Now available for mobile phones!

If you wish to view the blog on mobile phone, click here.

Would you like to comment on postings?
Join the Jewish Current Events page on Facebook.

Saturday, September 6, 2008

Editor's Notes: "The Secret War with Iran ," A losing battle, so far

"Read it and weep? No. Read it and work - before it's too late." -- David Horowitz


Sep. 4, 2008
David Horovitz , THE JERUSALEM POST

In August 2007, because certain intelligence agencies were not convinced of Israeli claims that President Bashar Assad was engaged in the construction of a nuclear weapons facility, Israel sent sent 12 members of the Sayeret Matkal commando unit into Syria in two helicopters to collect soil samples outside the site in question.

Needless to say, this was a highly dangerous operation. And it very nearly went wrong. The commandos were almost exposed when a Syrian patrol drove past the landing site where the helicopters were parked.

But it was well worth it. The results provided "clear-cut proof" of the nuclear project," investigative journalist Ronen Bergman writes in his new book, The Secret War with Iran.

A month later, Israel bombed the site, and in so doing reemphasized the Begin Doctrine - Israel's insistence that, for the sake of its own survival, it will not allow the deployment by hostile neighbors of weapons that might be used to destroy it.

Bergman's book, which will be published next week in the United States, is an expanded, updated version of his Hebrew-language The Point of No Return, which was Israel's best-selling non-fiction work in 2007.

The new volume is anything but a mere translation. For one thing, the world has moved on, or more accurately, moved closer to confrontation, in the intervening period. For another, Bergman has added further revelatory content to the 2007 book's disclosures.

Plainly, the author has been allowed access to a range of material hitherto kept classified by various intelligence services. Plainly, too, what he is publishing is material that Israel is content to have widely disseminated and some of which cannot be independently verified. The book was submitted to censorship, and not all of its content was approved, he told me when he dropped off a copy a few days ago, though it did sometimes seem as though he had run into the censor on a relatively benign day.

Most notable, perhaps, in this context, is the fact that the guardians of Israel's military secrets have allowed Bergman to provide a fairly extensive account of that September 6, 2007, raid on Syria's nuclear facility - whose purpose he states unambiguously was "the production of plutonium for the manufacture of atomic bombs" and whose construction, he reports, was a tripartite endeavor: "At a series of secret meetings between representatives of the three sides, held mainly in Teheran, it was decided that Syria would supply the territory, Iran the money [$1 billion-$2b.], and North Korea the expertise..."

Last year's raid was the subject of some of the heaviest military censorship that I have encountered in the past 25 years: Israel was desperate to take no official responsibility for the attack, and in this way to allow Damascus plausible deniability, to avoid a deterioration into war. There was no official confirmation of the raid, and for a long time after it, all references in the Israeli media had to include conditioning phrases such as the "reported" Israeli strike.

Apparently such concerns no longer apply. Bergman has been freed to describe, without the censor's usual required attribution to "foreign sources," the entire process by which the Syrian facility was built - with details of the shipments of material from North Korea and the dispatch of Korean scientists. He sets out the circumstances of that high-risk August fact-finding mission by Sayeret Matkal. And he is allowed to note that "a number of North Koreans" were killed in the Israeli attack.

Although destroying the site was an Israeli operation, Bergman makes clear further that "the Israelis and the Americans decided to act," and that the two countries coordinated on the official silence policy after the raid was successfully completed. "Prime Minister Olmert and President Bush decided that both countries would maintain a policy of total nonreaction, without exceptions, and without winks or nods. If the Syrians had not been in a hurry to issue their own statements, the whole matter might not have been disclosed at all."

If the sanctioning of these details about last year's raid on Syria is interesting, given the immensely sensitive nature of Israeli-Syrian relations and the continued potential for both diplomatic breakthrough and bitter conflict, then the sanctioning of some of Bergman's disclosures about the Iranian nuclear project, and notably the Bush administration's attitude to it, seems potentially incendiary.

A few weeks ago, the White House took the unusual step of issuing a specific denial of a report on Army Radio, picked up by the Post, which claimed that a Bush official recently told his Israeli counterparts that the president is planning to strike Iran's nuclear facilities before leaving office. Only this week, a newspaper in The Netherlands claimed that Dutch intelligence has abruptly halted an "extremely successful" ongoing operation to sabotage Iran's nuclear program because of an assessment that such an American strike is indeed just weeks away.

In his book, Israel's military censor has allowed Bergman to add two highly significant revelations in this context: The first is that after the American intelligence community issued its controversial National Intelligence Estimate late last year that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program, Vice President Richard Cheney sent a message to Olmert stating that despite this conclusion, "the possibility of an American military operation against Iranian nuclear targets and military infrastructure had not been discarded."

The second is that, as of May 2008, "the Mossad's estimate" is that Bush, "out of religious and ideological motives, will order a strike."

FOR ALL the behind-the-scenes Israeli access granted Bergman, and the censor's apparent generosity, his account of what he calls "the 30-year clandestine struggle against the world's most dangerous terrorist power" overflows with tales of incompetence and outright failure in the battle against Iran - some narrow and specific, some more fundamental - many of which reflect terribly on Israel.

He reminds readers who might prefer to forget the uncomfortable truth that Israel supplied arms to Ayatollah Khomeini's regime at the turn of the 1980s, in an operation codenamed "Seashell," which was critical in "turning the tide of the war" against Iraq in Iran's favor.

In one illustration of the disastrous consequences for the seller of misguided arms dealing, he points out that one of the machine guns sold by Israel to Iran at that time, a Browning, later transferred to Hizbullah's arsenal, was used to murderous effect in the July 12, 2006, attack on the IDF Humvees patrolling the Lebanon border in which three soldiers were killed and Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev fatally wounded and captured - the attack that sparked the Second Lebanon War. (A senior Iranian official who helped broker those arms deals, Bergman further reveals, later became a top Iranian representative in Lebanon and a Hizbullah founder, and pushed for the 2006 abduction-attack on Teheran's orders. Some of the Hizbullah gunmen who carried out that attack, he also writes, were trained in Iran.)

He reports how Israel has insistently failed to acknowledge that a November 1982 car bombing by the nascent Hizbullah at Israel's military government headquarters in Tyre, southern Lebanon, in which 75 Israeli security personnel and 27 Lebanese were killed, was an Iranian-sponsored suicide bombing. Indeed, it was the first such suicide attack - "the bomb that spawned a movement,' as he calls it.

More Israelis were killed in that blast, which reduced a seven-story building to rubble, than in any since. The car used in the attack, a Peugeot, was identified. The bomber's identity is known: Ahmad Qassir has a monument to his memory in his home village near Baalbek. Yet "to this day," Bergman notes, "Israeli intelligence claims that there was no intelligence failure; that there was not even a terror attack, just a problem with gas cylinders."

The refusal to grapple with the reality of the suicide-bomb challenge right away left Israel more vulnerable than it need have been to the relentless series of such bombings that have followed - beginning with another attack in the very same city a year later, in which 28 more Israelis were killed.

"This thing has been burning inside me for years," Bergman quotes Haifa Judge Yitzhak Dar as saying. Dar was on a team that investigated the blast for the IDF, concluded it was a car bombing, but saw its report buried. "Despite the conclusions we reached, everybody wanted to believe that it was negligence about gas cylinders, and not a terror attack," laments Dar. "Thus, they wasted a very valuable year of preparations for the next attack, one which could have been prevented with a little awareness of the potential for the use of car bombs."

Bergman reports that IDF Military Intelligence got wind in advance of Hizbullah plans to kidnap "a very senior American intelligence officer a week before the CIA station chief in Beirut, Col. William Buckley, was indeed seized (and tortured and killed) in March 1984 in an Imad Mughniyeh-led Hizbullah operation, but that the Mossad doubted the information and didn't bother to pass it on to the CIA.

He summarizes Israeli intelligence's grave, ongoing failure to penetrate Hizbullah by reporting that a Mossad man, who for years served in the unit that sought to recruit spies inside the organization, held up his hands, without all the fingers extended, to indicate the number of successes over 24 full years.

By contrast, he discusses Hizbullah's staggering penetration of Israeli security circles... and the sometimes ridiculous ease with which this is sometimes achieved. During the Second Lebanon War, for instance, he notes, "militiamen who had learned Hebrew at the so-called Cultural Center of the Iranian Embassy in Beirut listened in to IDF radio networks, using advanced communications equipment and codes supplied to them by IDF members who were working with them in drug trafficking." (My emphasis added.)

Hizbullah knew far, far more about Israel's military planning and capabilities for that war than Israel remotely conceived, in short, while Israel knew far, far less than it thought it did about Hizbullah. "In truth," says Bergman, "Israel had gone to war in almost total darkness."

One small, very specific illustration: The spacious bunker from which the attack on the Goldwasser-Regev patrol was planned, which had been established over many weeks right under Israel's nose across the border, and which was connected by a fiberoptic cable network to Hizbullah's command headquarters in Beirut, did not merely remain undiscovered before the attack, thus facilitating it. It remained undiscovered "throughout the entire war, even though Israeli soldiers controlled the area from the first day. It was a miracle that Hizbullah guerrillas never took advantage of it to strike at Israeli troops again after the abduction on July 12."

The debilitating underestimation of Hizbullah is mirrored, in Bergman's narrative, by other basic failures in trying to grapple with Hizbullah's state sponsor, Iran.

Most centrally, he charges, Israel, along with the US and the rest of the West, only recognized relatively recently how far Iran has progressed toward its nuclear goal because for years everybody was looking the wrong way: Most eyes were focused on Russia, which was deemed to be the main potential international maverick that might enable Teheran to attain the bomb. But the real threat - the player that gave Iran the vital resources to stride forward - was Pakistan, via its notorious nuclear salesman Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan.

THE SAGA Bergman recounts is not unremittingly bleak. The raid on Syria marked an important reassertion of Israeli military capability. The killing of Hizbullah terror chief Mughniyeh in the heart of the Syrian capital in February - for which no party has claimed responsibility - should also have sent a certain deterrent message. The defection to the CIA of top Iranian intelligence adviser Gen. Ali Reza Askari last year was another success.

Bergman also lists a series of sabotage operations that have prevented Iran from being even closer still to the bomb: A leading expert on electromagnetics who worked at Iran's Isfahan enrichment facility found dead at his home last year, and reports of an explosion at his laboratory; three or four planes crashing inside Iran in 2006 and 2007 with personnel connected to the security of the nuclear project on board; insulation units for the centrifuge enrichment process discovered to be unusable; various explosions caused by faulty equipment at the main Natanz facility and at Isfahan, including the wrecking of 50 centrifuges when two transformers blew up at Natanz in 2006. In language presumably negotiated painstakingly with the censor, the last of these incidents is attributed to "efforts implemented jointly with the United States."

Overall, Bergman writes, "Since Meir Dagan became Mossad director in 2002, Israel has significantly improved its knowledge about goings-on inside Iran, and has even taken certain preemptive actions."

Nonetheless, it seems that Iran has essentially cleared its technical hurdles now, and is into the home stretch - racing against the clock to get the bomb before international pressure, of whatever kind, forces a halt.

The latest information, according to Bergman's Mossad sources, is that some 3,000 centrifuges, in 18 cascades, are now enriching uranium, "under great technical difficulties," at Natanz. Nearby, the Iranians are building a plant to hold another 30,000 to 50,000 centrifuges - and building it underground to ensure no repeat of Israel's successful raid on Saddam Hussein's nuclear reactor at Osirak. Already, Natanz is protected by no fewer than 26 anti-aircraft missile batteries, and this and other of its nuclear facilities, he writes (despite others' claims to the contrary), already have the advanced Russian-made S-300 missiles among their defenses.

Meanwhile, at the Parchin military complex, notwithstanding the complacent conclusion of the NIE last year, the Iranians are hard at work on the final phase of the journey to the bomb - having made "considerable progress" in mastering the process of emplacing enriched uranium into the device that starts the devastating chain reaction. They are also making headway, Bergman writes, "in acquiring the expertise required to manufacture nuclear warheads that can be fitted to their missiles."

Satellite images of Parchin, he notes, show the erection of structures that can be used for the assembly of explosives needed in nuclear warheads. "Identical structures had over the years been spotted close to the installations where the Soviet Union developed and manufactured its nuclear warheads."

Why, given all this, did the NIE draw the opposite conclusions about Iran's nuclear weapons program? In part, Bergman asserts, because Iran outfoxed the American intelligence services by means that included the calculated leaking of bogus material purporting to indicate that the effort had been frozen in 2003.

BERGMAN'S COMBINATION of overview and revelation makes for a horrifying read. Essentially, his book demonstrates an ongoing incapacity - by Israel, the US and the rest of the free world, but, critically, featuring Israel as the first potential casualty - to internalize the extent of the Iranian threat and act effectively to thwart it. The powers that are faced off against expansionist Islam have consistently underestimated the cunning, viciousness and determination of the chief state sponsor of that ideology, Iran, and its various offshoots, proxies and allies, notably including Hizbullah and Hamas.

Time and again, Western weakness, capitulation and inaction has emboldened Islamic extremism. Between 1980 and 1997, for instance, Iran assassinated close to 200 "dissidents" in attack after attack across Europe, and European nations, on the whole, barely lifted a finger to stop them. Why would Iran not be emboldened?

A relentless campaign of kidnappings, murders and suicide bombings forced the US out of Lebanon, forced the French out of Lebanon, forced Israel out of Lebanon, and ultimately led to Hizbullah's increasingly dominant status in Lebanon. (Among the often forgotten victims were 12 members of Lebanon's tiny lingering Jewish community, who were kidnapped and killed by the nascent Hizbullah from West Beirut, in 1985 and 1986.) Right now, Iran and Hizbullah are plotting to "avenge" Mughniyeh's death with kidnappings of Israeli businessmen, and they are free to act because they have operatives ready and waiting in countries all around the world. Why wouldn't it? The tactic has worked so well over the decades.

As Bergman writes in a sober concluding chapter, "Iran and Hizbullah are more sophisticated, effective and determined adversaries than Israel and the United States have previously encountered in the Middle East. These new enemies, the Shi'ites of Iran and Lebanon, have repeatedly outwitted Israel and the West, beating them across the board in politics, in intelligence gathering and in war."

Now Iran is on the brink of attaining the ultimate tool for expanding the Islamic Revolution, the nuclear bomb, and still the international community hesitates and bickers and even undermines its own ineffectual trade sanctions.

Ten years ago, Dr. Iftikhar Khan Chaudry, a former research officer in Pakistan's nuclear project, sought political asylum in the United States, claiming he would be killed if he returned home. In his affidavit, which was found to be credible and led to his being granted the refuge he sought, he detailed how A.Q. Khan had marketed Pakistan's nuclear expertise and materials to clients including Libya, Iraq and North Korea, exposing the clandestine network for the first time. Outrageously, it took the US until September 2003 to confront Pakistan about Khan's activities.

Chaudry also specified how Khan had set up Pakistan's nuclear channel to Iran, having himself been present when five Iranian scientists visited Pakistan at the start of the partnership. The Iranians were "introduced to the method in which uranium is processed for the purpose of creating a nuclear bomb," Chaudry told the Americans. And he added, "It is also apparent that Iran intends to utilize a nuclear weapon - in the future, when a nuclear weapon would be operational - against the State of Israel."

"The Secret War with Iran, as waged since the fall of the shah and the arrival of Khomeini, has been a tale of ruthless single-mindedness on their side and confused laxity on ours.

Read it and weep?

No. Read it and work - before it's too late.

("The Secret War with Iran" will be published in the US next week by Free Press.)

This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1220526712951&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Friday, September 5, 2008

1. President [Ahmadinejad]: Resistance is only path to victory over occupiers
2. Peres: Iran threat should be resolved politically
---------------------------------------------------------------

President[Ahmadinejad]: Resistance is only path to victory over occupiers

TEHRAN (IRNA) [via Tehran Times] -- President Mahmud Ahmadinejad said here Tuesday that resistance is the only way to victory against occupiers and aggressors.

""There is no way but resistance and intellectual and political assault on the Zionist regime. This is the only way of victory,"" said President Ahmadinejad in a meeting with former Lebanese prime minister Omar Karami here on Tuesday.

President Ahmadinejad said that the Zionist regime was established to rule over the world of Islam and the regime had the mission of threatening, occupation, aggression, assassinating and undermining Muslim states. He said that resistance to the Zionist Regime and the bullying powers is a national and Islamic duty of all Muslims.

""Resistance against the Zionist regime is a big lesson taught to mankind by the late Imam Khomeini.""

He said that unity and resistance were the key to victory against the Zionist regime and by God's grace the era of Zionist regime and its supporters has come to an end and signs of their collapse are evident.

He noted that the Zionist regime has not the least base among nations in the region and the world.

""Today, even the U.S. and European governments have come to the conclusion that support for the (Zionist) regime is not to their country's benefit,"" he said.

Enemies are too weak to launch any propagation, said Ahmadinejad, adding that victory of the Lebanese people showed that the Zionist regime is weaker than it seems.

A preliminary unity of the Lebanese people forced Zionists to retreat and if the unity is formed in the region, the Zionists will collapse much sooner than expected, he said.

""Victory belongs to the faithful and we will be with you to the end,"" he declared. Karami said for his part, ""We believe as you do that the Zionist regime was formed in the region to fight Islam and implement the projects that will meet US interests and it is collapsing.""

He said stances of people in certain Arab countries differ with those of their systems.

""Muslim Arab people consider the Zionist regime as their enemy. Lebanon is the smallest Arab country in terms of area and population but through reliance on God and in light of power of faith and will they managed to inflict heaviest damage on the Zionist regime's army,"" he concluded.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Peres: Iran threat should be resolved politically

Peres says he does not support military strike on Iran, adds Tehran's nuclear threat should be addressed through political, economic moves
Ronen Medzini and AP Published: 09.05.08, Ynetnews.com

Saying 'no' to Iran strike? The Iranian nuclear threat should be resolved politically, rather than militarily, President Shimon Peres said Friday.

Peres, who is currently in Italy, told reporters that the Iran problem will not be resolved militarily, but rather, through political and economic moves. The president added that it is better to act politically or economically as long as such option exists.

"I do not support a military strike against Iran," Peres told a conference in Italy, while urging the world to join forces and impose severe economic sanctions on Tehran. He said Iran was no longer representing its distinguished history, but rather, radicalism and religious fanaticism.

Today, Tehran constitutes a real and existential threat for the entire Middle East and the whole world, Peres added, noting that the vast majority of Arab countries object to the prospect of a nuclear Iran.

Wednesday, September 3, 2008

Attack on Israeli aircrew in Canada thwarted: report
Wed Sep 3, 2:30 pm ET

JERUSALEM (AFP) – Plans by an unknown group to attack staff of Israel's national carrier El Al in Canada have been thwarted, Israel's private Channel Two television reported on Wednesday.

Without giving the nationalities of the alleged attackers, it said they had monitored the comings and goings of El Al aircrew at a Toronto hotel.

Security procedures for crews overnighting at the hotel between flights have now been changed, it added.

On Tuesday, Israeli newspapers reported that at least five attempts by the Lebanese Hezbollah militia to abduct Israeli businessmen in Africa, Asia, and South America had been foiled.

Each time, Hezbollah -- which fought a bloody war against Israel in the summer of 2006 -- tried to use "sleeper cells" embedded in far-flung Shiite Muslim communities, the mass-selling Yediot Aharonot reported.

It and other newspapers cited unnamed Israeli security officials and said further details about the plots remain under official censorship.

Tuesday, September 2, 2008

Separating fact from fiction

By David A. Harris, Executive Director, American Jewish Committee
New York September 2, 2008


Recently, I met a gentleman at a dinner. He asked me what I do. I said I work for AJC. He replied that he had once been a member, but quit because we weren’t sufficiently “pro-peace.” When I pursued the point, he said that the decision to make peace was in Israel’s hands, but no one would make it, and groups like AJC were too busy “protecting” the Israeli government.

In a similar vein, the lead letter in the August 18th issue of the Jerusalem Report, written by Martin J. Weisman of California, stated: “I have to conclude that Israel may never have peace. The greatest obstacle to a two-state solution, and a source of great frustration for Israel’s friends, are the West Bank settlements mostly inhabited by religious Zionists.”

And in an exchange between British blogger Joy Wolfe and leaders of the “Free Gaza” campaign—which recently sent two boats to Gaza in the hope of garnering media attention—an Israeli-based member, Angela Godfrey-Goldstein, condemned Israel for “collective punishment of 1.5 million people,” “war crimes,” and “crimes against humanity,” and described Gaza as “an open prison, a sort of concentration camp – most of those people perfectly innocent ordinary human beings who want to be at peace with us...” All this, she argued, “is about as far from Judaism as I can imagine.”

Of course, these comments are not unique. They reveal a certain mindset among those who profess friendship and concern for Israel, yet are incapable or unwilling, or both, to grasp two central points.

First, the vast majority of Israelis desperately yearn for peace and would support a deal tomorrow with the Palestinians (and Syrians), entailing major territorial concessions, if they believed such an accord were possible – and durable. When willing leaders stepped forward in Egypt and Jordan, for example, peace became not only possible, but inevitable. With the exception of a few zealots, perhaps, Israelis don’t need to be pushed, prodded, cajoled, or nudged to seek a peace settlement. Israel was established to create permanent security, not permanent conflict, for its residents.

Second, those who place the onus for peace entirely on Israel do a disservice to the truth, not to mention the quest for a settlement. By lifting responsibility from the shoulders of the Palestinians and their supporters, they reinforce the notion that it is the Israelis, not the Palestinians, who must change their behavior – or face condemnation.

Think about it. Israel faces an unprecedented security environment.

To the north, Hezbollah has strengthened its military and political position in Lebanon since the inconclusive 2006 war with Israel. Its arsenal now includes missiles that can reportedly reach two-thirds of Israel, whereas two years ago “only” the northern third was within reach.

Weeks ago, Lebanon took an official day off to welcome Samir Kuntar, the unrepentant terrorist released in the swap with Israel, whose greatest claim to fame was the murder of a four-year-old girl.

Syria was clandestinely moving toward a nuclear capability until Israel ended that dream one year ago this month. Despite indirect talks with Israel hosted by Turkey, Damascus continues to funnel weapons to Hezbollah, host terrorist groups whose aim is Israel’s destruction, cavort with Iran, and now flirt with a resurgent Russia. Syria is on a military shopping spree in Moscow and, like Venezuela, has offered to provide military bases for Russia.

Gaza, while less in the news these days, remains in the hands of Hamas, a group voted into power by “those perfectly innocent, ordinary human beings who want to be at peace with us,” in the words of Ms. Godfrey-Goldstein.

Let’s be clear.

When Israel left Gaza three years ago, its future was to be determined by the Palestinians, not the Israelis. Even so, it was in Israel’s interests, as a neighboring state, to see a peaceful, prosperous Gaza emerge, not a failed, dysfunctional incubator for radicalism. Yet that’s exactly what we have.

Does anyone doubt that Hamas is using this temporary lull to strengthen its combat capacity, along the lines of Hezbollah in Lebanon? Have the missile and mortar attacks on Sderot and Ashkelon been so quickly forgotten? Has Hamas’s charter, which denies Israel’s right to exist and doesn’t have many kind words for Jews generally, been altered? How can Israel, which has an obligation, like any nation, to ensure the safety of its citizens, simply ignore these unassailable facts about Gaza?

On the West Bank, yes, the Palestinian leadership is widely viewed as more moderate than Hamas. Peace talks are ongoing, though, despite American hopes, negotiators are seeking to dampen expectations of a final deal anytime soon.

From Israel’s perspective, the problems are many. The Palestinian Authority is weak. Its signals are mixed. Why, for example, did its leader, President Mahmoud Abbas, praise Kuntar, the child murderer, on the day of his release and, more recently, meet him during a visit to Lebanon? And should the PA ever lose its grip on power to Hamas, as it did in Gaza, then what would be the implications for Israel, surrounded on three sides by Iranian-backed enemies who seek its annihilation?

And then there is the ever longer shadow of Iran itself. Can Tehran’s call for a world without Israel simply be dismissed as rhetorical excess? Iran’s growing military power, combined with its allies Syria, Hamas and Hezbollah, poses an existential threat to Israel. To date, the efforts of the international community have not changed Iranian nuclear behavior.

Yet, despite these seemingly obvious threats to Israel and the road to peace, there are those who would ignore them and harp instead on what they believe to be the true obstacles – Israeli settlements, governmental hesitation, and military repression.

I’m not a fan of most settlements, but Israel has shown that, when it believes the price worth it, it will do what’s necessary with settlements that stand in the way, be they in Sinai, Gaza, or the northern West Bank.

Moreover, if anyone believes this Israel government is hesitant to make peace, then we’re living on different planets. It speaks openly of a two-state settlement, discusses the most sensitive issues with its Palestinian counterparts, and acknowledges the suffering that Palestinians have endured without a state of their own.

And while Israel doesn’t have easy choices in the Gaza cauldron, it has shown remarkable restraint in the face of endless provocation. I don’t know of many other nations that would have endured daily barrages without a robust military response.

Let me suggest that the real reasons for the absence of peace lie elsewhere.

First, too many in the Arab world have been fed a steady diet of Israel as an illegitimate nation. In this view, Israel has no right to exist. It is simply a colonial project of Western nations that must be eliminated. Few Arabs have ever visited Israel, met Israelis (or Jews), or studied the Israeli, and not just Arab, narrative of Israel’s history, including the Jewish people’s age-old link to the land.

To make matters worse, Israel has damaged the self-image and self-respect of the Arab world by refusing to be defeated in battle. How can it be that this tiny nation, deprived of any significant natural resources, has withstood the Arab onslaught for six decades and emerged not only as the strongest military power in the region, but also the most politically and economically advanced?

Second, as the annual Arab Human Development Report makes abundantly clear, the Arab world has fallen far behind the rest of the world in the key indices that determine success in the contemporary world.

With the exception of its abundant, if unevenly distributed, energy resources, the region has contributed little to the globalized world. Thus, with stagnant political, economic, and social institutions, frustration runs high, especially in the demographic bulge of young people who have bleak futures. Herein lies the fertile recruiting ground for radicalism and extremism. With clever manipulation, Israel becomes an easy target for the pent-up anger and search for culprits.

And third, too often the Palestinians have gotten a pass on the need to accept responsibility for their own actions. An entire web of validators, enablers, and advocates – from the United Nations to individual governments, from non-governmental groups to the chattering class – stands ready to justify, rationalize, or defend Palestinian actions, and to quickly turn the spotlight on every alleged Israeli misdeed. That’s not a formula for progress, but paralysis.

To be clear, I believe in a two-state settlement as the only possible political outcome with a chance of success. I travel regularly to Arab countries and seek to contribute to a climate of mutual respect, and reject those Jewish messianists who would prevent coexistence.

Still, call me what you will, but I cannot accept those who, in the name of alleged concern for Israel, would tarnish its good name and, however unintentionally, jeopardize its future.

--------------------

To comment on this blog, visit: http://cgis.jpost.com/Blogs/harris/

Sunday, August 31, 2008

Hamas: 'Jews lived peacefully among Muslims for centuries, can again, in accordance with Islamic values.'
(This means: Sure, Jews can live in Hamastan -- as
dhimmis, a subservient population.
)

Below, in answer to a question, a Hamas official states that under Hamas rule, Jews would live " in accordance with [Islamic] ethics, religious teachings, and historical values."

To Muslims, the history of non-Muslims living under Islamic rule has been benign, and they characterize Jews as having lived peacefully in Arab and Muslim countries for centuries.

But this view of history doesn't square with what we know, historically, about what "toleration of minorities" -- the acceptance of dhimmi status -- in Arab lands meant. It meant that non-Muslims, (i.e., those who did not wish to convert to Islam) would have to show subservience to Muslims in many everyday respects. Only then would non-Muslims be permitted "to live in peace." Hence, the prospect of Jews living "in accordance with Islamic ethics, religious teachings, and historical values" in a prospective Hamastan isn't that thrilling. //Mark Finkelstein


Tuesday, August 26, 2008

Hamas: 'Jews lived peacefully in Arab countries'

If ever Hamas were to conquer Palestine it seems that what lies in store for their non-Muslim minorities is a dhimmi future, according to this interview with a top Hamas official on Islamonline.net.

By Bataween

DAMASCUS — When IslamOnline.net announced to its audience a scheduled exclusive interview with Dr. Mousa Abu Marzook, a top Hamas leader, it received a flood of questions from its diverse global audience.

One question was put forward by a person who identified himself as an Israeli Jew who wanted to make up his mind about Hamas "independently of the local news sources."

He wanted to know the kind of state Hamas would establish if it ever rises to power in Palestine, and whether it would expel Jews if Israel was dismantled.

"[We will deal with Jews] in accordance with our ethics, religious teachings, and historical values," Abu Marzook, the deputy head of Hamas political bureau, told IOL. He highlighted how Jews lived peacefully for centuries in Muslim and Arab countries. [Without using the term dhimmi]

"Jews lived freely and ran prosperous businesses in Egypt and Baghdad, and the markets of Baghdad are evidences of what the Jews owned."

[comment by bataween: Colour me cynical, but whatever happened to those prosperous businesses and Jewish-owned markets, Abu Marzook? All appropriated by Arab governments without a penny in compensation to their Jewish owners.]
-------------
For information about dhimmitude see Bat Ye'or's article.

Tuesday, August 26, 2008

What do you suppose the outcome might be when you teach people that "Zionists develop diseases to sell drugs? " Time to wake up. --Mark


'Zionists develop diseases to sell drugs' From Tehran, PressTV*
Tue, 26 Aug 2008 21:06:20 GMT

President Mahmoud AhmadinejadPresident Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has blasted some 'Zionist drug cartels' that develop new diseases to sell their pharmaceutical products.

“Some multinational companies and Zionist cartels produce new kinds of diseases to export their drugs to other countries,” Ahmadinejad said in a meeting with Iranian pharmacists arragned to mark the Pharmacy Day.

“Contrary to the commercial approach that is prevalent in the world drug markets, our approach towards the production and export of drugs is humane,” Fars news agency quoted the president as saying. “We should try to produce drugs that are needed worldwide to help the humans,” he noted.
---------
* PressTV : Press TV takes revolutionary steps as the first Iranian international news network, broadcasting in English on a round-the-clock basis. Our global Tehran-based headquarters is staffed with outstanding Iranian and foreign media professionals.

Monday, August 25, 2008

Barak to Rice: Israel will not accept nuclear Iran
Published:08.25.08, ynetnews.com

Defense Minister Ehud Barak met with US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and told her that Israel is committed to the safety of its citizens while at the same time acting to improve the lives of the Palestinians in the West Bank.

Regarding Iran Barak said that the US must continue to impose sanctions on the country, as Israel would not accept a nuclear Iran and would remove no options from the table. (Roni Sofer)
---------------------------------------------
Obama: Act forcefully with Iran before Israel's back against wall
Published:
08.25.08, ynetnews.com

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama called on the US and its allies to "act forcefully with Iran" and "address the nuclear issue before Israel feels its back is against the wall." (Reuters)
-----------------------

[McCain on Iran: From February 2008]

The excerpt below is from the transcript of Senator McCain's speech.

SEN. MCCAIN: I intend to make unmistakably clear to Iran we will not permit a government that espouses the destruction of the state of Israel as its fondest wish and pledges undying enmity to the United States to possess the weapons to advance their malevolent ambitions.
---------
No endorsement of either candidate is implied.
....
I intend to defeat the threat by staying on offense and by marshalling every relevant agency of our government and our allies in the urgent necessity of defending the values, virtues and security of free people against those who despise all that is good about us.