is a question of emphasis on Israel's interests, and that is the responsibility of the prime minister of Israel. I have been saying these things for 16 years. "At first I was almost the only one warning against this danger, and then others joined me. I called for sanctions on Iran and I was nearly alone in that call, but then others joined me. I was the first one to demand red lines, and maybe I am alone at this time, but I believe that others will soon join me. "A prime minister's and a leader's duty is to insist on the things that are essential to Israel's security, even when it is not easy, and even when there is criticism, and even when there is no immediate agreement on everything. "If, over the last 16 years, I had listened to the advice of all those people who told me that this or that is 'unacceptable' or that 'now is not the right time' or 'wait until the circumstances shift in your favor,' I don't know if we would have made it this far. I was able to contribute to the establishment of a global coalition against Iran. We are encumbering Iran's economy, but we have not yet reached the main objective: stopping Iran's nuclear program. And Iran is getting ever closer to achieving its own objective. That is why I am saying things in the most responsible, thought-out, measured way possible — to our American friends as well — that we have a common goal: stopping the Iranians." When you make remarks to the Americans in such a blunt way, doesn't it cause damage? "I'm not saying things in a blunt way, but in an honest way, just the facts. I can make nice and word things delicately, but our existence is at stake. This is our future. We're talking about a historic junction that has profound meaning. These are not just words and I am not exaggerating. That is what I have done, and that is what I will continue to do." Is the just thing also the right thing to do when dealing with the U.S.? Is it wise to disregard the advice of the American president? "Who says that I am disregarding the president's advice? I actually listen to his advice very carefully. But I think that when it comes to issues such as these — and generally, in life, I find this to be true in many respects — the just thing is always the right thing. If you do what justice and common sense suggest, it is also the right thing to do. Iran is obviously approaching the threshold of nuclear capability. Unfortunately, things have gotten this far." The U.S. is in the midst of an election year. There are allegations that you are intervening and impacting the elections. There are those who say that you are putting all your eggs in one basket. "That is complete nonsense. The only thing guiding me is not the U.S. elections but the centrifuges in Iran. It is not my fault that the centrifuges aren't more considerate of the Americans' political timetable. If the Iranians were to hit the 'pause' button and stop enriching uranium and building a bomb until the end of the elections in the U.S. — then I could wait. “But they are not waiting. They are progressing. The things that I am saying have to do with events in Iran, not events in the U.S. The desire to stop Iran is common to all Americans, Democrats and Republicans alike. There is no distinction in the desire to stop this thing. It is my duty as the prime minister of Israel, when I see Iran's nuclear program barreling forward, to say the things that I think are necessary to ensure the future of the State of Israel. It has nothing to do with American politics." What needs to happen for Israel to shift from talk to action? "I don't think that there is any point in going into that." How long before Iran reaches the zone of immunity? "Every day that goes by brings Iran closer to its goal." Is there a disagreement with the U.S. over that assessment? "I don't think that there are big gaps in our assessments of the point at which Iran will complete its preparations. The question is when action needs to be taken, not so much in terms of the date, but more in terms of the process: when Iran will reach a point beyond which it will be extremely difficult to stop. Obviously our answer to that question is different from that of the U.S. because there is a difference in our capabilities. But time is running out for the U.S. too." Are we alone in facing Iran? "I am doing everything in my power to turn everyone against Iran. We are safeguarding our ability to act on our own in the face of any threat to our security and our future. The entire world is besieging Iran, financially speaking, and we should encourage that. "A large part of the world has enlisted to the cause and answered our call. There is an international framework to press Iran, but we still can't say that, despite all the real difficulties imposed on Iran's economy, it is stopping Iranian aspirations. I see both sides of the equation, but I'm not satisfied with just one." When the top echelon of the defense establishment, the former heads of the Mossad and the Israel Security Agency (Shin Bet) and a former IDF chief of staff are all saying that we should not attack Iran at this time, and that we should wait for the U.S., how much weight do their opinions carry? "I hear all kinds of different voices. I hear people saying that we should wait until the very last minute. But what if the U.S. fails to intervene? That is a question that we have to ask. What about red lines? I ask all these questions in the appropriate forums and in private conversations with our American friends. These are important questions. There is no point in discussing it in public forums." What about when President Shimon Peres makes those same remarks? "There are many things that Peres and I agree on, and there are things we disagree on. The State of Israel is not a country that lacks varying opinions. We are a vibrant people and everyone is free to formulate their own opinion. Usually everyone also expresses their own opinion. But the country is run by the prime minister, and the person leading the government and deciding on policy is the prime minister, and that is how it will continue to be." Is Israel prepared for an attack on the homefront? "We are living in the missile age, which we entered during the Gulf War. There has been a decades-long gap in preparedness. An entire generation has gone by without proper homefront preparations. I take this issue very seriously, and I hold meetings on homefront preparedness every other week. I am personally involved in the matter. In the same way that I was personally involved in building the fence in Sinai [along the Israeli-Egyptian border], which has stopped infiltrators, thus, here, we are also working methodically. "We can't protect every point in Israel, but we can protect most of it. One of the things that has made me very happy is the fact that the Iron Dome [missile interceptor system] has become operational. It was a decision I made during my term, and the results have been good. "But it is important to remember this: You can protect from missiles in one way or another, but there is one thing there is no protection from: the atom bomb. The only thing that can protect us is preventing it from becoming a reality in the hands of the enemy. And, of course, we have to clarify to anyone who ever considers attacking Israel with weapons of mass destruction that he does so at his own peril."  "We are waging a global campaign against Iran that has produced unprecedented international pressure." "In addition, there is political stability in Israel that hasn't been seen here for years. My administration is completing almost four years in power. It is no coincidence; it is a direct product of policy and leadership." "Israel is not a country that is easy to run. Some say that being the prime minister of Israel is the toughest job on earth. Indeed, it is a job that comes with a lot of challenges. To lead this country, to do this difficult job, you need experience and know-how on how to handle the economy. You need financial understanding and the ability to mobilize the international system." "Personally, I look at my first term as prime minister [1996-1999]. I was the youngest Israeli prime minister, at 46. I had 14 years of experience in the political arena. I was an Israeli envoy in Washington and then the ambassador to the United Nations, then deputy foreign minister and then leader of the opposition. "During my second term [which began in 2009], I can say that the experience I have amassed since then really changes your perspective and gives you a greater ability to work for the benefit of the citizens of your country. To anyone who aspires to get to this place I say: Get some experience. It is important. It will help you cope."*$B.********

#4B. Israel PM Benjamin (Bibi) Netanyahu's Address to the United Nations on Iran and Radical Islam

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=FhaUVmYBXD0&list=UUI7e8k3mF9SbYIRNaXwdZmA

#5. 'US will strike Iran in early 2013' - former American ambassador to Israel

Published: 17 September, 2012, 22:42
Edited: 17 September, 2012, 22:42

The former US Ambassador to Israel predicts that war  with Iran is likely to occur in early 2013.

Martin Indyk, the former Ambassador, said there may be about six months left to negotiate a solution that would avoid war – but he thinks this is unlikely. Joining a roundtable of foreign policy experts to discuss the latest Middle East protests and Israel’s concern over Iran, Indyk’s predictions were dire.

“There is still time, perhaps six months, even by Prime Minister Netanyahu’s own time table to try to see if a negotiated solution can be worked out,” he said on CBS’s ‘Face the Nation’ on Sunday. “I’m pessimistic about that. If that doesn’t work out – and we need to make every effort, exhaust every chance that it does work – then I am afraid that 2013 is going to be a year in which we’re going to have a military confrontation with Iran.”

While Indyk said that Iran does not have nuclear weapons at this point, it is only a matter of time before the US will need to take military action.

 

 Indyk said that even though the US would not declare a red line, the US and Israel see eye to eye on most issues regarding Iran.

“While there’s still time, there is not a lot of time, and I don’t think the difference between Netanyahu and Obama on this is that great in terms of the President’s commitment not to allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons,” he said.

       

#6.   'I’m always happy to mediate between Obama and Netanyahu'     Professor Alan Dershowitz,

Famed jurist, author Professor Alan Dershowitz, in an exclusive interview, states: “Obama needs to look straight into the television camera and say to the leaders of Iran, 'We will never allow you to develop a nuclear weapon"

Professor Alan Dershowitz says U.S. President Barack Obama must at the U.S. ill not allow it to obtain nuclear weapons. Photo credit: AP

“What Israel needs to do is say this to the Palestinians: ‘The moment you sit down at the negotiating table and begin negotiations, that is the moment we will freeze construction in the settlements,’” says Alan Dershowitz. “Yes, we have failed in the past, but this is a moral argument, and I am talking about a pragmatic argument. Israel has a huge interest in ceasing to be an occupying power.”

Despite what by all appearances seems to be an unprecedented crisis in relations between Washington and Jerusalem, Professor Alan Dershowitz, one of the most accomplished Jewish jurists in the world and perhaps one of the few people who is close to both Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Barack Obama, still believes that the latter has the ability to prevent an Israeli attack on Iran, and that he knows exactly what to do.

“Some time in the next few weeks, Obama needs to look straight into the television camera and say to the leaders of Iran: I say, you are now suffering because of sanctions and diplomatic isolation, and there is no reason for you to suffer. I promise you — and you can look me straight in the eye — that we will never allow you to develop a nuclear weapon. Why do you need to go through the agony of sanctions? No matter what happens, you will not get a nuclear weapon. If you cross our red line, we will use military force to destroy your capability to develop a nuclear weapon.”

“Obama needs to say this in a way that is unequivocal,” Dershowitz says. “He has two audiences — the Iranian leaders who need to believe him, and the Israeli leaders who must believe that the Iranians believe him. In my view, the Israeli leadership will be satisfied with this statement.”

One of Israel’s most enthusiastic advocates in the U.S., Dershowitz reveals that he has been in frequent contact with Obama over recent months, during which he offered advice over how to deal with the Iranian nuclear impasse.

“Obama, who knew that I was in Israel, spoke with me afterward and asked me what are the three things that are most worrisome to the Israelis. I said to him, ‘I will tell them to you in order of importance — Iran, Iran, and Iran.’ I explained to the president that until this issue is resolved, he cannot compel Israel to focus on any other issue, chief among them the Palestinian question. The president invited me to the White House to meet him, and last June we sat down face to face. I relayed some of my conversation with him to leaders in Israel. Mediating and bringing the president and the prime minister closer together is one job that I’m happy to accept.”

How do you think Israel should deal with the Iranian threat? Is a pre-emptive strike a real option?

“I don’t have an answer to that question because I don’t have access to information about Israel’s operational capabilities. I can say that Israel has a 100-percent legal right to carry out a pre-emptive strike against the Iranian nuclear program. Iran is already in a state of war against Israel. It murdered many Israelis and Jews around the world. It threatens to destroy Israel, and it is on its way to developing the means to do this. So Israel has a full, legal, moral and pragmatic right to attack, and I would defend this right before any court in the world. This doesn’t necessarily mean that it needs to attack. It depends on its military capability and its relationship with the U.S.”

Can Israel trust the U.S. to deal with the Iranian problem?

“No country can trust another country to defend it. The U.S. would never trust Israel to defend American citizens. It doesn’t matter who is in power, and President Obama could make as many promises as he wants to attack Iran if it crosses certain red lines, but what will happen if and when the red lines are crossed and Russia and China threaten a counter-attack? No president can make such a commitment a year in advance. President Obama looked me in the eye and told me, ‘I’m not bluffing,’ and I believe him.

“On the other hand, Obama can’t tie his hands over what may or may not happen in another year or two. On the whole, I agree with Prime Minister Netanyahu, and President Obama also agrees with him, that no country can leave its self-defense to another country, regardless of how friendly that country is. Israel needs to decide on its own. The wise decision could be to allow the U.S. to do it, but this is a decision that I can’t say needs to be made.

Dershowitz’s connection to Israel is an unusual one, almost extraordinary. He visits the country frequently, and he counts a number of Israelis as his good friends. Often, he becomes carried away in imagining himself making aliyah.

“My ties to Israel are emotional and very intellectual,” he says.

“On an emotional level, I deeply identify with the need for a national home for the Jewish people. Intellectually, I believe that even if I weren’t Jewish, I would defend Israel just as I have done all my life. I have no doubt that if I had two lifetimes, I would spend one of them in Israel.

“Many times, I thought about making ‘half-aliyah,’ and this possibility will always be ingrained in my head. I like coming to Israel. My closest friends live there, including Aharon Barak, Yitzhak Zamir, Amnon Rubinstein, Benjamin Netanyahu, Shimon Peres and Ehud Barak. One of the most profound pleasures in my life is that I had the chance to get to know so many respected dignitaries in Israel, and there are times that I do regret not being one of them. I often wonder what my life would be like if my grandfather had made aliyah in 1932. Recently, former IDF Chief of General Staff Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi paid me a compliment and said that if I had made aliyah, I would eventually become chief of staff. Maybe this is so. But even when I’m here [in New York], my friendship with Israel is always a part of me.”

Dershowitz does note, though, that despite the warm feelings, “my friendship with Israel is not devoid of criticism.” In 1970, he called for a two-state solution, and in 1973 made statements critical of the settlements. To this day, Dershowitz is disturbed by the continuing conflict. He believes that the two sides must work toward an agreement. Two years ago, he told Israel Hayom that he believed he would see an agreement in his lifetime. Even today, when it seems that the peace process is in a stalemate, he remains optimistic.

“I still believe,” he says emphatically.

“I think that it behooves Israel to be very generous and active and to offer a solution to the Palestinians that will make it difficult for them to say no. It is true that in the last 12 years Israel has done so twice and the Palestinians refused, but this doesn’t mean that it isn’t in Israel’s interest to put forward another offer.

“Israel doesn’t need to once again freeze settlement construction unilaterally, because this has already failed. What it needs to do is to say to the Palestinians, ‘The moment you sit down at the negotiating table and begin negotiations, that is the moment we will freeze construction in the settlements.’

“Yes, we have failed in the past, but this is a moral argument, and I am talking about a pragmatic argument. Israel has a huge interest in ceasing to be an occupying power.”

Has the Obama administration done enough to advance the peace process?

“No. I don’t think that any American president has done enough. But if you ask me who made the most critical mistake to Israel’s detriment in recent years, it was George W. Bush. The attack on Iraq made dealing with Iran much more difficult. Bush, for all intents and purposes, handed Iraq over to Iran, and from the vantage point of Israel, the U.S., and the Western world, there could not have been a greater mistake. Did Bush do this purposely to cause harm? No, he is a decent man who made a horrible mistake.

“When it comes to President Obama, he could have done many things differently. First, he didn’t need to say that the peace process begins with the ’67 borders. That means that the Palestinians begin with taking control of the Western Wall, the roads leading to Mount Scopus, the Jewish quarter, Maaleh Adumim, and Gilo. It can’t begin from there, but it needs to start from the lines outlined by U.N. Resolution 242, the formulation of which I took part in, and which states that Israel could make territorial changes according to its security needs and the changing circumstances on the ground. When it comes to the wider swaths of territory, like Ariel, we will have to make land swaps. But there shouldn’t be land swaps over things like the Western Wall or the road leading to Hebrew University, because that is just plain extortion.

“Obama’s second mistake, and I think he recognizes this, is that he should have come to Jerusalem after he went to Cairo at the start of his term in office.

“The third mistake that he made was in his speech. He should not have mentioned the Holocaust and the Nakba in the same sentence. There is no comparison. The Nakba is a small wound that the Palestinians inflicted on themselves, and the Holocaust is the death of 6 million people. It’s insulting to the victims of the Holocaust to be in the same sentence, the same paragraph, the same page, in the same book, and even in the same library, as the Nakba. I think that the president understands that he made a number of mistakes, but on the other hand his intentions are pure and I believe that he wants to be the president who leads the Middle East to peace. At the end of the day, I think that President Obama will end up being a better president for Israel than President Bush.”

With less than two months remaining until presidential elections in the U.S., Dershowitz, an avowed supporter of the Democrats, states that he will once again cast his ballot for Obama.

“For most voters, the most important issue in these elections is the job market and the economy, and I’m totally on the Democratic side on these issues as well. Israel is also a critical issue, but what I want to do is take Israel out of the equation, so that Israel remains a bipartisan issue and that no elections are decided by the question over which party is more supportive of Israel. Unfortunately, this has become a much more difficult task.”

Dershowitz got a first-hand look at just how difficult a task this would be earlier this month, when the Democrats held their national convention in North Carolina. During the proceedings, any mention of Jerusalem was magically omitted from the Democratic party platform.

“There is a problem in the Democratic Party,” Dershowitz says.

“It is much more divided on the issue of Israel than the Republican Party. One of the reasons that I have remained a Democrat is that I have a major battle to wage, and I need to lead this campaign from within the Democratic Party and to make sure that what happened with liberal parties in Europe who have turned anti-Israel doesn’t happen here.

“At the moment, the U.S. and the Democratic Party are pro-Israel, but it’s a tight battle. Taking Jerusalem out of the platform didn’t happen by mistake. There are elements within the Democratic Party who wanted to change the platform, and nobody noticed, so they went ahead and did it. The mistake was that nobody paid attention to it, but the change was deliberately made by a group of Democrats that wish to see the U.S. turn against Israel.”

Dershowitz surprisingly blames J Street, a Jewish organization on the Left side of the political spectrum, for the problematic sea change that is noticeable among Democrats. In his view, the organization, which was established in opposition to the legitimacy of the settlements, has long ceased to be pro-Israel.

“J Street is the most important anti-Israel organization in the U.S. today,” he says. “It is acting against everything that the U.S. and Israel agree upon. Everybody agrees that an American military option against Iran needs to stay on the table. Everyone, except for J Street. At first, they offered points of view similar to mine regarding the settlements, but then they decided to build their base of support on the extreme Left, and they allowed people who support a boycott into their tent. They even accepted people who don’t recognize Israel’s right to exist.”

Given how increasingly divisive the issue of Israel is within the Democratic Party, what do you anticipate the breakdown of Jewish votes to be for this coming election? Do the Republicans have a chance to win a majority of Jewish votes?

“Generally, the Jewish vote doesn’t really matter. It’s the Jewish vote in the swing states, chief among them Florida, that matters. At the moment, it’s up in the air in Florida, so much so that I wouldn’t even know what to bet. It’s awfully close. It certainly won’t be 77 percent to 23 percent like it was in 2008, but it might be closer to 60-40, and this is a huge drop-off for the Democrats.

“I and others will try to change this, but at the end of the day the voters in Florida will be much less influenced by what I have to say than by what the president has to say. Today I was on the phone with the White House, and I implored the president to mention every one of the four issues that were removed from the party platform. He should talk about Jerusalem, the settlement of refugees in Palestine, negotiating with Hamas only on condition that it recognizes Israel, and final-status borders that will differ from the ’67 lines. If he does this, I really believe that he can bring the Democrats back to where they always were when it came to the Jewish vote.”

#7.    General Haloutz' remarks 

 General Haloutz' remarks  are of major importance in any intelligent discussion of red lines, sanctions, negotiations, tensions between the United States and Israel, tensions between Pres. Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu,etc. 

His opinions are certainly valuable input to interchanges on Iran's nuclear program, US responses, Israeli responses, etc. They certainly should help inform any writings on this subject.

The best way of determining what  Lt. Gen. Dan Haloutz actually says is not from media reports or other third-hand accounts but by listening to his actual words. 

Below is a link to his appearance at Brookings Institution. There he discusses red  lines, sanctions, diplomacy, etc. You can click on either 'full program" or “highlights”.

Brookings presentation….Israel’s Security and Iran: A View from Lt. Gen. Dan Haloutz

http://www.brookings.edu/events/2012/09/11-israel-iran#ref-id=20120911_haloutz

The article below is a reasonable coverage of General Haloutz' remarks.

 Former IDF Chief Halutz Is Hawkish on Iran

Lt. Gen. Halutz is actually making the argument, in an admittedly very circumspect manner, that it is the international community - that is, everyone besides Israel - which is to blame for the current cataclysm. Halutz even says that Israel may have to “go it alone.”

By: Lori Lowenthal Marcus

Published: September 14th, 2012

Former Israel Defense Force Chief of Staff Dan Halutz is being shepherded around the United States to talk about the international crisis with Iran.  The anti-Netanyahu group J Street is promoting Halutz as critical of Israeli policy and supportive of their position of opposing military action.

But , from  two talks given by Halutz, one  of which can be can be viewed online, it appears that Halutz’s positions are far more complex and nuanced than J Street and their fellow promoters understand.

 I

On Tuesday, September 11th, Halutz spoke at the Saban Center For Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution. On Wednesday evening he spoke at a large suburban Philadelphia Conservative synagogue.  Thursday night the former IDF Chief of Staff spoke at a synagogue in West Chester County, New York, and he is scheduled to speak sometime soon to the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, the coordinating body for local Jewish community relations organizations.

Lt. Gen. Halutz is actually making the argument, in an admittedly very circumspect manner, that it is the international community – that is, everyone besides Israel – which is to blame for the current cataclysm precisely because the actions taken thus far are inadequate and it is that failure which may result in Israel, alone, having to take military action against Iran.  And that is a situation no one wants.

Sanctions

According to Halutz, the international response to Iran’s nuclear activity has been inadequate on just about all fronts.  With respect to sanctions, there aren’t enough countries participating and there aren’t enough products on the banned list.  In particular, without China, Russia and India’s full participation in sanctions – all of which received exemptions from the United States — the impact on the Iranian economy has been too small to encourage the regime to cease its path to nuclear weapons.

Halutz told the Brookings audience that despite some reports to the contrary, the sanctions are not really having an impact on the Iranian economy.  “It was just reported,” he said, “that the Iranian currency dropped by 8 percent compared to the dollar.”  The Iranians are “not yet convinced that there is a real cost imposed upon them because their leadership has chosen to move forward on a project which is unacceptable to the world.” Unless they are forced to do that, to choose between “bread or nuclear weapons,” the sanctions will not work.

An additional reason sanctions are not working is because not enough products are involved.  Halutz explained that there need to be many more products, “thousands of them” placed on the sanctions list.  He offered two examples. The Iranian airlines and the Iranian shipping lines are still operating in the world and, if they weren’t, the Iranians would be seriously impacted.   Right now they aren’t.

In other words, sanctions only work if they cause sharp pain.  Right now there’s barely a mild caress

Diplomacy

Halutz believes that diplomatic efforts must continue, but he is contemptuous of the public versions taking place.  “Enough Viennese coffees,” he said, referring to the rounds of talks that have already taken place, after each one of which the Iranians have refused to cease their nuclear activities.

However, he was quite supportive of one diplomatic effort that he believes, if only more countries would join in, could be fruitful.  The bold shuttering of the Iranian Embassy in Canada by President Stephen Harper is exactly the kind of diplomatic effort that needs to be undertaken, but “others must follow.”  Again, as with sanctions, unless many countries – diplomatically important countries – join in, weak diplomatic energy will bear no fruit.

Red Lines

Publicly, J Street repeatedly states that Halutz is against the drawing of “red lines,” that is, the line in the sand beyond which military action against Iran must be taken.  This is significant because President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu have engaged in a public spat over the US refusal to set red lines.  The Israeli government is claiming that without them, it cannot rely on the United States and Israel will have to take action on its own.  There are commentators who crow that Halutz’s opposition to red lines reveals a reluctance to use force against Iran, and that it is an explicit criticism of the Israeli prime minister.

It is true that Halutz is definitely against “red lines.”  It is not, however, because he thinks it will interfere with continued diplomacy and will make a war with Iran more likely, as J Street  president Jeremy Ben-Ami, who attended the Wednesday night event, wrote.

Instead, Halutz doesn’t like red lines because he thinks they interfere with effective military strategies. He said, “you want to keep some uncertainty to confuse the other side.” In addition, red lines, if not strictly observed, can signal weakness.  When Israel withdrew from Lebanon in 2000 and from Gaza in 2005, red lines were announced: not one shot across the border.  Well, many shots were fired, Israel did not respond, and that failure hurt Israel’s military credibility.  In addition, red lines are not helpful because circumstances change, and international crises are fluid situations. Creating artificial and immovable lines only hamper military decision-making.

The clearest illustration of Halutz’s opposition to red lines is what he said near the end of his talk at Brookings, when he quoted Clint Eastwood, whom he referred to as “the famous actor at the Republican National Convention, when you have to shoot, shoot.  Don’t talk.  Do not say it, do it.”

In other words, if you have red lines, there is no need to announce it, just take the planned action when those lines are crossed.

Timing of Military Action

A major point of contention for those engaged in the discussion about Iran is the timing of when military action must be taken in order to prevent Iran from acquiring the means to create nuclear weapons.  While few suggest that military action should be taken before all other strategies have been attempted, there is still a cavernous gap in understanding when such action should be taken.

Most people agree that Israel’s military action clock is ticking at a faster pace than is the US administration’s military action clock.  That is understandable, as Halutz explained, “the risk Israel is taking is higher, Israel is directly threatened.”

What’s more, Halutz offered what could be described as a gun-shy tendency on the part of the US.  “I assume, as a human being, that once an organization gave information that led to an operation and the information was found not to be the most accurate, it creates a kind of hesitation for the next time.”

In other words, Halutz suggested that the Obama administration is leery of getting the kind of historic black eye the Bush administration received.  “In the US, you have the memory of Saddam with the unconventional weapon, so I assume that they will come and say, there is a green light, the only way the will be sure, is 100 percent, but there is no such thing as 100 percent.”  “And in Israel, 100 percent is not needed.”

Military Force as Last, last, last, last option

Still, Halutz has repeatedly stated that “military force is the last, last, last option.”  But what does that mean?  And can one ever know that something was the last option until one is already past that point?

The tweet sent out from the speech Wednesday night by J Street Local’s national advisory chair and Philadelphia resident Steve Masters, was “Israeli General Danny Halutz: there is still time to confront Iran’s nuclear development – there is no rush.”

But his full statement, which came in response to a question asked at the suburban Philadelphia synagogue was: “I think there is no rush to do it tomorrow, but we are taking a risk, we know what we know, but we don’t know what we don’t know.” He later was more specific: “There is time, it shouldn’t be tomorrow, not next week, maybe not in the next coming months,” but when asked about the announced Iranian elections in June, his response indicated that waiting until that point was not realistic.

So what does Halutz mean when he says that taking military action must be the last option?

That question was put to Halutz by Ken Pollack, Senior Fellow of the Brookings Institution.  Halutz explained: “Last, last, last has nothing to do with a timetable.”  He continued, “it represents the efforts made in each area.”  “If, within a week, we finish all the diplomacy efforts successfully, then the sanctions are effective but nothing is achieved, maybe in two weeks we’ll come to the decision.”

But doubling back to how the different strategies interrelate, Halutz explained that there are subparts to the use of force.  A useful way to psychologically exercise the use of force option that doesn’t actually require military action against the opponent is through what he called “force projection.”

That is important, and one way to utilize force projection is through joint military exercises.  Such joint efforts show the enemy – including the enemy’s allies and the general population – that one side has not only impressive military equipment, but also impressive and intimidating allies backing each other.  It shows, he said, “that we mean business, because you can’t convince the Iranians only through diplomacy to come to the table, to negotiate, and agree.”

But misteps also have consequences.

Halutz pointed out that “reducing the volume or size of exercise between the Israeli forces and the American forces is an indication in the wrong direction.”  That was a clear reference to a “massive” reduction of US troops sent for a joint exercise with Israel, reported at the end of last month.

US-Israel Relations

Another point J Street pushed is that Prime Minister Netanyahu is very foolish for picking a fight with President Obama over the Iran issue.  In fact, in J Street’s view, apparently, Netanyahu is more damaging to Israel than what some perceive of as Obama’s poor treatment of Israel.

Wednesday night a J Street official tweeted, “Dani Halutz: current political fight over Iran policy threatening most impt rel. Israel has – with US.”   Halutz did say that Israel’s relationship with the United States is the most important one it has, and, further, that, “we [Israel] need the US more than they need us.”

But when pushed on Tuesday by James Kitfield from National Journal Magazine and Michael Adler of the Wilson Center to comment on the apparent high level of discord between the Israeli and American heads of state, Halutz refused to take the bait.

“The importance of the good relations between the American people and the American Administration to the Israeli people and Israeli Administration is of the highest importance to Israel.  Period.” But he refused to place all the blame on the Israeli prime minister.  In fact, he said “both sides took part in climbing too high.”

He suggested that “in some areas the relations are excellent, and in some areas, mainly the political level, it suffers from declaration and counter-declaration that are made here and there, some of them are serving the internal politics of each country, some of them are serving the case itself.”

Halutz tried valiantly to make the argument we have all been hearing from Israeli leadership for years.  That is, that a nuclear-armed Iran is not only a problem for Israel, it is a problem for the entire Middle East, and for all of western civilization.   He emphasized that if Iran achieves its goal it will lead to a race to acquire nuclear weapons for countries throughout the Middle East, starting with Turkey, and Egypt and Saudi Arabia. “No one will leave [Iran] to be a nuclear super power in this region.” That regional instability would have global repercussions.

But the truth is, as Halutz reluctantly admitted, it may be that Israel will have to “go it alone.”  Ironically, what may be forcing that result more than any perceived military eagerness on the part of Israel is the international reluctance to take tough intermediate steps now.  The unwillingness to impose firm, wide and globally-imposed sanctions, the sugared coffee instead of real teeth diplomacy, and the reduced ability to present a “force projection” may combine to cause exactly what no one wants, and that is the need to move – sooner rather than later – to the “last, last, last, last” option.

If that is the case, Halutz made clear at each talk, “no one should ever underestimate Israel’s capability.”

#8  

What If Israel’s ‘Peace Partners’ Actually Prefer War?

By: Louis Rene Beres

Published: September 21st, 2012

At this point in Israel’s problematic diplomatic agenda, there is really only one overriding policy question: Can any form of negotiation with the Palestinians, Fatah and/or Hamas, ever prove reasonable and productive?

From the very beginning, even before formal statehood in 1948, Israel has sought courageously and reasonably to negotiate with its many unreasonable enemies. Always, Jerusalem has preferred peace to war. Nonetheless, challenged by relentless and interminable Arab aggressions, diplomacy has usually failed Israel. Even the most visible example of an alleged diplomatic success, the Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty of 1979, is apt to fail calamitously sometime in the post-Mubarak era.

It follows that Prime Minister Netanyahu is obligated to ask: What real chance exists that, somehow, this time, and also for the future, diplomacy might be purposeful?

From Oslo to the present Road Map, diplomacy over Israel’s rights and obligations has always been an unambiguously asymmetrical process.

Israel’s principal enemies remain candid. On some things, significantly, they do not lie. On their irremediable intention to annihilate the “Zionist entity,” they are seemingly sworn to truth.

The key disputing Palestinian factions (Fatah or Hamas, it makes little difference) and Iran will never accept anything less than Israel’s removal. This is already obvious to anyone who cares to pay attention to what is said. Moreover, in a clearly corroborating bit of cartography, every PA or Hamas or Iranian map already incorporates all of Israel within “Palestine.”

Toward the end of his tenure, prior Prime Minister Ehud Olmert released several hundred Palestinian terrorists as a “goodwill gesture.” Together with then-President George W. Bush, he had decided to aid Fatah against Hamas with outright transfers of weapons and information. Soon after, those American and Israeli guns were turned against Israel. As for Olmert’s graciously extended “goodwill,” it had only served to elicit the next round of rocket fire. Matters were not helped at all by Washington’s corollary support for a Palestinian state, a thoroughly misconceived support now being extended by President Obama.

The more things change, the more they remain the same. Rooted deeply in jihadist interpretations of Islam, there is an obvious and enduring inequality of objectives between Israel and its principal enemies. For both Palestinian insurgents and Iran’s president, conflict with Israel is always “zero-sum,” routinely an all or nothing proposition. In this starkly polarizing view of incessant strife between “the world of war” and “the world of Islam,” there can never be any proper place for authentic treaties or settlements with the Jewish state, save of course as a temporary tactical expedient.

For Israel, on the other hand, a negotiated peace with its Arab neighbors and/or Iran persists as an elusive but presumably plausible hope. This is true even when any prospect of Islamic reciprocity is evidently preposterous and historically unimaginable.

A fundamental inequality is evident in all expressions of the Middle East Peace Process. On the Palestinian and Iranian side, Oslo and “Road Map” expectations have never been anything more than a cost-effective method of dismantling Israel. On the Israeli side, these expectations have generally been taken, quite differently, as a hopefully indispensable way of averting further war and terror.

The core problem of Israel's life or death vulnerability lies in the Jewish state's ongoing assumptions on war and peace. While certain of Israel's regional enemies, state and nonstate, believe that any power gains for Israel represent a reciprocal power loss for them – that is, that they coexist with Israel in a condition of pure conflict – Israel assumes something else. For Netanyahu’s several immediate predecessors, relations with certain Arab states, the Palestinian Authority/Hamas and Iran were not taken to be pure zero-sum but rather a mutual-dependence connection. In this optimistic view, conflict is always mixed with cooperation.

Incomprehensibly, Israel may still believe that certain of its Arab enemies and Iran reject zero-sum assumptions about the strategy of conflict. Israel's enemies, however, do not make any such erroneous judgments about conformance with Israeli calculations. Further, these enemies know Israel is wrong in its belief that certain Arab states, Iran, and the Palestinians also reject the zero-sum assumption, but they pretend otherwise. There has remained, therefore, a dramatic and consequential strategic disparity between Israel and certain of its frontline Islamic enemies.

Israel's strategy of conflict has, at least in part, been founded upon multiple theoretical miscalculations, and upon a stubborn indifference to certain primary and flagrant enemy manipulations. The exterminatory policies of Israel's enemies, on the other hand, remain founded upon correct calculations and assumptions and an astute awareness of Israel's strategic naiveté. More than anything else, this means Israel’s prime minister should now make far-reaching changes in the way that Israel actually conceptualizes the continuum of cooperation and conflict.

A “new Israel,” ridding itself of injurious and disingenuous wishful thinking, should finally acknowledge the zero-sum calculations of its enemies, thus accepting that a constant struggle must still be fought at the conflict end of the spectrum. Earlier, this meant, especially in the case of Iran, primary attention to then still-plausible preemption imperatives. Now, however, such imperatives are more apt to be fulfilled via certain forms of cyber-warfare and targeted killings than through the more usual sorts of physical military destruction.

Left unexamined, Israel's mistaken assumptions, and the combining of these assumptions with more correct premises of its enemies, could lethally undermine Israel's survival. These still-remediable Israeli errors have had the additional effect of creating an odd “alliance” between Israel and its enemies. This is surely not the sort of coalition that can ever help the Jewish state, but is rather a one-sided and unreciprocated “pact” in which Israel unwittingly and inexcusably serves its enemies.

To be sure, Netanyahu should not become the best ally Israel’s Arab enemies and Iran could ever hope to have. Rather, he should seek to serve Israel’s long-term survival with real wisdom, supplanting the plainly false assumptions that stem from persistently misguided hopes with genuinely correct premises that are based upon sound reasoning.

In the end, Israel’s choices are really all about logic.

In the language of formal logic, invalid forms of argument are called fallacies. The basic problem with Israel's continuous search for "peace" through negotiated surrenders (land for nothing) has been its persistent commission of fallacies.

Unlike simple instances of falsity, these arguments are insidious because they could involve a devastating policy outcome. Distinguishable from singular mistakes, these deviations from correct thinking ensure that all subsequent calculations will also result in error. This means it is in the very process of strategic thinking, and not in the assessment of particular facts and issues, that Israeli policy changes are now most sorely needed.

Louis René Beres, strategic and military affairs columnist for The Jewish Press, is professor of political science at Purdue University. Educated at Princeton (Ph.D., 1971), he lectures and publishes widely on international relations and international law and is the author of ten major books in the field. In Israel, Professor Beres was chair of Project Daniel. 

About the Author: Louis René Beres, strategic and military affairs columnist for The Jewish Press, is professor of Political Science at Purdue University. Educated at Princeton (Ph.D., 1971), he lectures and publishes widely on international relations and international law and is the author of ten major books in the field. In Israel, Professor Beres was chair of Project Daniel.

#9   Syria: Is the Proposed Cure Worse than the Status Quo? By: Barry Rubin  Published: September 23rd, 2012

The Syrian civil war has crossed a red line. Some people may think this happened a few weeks or months ago but at any rate it is clearly true now. The prospects for an Islamist (Muslim Brotherhood, Salafist, and Jihadist) takeover have risen high enough that it is better to freeze Western intervention. In other words, the West should not do more to aid the rebellion and should consider stopping its current efforts in that direction.

Here is a fact so shocking that it should be the centerpiece of any discussion over Syria. It is so important I'm going to put it in bold:

The Obama Administration is backing (Islamist) Turkey as the distributor of weapons supplied by (opportunistically pro-Islamist) Qatar.  Turkey and Qatar want to give the Muslim Brotherhood a monopoly over receiving weapons even though most of the rebels are non- and even anti-Islamist. As this happens, the Obama Administration is thus working directly to install a revolutionary Islamist regime in Syria that will disrupt the region, help shred, U.S. interests, and battle with Israel for decades to come. A number of Republican senators see no problem with this strategy. Actually, it's even worse.  Due to historical developments, the Syrian Brotherhood is more radical than its Egyptian counterpart. To maintain illegality under President Husni Mubarak, for decades the Egyptian Brotherhood had to restrain itself. Those who wanted violent revolution and faster action left to form separate Salafist groups. The Egyptian Brotherhood today sometimes cooperates with these groups--whose party finished second in the parliamentary elections--but they are also rivals.In Syria, however, the underground Brotherhood had no incentive to hold back. Consequently, while there are certainly a lot of non-Brotherhood Salafists, there are also a large proportion of really violent, impatient, open extremists in the Syrian Brotherhood. To do a simple analogy, the Syrian Brotherhood is more like Hamas than those slick Brotherhood leaders in Cairo who care to fool the West with their honeyed words. A Brotherhood-run Syria, with Salafists egging on the regime, would be an instant nightmare.

And so Western and especially American policy is doing tremendous harm: not by helping the "rebels" but by working with Turkey and Qatar to help the most anti-Western, anti-American, antisemitic, extremist rebels, the Muslim Brotherhood and the Jihadists from smaller groups all the way up to al-Qaida. If you are interested in the details read this remarkable report by Ammar Abuhamid, the best-informed and very honest Syrian analyst on what's going on.

In brief, there is a massive battle on the opposition side to see who emerges as the greater power--the Islamists or the anti-Islamists ( defected army officers who are nationalists; moderate Sunni Muslims from the urban middle class; conservative, traditionalist Sunni Muslims who hate the Brotherhood; Kurdish nationalists; and even local, non-ideological warlords. And the West is supporting the wrong side.

By the way, the Saudis have a slightly different perspective. On one hand, they want a Sunni-dominated regime in Syria that will be anti-Iran and friendly to Saudi Arabia. They wouldn't mind if it was heavily Islamic and since the main priority is destroying Iran's number-one Arab ally, the Saudis will help the Muslim Brotherhood and various smaller Jihadist groups. But they prefer a regime that isn't going to subvert them and create regional instability. In Iraq the Saudis supported Sunni groups that were affiliated with al-Qaida to beat the hated Shia. In Lebanon, the Saudis support moderate Sunni forces against pro-Iran Hizballah.

If there was U.S. leadership, a U.S.-Saudi partnership could promote a combination of Syrian moderate Sunnis and defected officers plus some sleazy--but non-Islamist--warlords.  The American president would tell the Saudis--as well as Qatar and Turkey--that it regarded arming small Jihadist groups and the Brotherhood as an unfriendly act. That is not happening.What is happening is that the Turkish regime and Qatar want a radical Islamist Syria and are getting the Obama Administration's help in bringing it about, an outcome supplemented by Saudi aid to America's enemies.

Yet now there are clearly different groups in the opposition, as Abuhamid explains in detail. To give one example, the powerful Syria Martyrs' Brigade is traditionalist but not Islamist, while the Islamic Front for the Liberation of Syria tells you its goal in its name. To compile a list of groups that will and will not get arms would be an easy task for the U.S. government.

Another issue that is being mishandled is that of Syria's Kurds. The easiest thing the West could do would be to help Syria's Kurds who just want autonomy, not to be subject to the current directorship, radical Arab nationalists, or Islamists. This would make the Kurds of Iraq, American allies, very happy. But Obama won't do that because it would make Islamist-ruled Turkey, an enemy of America that President Barack Obama loves more than any other country in the region, very unhappy and so probably won’t happen.

I’m very sorry to write this article for two reasons:

--The Syrians have suffered so much it is understandable that one should help end this civil war as soon as possible and get rid of the current anti-American and pro-Iran dictatorship.

--It would be easy to have a good policy toward Syria: funneling help to the non- or anti-Islamist rebel forces. Yet the United States has not made this distinction under Obama and neither the mass media nor the politicians even seem to be aware of this issue. Its help often goes to radical anti-American who want to impose another dictatorship on Syria. The Turks want a Muslim Brotherhood government; the Qataris do, too. The Saudis want to get rid of the current regime and replace it with a Sunni, anti-Iran one. With proper U.S. leadership and coordination the Saudis might play a constructive role but given Obama’s policy they will mainly just support Sunni Islamists as they did in Iraq.As if to outdo America, the French government is actually supporting for Syria's leader a loudmouth former regime insider of no proven talent who is a radical Arab nationalist and someone who the rebels loathe.

Another problem is the prospect of rebel massacres. Specific instances of deliberate ethnic murder are controversial and some highly publicized ones probably didn’t happen. But some did happen. By helping the rebels without distinction and having no ability to impose restrictions, U.S. policy will be complicit in massacres of Alawites and Christians followed by the killings of Sunni Muslims too secular for the Islamists’ tastes.We also know, for example, that Islamist rebels massacred several dozen regime soldiers from a low-level unit that hadn’t been involved in any atrocities, because they did so right in front of nearby Iraqi border guards. Really nasty murders were committed by NATO-backed forces in Libya but that war—and the atrocities--came to an end fairly quickly and much less attention was paid. In Syria, a lot more attention will be paid, a lot more people killed, and it won’t end until hundreds of thousands of people flee.

Predictions that President Bashar al-Asad would fall quickly were wrong. The regime is surviving and even regaining some ground. It has done so by yielding parts of the country where local rebel governments run by strongmen, Islamist, or defecting officers have taken over. Each little area is different but there is no U.S. strategy to help those who aren’t Islamist and are less radical. So it is a tragedy indeed. But to back the rebels in the wrong way will just help impose on Syria another dictatorship that will link up with other Sunni Islamists (including Egypt and Hamas) to promote regional instability and anti-Americanism.

Does that mean we should want the Asad regime to survive? No. We should want the more moderate rebel forces to win, the Kurds to get autonomy, and Syria to become a really moderate and as democratic as possible state. The likelihood of this happening, however, is plummeting, due partly to bad U.S. policy. And without a lot more Western aid to the rebels Asad is going to be around for a while whatever we want or think.

So the second-best option is that the war continues. This is horrible. People are dying; tens of thousands are becoming refugees. There is immense suffering. Yet if the main alternative is to help create a revolutionary Islamist state in Syria allied to Egypt, Gaza, and other radical Sunni Islamists that is not an attractive outcome. Even in places where the Muslim Brotherhood won by less than a majority, as in Tunisia, or Libya, where the U.S. government managed to get its client into office, the radical Salafists and Jihadists are threatening to get out of control. How much faster that would happen in Syria since the Obama Administration sees no problem in backing Islamists in Syria.

So far I have seen absolutely no indication that any leaders on the Republican side understand this. Some of the latter, like Senator John McCain, are mindless interventionists. One can only hope that the next U.S. president understands the distinctions that must be made in Syria.

But let's be clear here. The Obama Administration helped install an anti-American, destabilizing radical regime in Egypt. It has a big responsibility. What's happening in Syria goes beyond that. There's no rationale of claiming that Obama had limited influence or didn't know what he was doing. The administration's Syria policy is a direct crime against U.S. interests. It is also a grave blow against Israel, would condemn the Syrian people to decades of slavery, and would increase the likelihood of war and terrorism in the region.