Is Hezbollah preparing large assault on Israel? - Ben Caspit - http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/10/israel-lebanon-hezbollah-iran-nuclear-agreement-deterrence.html#
Stirring the pot of threats Israel is facing from Iran's nuclear program began with a speech Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivered Oct. 19 at a dedication ceremony of a new road named after the late Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir. The next day, Minister for Intelligence Affairs Yuval Steinitz published his own statement, which came out a day after The New York Times published his op-ed. He was joined by Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman, who evoked the cliche, "If you want to shoot, shoot; don't talk."
At the same time, the Israeli media (Yedioth Ahronoth) addressed this matter with questions raised by security officials who wondered "what awoke Netanyahu in terms of the Iranian issue." The queries were raised on behalf of top Israel Defense Forces (IDF) officials who did not quite agree with the pessimistic forecasts provided by Netanyahu and his senior ministers to the effect that the world powers, chief among them the United States, were about to reach a "capitulation agreement" with Tehran on its nuclear program.
The New York Times later published an article answering this question: It reported that US President Barack Obama was contemplating reaching an agreement with Iran that would not consist of totally lifting the sanctions but only suspending them. Such a move, the newspaper said, lies within the president's purviews, allowing him not to seek the approval of the Congress (as opposed to lifting the sanctions). Thus, the president will be able to bypass the intractable Congress, which may or may not endorse a "bad" deal with Iran. It is believed that this information reached Israeli intelligence officials before being published in the Times, which is what set off Netanyahu, Liberman and Steinitz.
Following a talk I held Oct. 20 with a senior minister from the diplomatic-security Cabinet, further details came to light. As we discussed the possibility of early elections in Israel, the minister made a surprising comment, noting that a war in the north was more likely to break out before new elections were held. Some of Israel's top Cabinet ministers estimate that Hezbollah and Iran are fast approaching a fateful watershed, which might prompt them to drag Israel into another confrontation, far broader than the previous ones. This assessment is based on the possibility that Iran will indeed reach an agreement with the West by November or January - an agreement that's good for Tehran, allowing it to preserve its nuclear capability as well as the potential for a fast break - within a matter of months - toward a bomb. Such an agreement, the senior minister told me, will set Iran free from all the shackles and brakes that have restrained it thus far. We think that it might consider sicking Hezbollah on Israel.
This information comes amid many previous reports regarding the marked change in Hezbollah policy in terms of its conduct along the confrontation line with Israel - to wit, the Israeli-Lebanese border as well as the Golan Heights sector, into which Hezbollah has been infiltrating little by little. Lately, the Lebanese Shiite organization has claimed responsibly for attempted terrorist attacks in the Golan Heights, for the first time in many years. Hezbollah no longer hides behind proxy "subcontractors." It is no longer ambiguous nor does it try to go under the radar. On the contrary, it operates openly against Israel, publicly acknowledging its responsibility. It seems to have gained a great deal of confidence and is no longer apprehensive of an unexpected conflagration vis-a-vis the IDF.
What this means is that the era of Israel's deterrence in the north is over. Achieved after the Second Lebanon War in 2006, this deterrence lasted more than eight years. Its remnants remain noticeable on the ground, but according to all indications Hezbollah has lost its brakes and its restraint and has started looking for a confrontation instead of running away from one. Until lately, most Israeli intelligence elements estimated that Hezbollah was unready to open a second front against Israel, given that it is up to its neck in the war in Syria and now in the fighting in north Lebanon. While this assessment has yet to be officially scrapped, the voices coming from top political officials in Jerusalem nevertheless point to a plausible possibility of another war with Hezbollah in the coming months.
The organization's militants openly carry out patrols along the border. Its presence in friction-prone areas has been beefed up considerably. It is now engaged in planning and executing micro-guerrilla warfare against the IDF also on the Golan sector, while setting new rules of deterrence: Any Israeli activity that crosses Hezbollah's "red line" will be met by an appropriate response.
As for the question whether the heavy fighting in Lebanon has not burned out Hezbollah capabilities, the senior minister told me: "On the contrary; it has gained confidence and operational experience. Now it can fight like any other state military, employing forces on a division scale or even broader, relying on intel, airborne vehicles, etc." And there's something else: The Israeli performance during Operation Protective Edge apparently did not impress Hezbollah. Even the threats made in recent weeks by senior Israeli officials such as chief of staff Benny Gantz and Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon, namely that "Israel will knock Lebanon back 70 or 80 years'' in the event of a confrontation with the IDF, make no special impression on Hezbollah.
Are we on the way to an all-out confrontation in the north? There's no need to scurry for shelter just yet. Such a confrontation would result in casualties and devastation at proportions we have never witnessed to date. This time around, Israel, too, will sustain heavy casualties and great devastation in view of the fact that Hezbollah's rocket capabilities are much more improved than those of Hamas. The Iron Dome missile defense system will not provide an effective and complete response to curb the rocket offensive on Tel Aviv and its environs. The last thing the blazing Middle East needs right now is an Armageddon between Israel and Hezbollah, which might also draw Syria, and possibly Iran, either overtly or covertly.
We must also bear in mind that there is another possibility, whereby Jerusalem is trying to create a warmongering spin to heat up the atmosphere, to wield pressure on the world powers to toughen their positions vis-a-vis Iran. Or maybe Jerusalem just wants to scare Israelis who are starting to move toward a socioeconomic agenda, thus making it harder for Netanyahu to get re-elected.
The truth could be composed of a colorful mosaic consisting of all the existing possibilities. In every truth there is a grain of spin, and vice versa. And yet, the possibility of a very hot winter in the north exists more than it has.
Revealed: U.S. Cut Off Arms Supply to Israel During Gaza War - by P. David Hornik - http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/davidhornik/revealed-u-s-cut-off-arms-supply-to-israel-during-gaza-war/
Last August 14 the Wall Street Journal reported that, in July, after Israel had launched Operation Protective Edge in Gaza, Washington had surprised Israel by turning down an Israeli request for "a large number of Hellfire missiles." Hellfires are an important air-to-surface precision weapon, suited to the kind of warfare Israel was waging against Hamas and other terror groups in Gaza.
But as Amir Rapaport, a veteran Israeli military-affairs writer and editor of the Israel Defense site, now reports:
The full truth...is much more severe: apparently, during Operation Protective Edge, the USA had completely stopped all connections with Israel's defense procurement delegation based in the USA. For days, no item whatsoever could be shipped. The expected airlift of US ammunition had never even arrived at its point of departure.
The crisis began about ten days into Operation Protective Edge, pursuant to allegations that the percentage of uninvolved civilian deaths in the Gaza Strip was extremely high (IDF admitted that about one half of all Palestinian deaths were probably civilians who had not been involved in the fighting).
At that stage, the Israeli defense establishment submitted to the USA a request for various types of munitions, including Hellfire missiles, to replenish the dwindling inventories of IDF....
The order to stop the processing of all Israeli requests came from a senior echelon-probably the White House, among other reasons, because Israel had ignored the initiatives of Secretary of State John Kerry and preferred to end the operation through a direct channel with the Egyptians. The State Department had been annoyed with Israel for several months, since it was revealed that Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon had referred to Kerry as "Messianic" in closed sessions.
No less than three reasons are given here for Washington's ire toward Israel. Regarding the first-the allegedly high Palestinian civilian casualties-an ongoing study by the Meir Amit Intelligence and Information Center has found, so far, that the death rate was indeed about 50%-50% between Palestinian combatants and civilians. This compares favorably with ratios of three civilians killed for every one combatant in Afghanistan, and four civilians for every one combatant in Iraq and in Kosovo.
As for Israel's "ignoring" of Kerry's "initiatives," those initiatives entailed negotiating a ceasefire with Hamas through the good offices of Turkey and Qatar-a move that was staunchly opposed by both Israel and Egypt because Turkey and Qatar are patently pro-Hamas actors.
And as for Yaalon dubbing Kerry "messianic," he did so in the context of Kerry's attempted Israeli-Palestinian peace process in which U.S. political and military officials had usurped Yaalon's authority as Israeli defense minister by intensively planning an Israeli military retreat from the Jordan Valley-a step that Yaalon views as incompatible with Israel's security.
In any case, Rapaport calls the munitions cutoff a "major trauma in US-Israeli relations" that has already had repercussions. Among other impacts, he reports that within the Israeli defense establishment, this recent affair has led to a reassessment of the almost automatic reliance on an airlift of ammunition from the USA as a part of practically every wartime scenario.
Among the measures currently under consideration is...a massive transition to Israeli-made munitions. For example, the Hellfire missiles the Americans failed to deliver may be replaced by IAI [Israel Aerospace Industries] missiles, while precision guided munitions by Rafael may replace US-made air-to-surface munitions. Since Operation Protective Edge, Israeli defense industries have already received urgent procurement orders for arms and munitions worth billions of NIS.
Rapaport notes, however, that the arms issue was resolved toward the end of Operation Protective Edge and...despite the recent events, the strategic defense relations between the two countries continue even now, including extensive intelligence cooperation. US DOD [Department of Defense] and IMOD [Israel Ministry of Defense] are also proceeding with numerous joint research and development projects and US defense aid will remain a substantial element of the Israeli defense budget, which enables Israel to acquire such extremely costly systems as the F-35 future fighter aircraft. The Americans have also increased their support for the Iron Dome project during Operation Protective Edge....
All in all, this episode may signal a major learning experience for Israel and a step toward its maturation as a country: the realization that, while the United States is a friend and ally, it is not a Big Brother to be relied on to the extent that one puts one's fate in its hands.
By Rapaport's account and others, the deeply institutionalized U.S.-Israeli strategic relationship is surviving and even thriving in the Obama era. But that does not mean an ideologically hostile administration like Obama's will not exploit Israel's dependence to punish it for perceived wrongs, even-or especially-at a time when Israel is under attack as it was from thousands of Hamas rockets last summer.
Since there may well be other such ideologically hostile or Israel-unfriendly administrations in the future, it is good to know that Israel is reassessing its "almost automatic reliance" on U.S. airlifts and considering a "massive transition to Israeli-made munitions." It would be a lot more realistic.
Amid regional turmoil, Israel looks to its firm bond with Jordan - By Luke Baker - http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/22/us-mideast-israel-jordan-insight-idUSKCN0IB1G520141022
If there were a heat map showing instability in the Middle East, the area around most of Israel's borders would have turned a steadily deeper shade of red over the past few years.
With attacks by Hezbollah from Lebanon, the threat from Islamic State and the Nusra Front in Syria and growing unrest in Egypt's Sinai, the north and south are on edge. By comparison, the eastern frontier with Jordan looks like an oasis of calm.
Yet the Hashemite kingdom, wedged between Iraq, Syria and Saudi Arabia as well as Israel and the Israeli-occupied West Bank, is tackling an array of destabilizing problems that its allies - in particular Israel - are watching warily.
Around 2,000 Jordanians have gone to join militant groups in Syria, one of the largest contingents of foreign fighters, with concerns that at least some will return home radicalized. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who sowed chaos in Iraq and inspired the emergence of Islamic State, came from Zarqa in northern Jordan.
As well as poor tribal communities, the kingdom is home to an estimated 3-4 million Palestinians, more than half its total population. Most have been registered as refugees for 65 years, share family ties with the 2.6 million Palestinians in the West Bank and yearn for a return to what was Palestine.
It has also taken in more than one million people displaced by the wars in Iraq and Syria, putting huge strain on resources and government finances, to the frustration of many Jordanians.
And the Muslim Brotherhood, which shares its Islamist ideology with Hamas, the dominant force in Gaza and a growing presence in the West Bank, is the largest political party in the kingdom, even if its popularity looks to have peaked.
No one is predicting serious trouble in Jordan, with its well-trained military, skilled intelligence agency, financial support from the United States and a Sunni Muslim monarch who balances internal security with a degree of political freedom.
But as the neighbors prepare to mark the 20th anniversary of their landmark peace agreement on Oct. 26, Israel is keener than ever to ensure Jordan's delicate situation is shored up and that the security each provides to the other is maintained.
"The concern is that if a change in the regime in Jordan takes place, then we have the longest border to Israel with Jordan and we may lose one of the two pillars of our Middle East strategy, which is peace with Jordan and Egypt," said Amos Yadlin, director of the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv and a former head of Israeli military intelligence.
Yadlin sees only a slim chance - 10 to 15 percent - of Jordan becoming more hostile, and he still regards Iran's nuclear program as the greatest threat to Israel. But he sees a strong Jordan as critical to his country's security.
"The rules of the game are that we don't want to get into what we have seen in Iraq and what we are seeing in Syria or in Lebanon," he said, referring to authoritarian policies that have fueled conflict there and how Jordan has been restrained.
"(The Jordanians) prefer to have a more moderate way of behavior to keep stability in Jordan."
SECURITY TIES
While Israel's peace with Egypt came first - in 1979 - the accord signed with Jordan in 1994 has delivered far deeper cooperation on intelligence and security and become a firm backbone for relations, analysts and officials say.
On the economic front, trade has picked up and Israel recently agreed to supply Jordan with natural gas in a deal estimated at $15 billion, although Jordanian businessmen say a lack of progress on peace between Israel and the Palestinians has held back commercial ties.
"Jordan wants its relationship with Israel, it just doesn't want to talk about its relationship with Israel," is how one Israeli diplomat put it.
Jordanian officials were not immediately available for comment. They often express strident criticism of Israel, citing the high civilian death toll during the war against Hamas in Gaza as an example of action they say fuels the very extremism the Israeli government fears.
"If we as a Jordanian state in cooperation with an Arab and Islamic coalition are fighting extremism within Islam, and the Israelis are killing our people in Gaza and Jerusalem every five minutes, then this is a problem," King Abdullah said on Monday.
Israel says it shares intelligence it gathers on militant activity in southern Syria with Jordan and that there is close monitoring of Islamist factions in both Jordan and the West Bank to ensure coordination and that neither side is surprised.
"It is a very important relationship for Israel," said Nathan Thrall, a Middle East analyst with the International Crisis Group. "It's keeping Israel safe on its eastern border, there is very intense intelligence cooperation and Jordan has probably the best intelligence service in the region."
A U.S. general has even proposed that Israel upgrade its anti-missile systems to include Jordan under its umbrella, while there are reports of Israel quietly transferring military equipment it no longer uses to its neighbor.
"There's a concern in Jordan that Islamist power in the West Bank, or Hamas coming to power in the West Bank, could have very negative repercussions in Jordan," said Thrall.
"If you talk to Israeli defense officials, what they will say quite bluntly is that Jordan is acutely aware that its security is essentially guaranteed by Israel right now," he said, referring to the threat from Palestinian militancy.
Speaking ahead of the anniversary of the peace accord, Israel's ambassador to Jordan, Daniel Nevo, indicated just how important strategic relations were while being coy about them.
"We share a long border, there is cooperation I will not speak about and with which I am not fully familiar, which I also do not want to know about," he told Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper.
"Jordan is an Israeli interest and vice-versa, even if that is uncomfortable for some people."
ECONOMY UNDER STRAIN
The strongest demonstration of Israel's willingness to come to Jordan's defense came in 1970, during what is known as Black September, when the Palestine Liberation Organisation in Jordan rose up against King Hussein and hundreds were killed.
Syria sent troops and tanks into Jordan in support of the Palestinians, at which point Israel made clear its readiness to defend the kingdom and together with the Jordanian air force swiftly repelled the advancing Syrian brigade.
The principles that guided Israel's actions 44 years ago are the same now, said Yadlin, the former intelligence chief.
But rather than an invading army or Islamic State trying to take over the country, the threat is more about the risk of internal destabilization caused by Islamist cells or agitation within the refugee population - in particular Palestinians in urban camps - that is then exacerbated by economic factors.
Israel also worries that if faltering peace talks were eventually to lead to the creation of an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem, Jordan's vast Palestinian population might try to extend it.
Jordan, on the other hand, says an independent Palestine would be a force for stability and has repeatedly pressed Israel to grant Palestinian refugees in Jordan the right of return.
"Privately, Israeli officials will tell you that they are more worried about Jordan than anything," said Thrall. "It's less of an assessment of impending doom and more of a comment on how essential Israel sees the survival of the Hashemite regime."
The key to its survival in the long run may have as much to do with economics as defense and security. Jordan's budget is under strain, it imports virtually all its energy requirements and it is having to cope with a draining humanitarian crisis.
While Israel may have Jordan's back and it is a bulwark on Israel's flank, dollars may be its greatest need.
The United States already provides around $1 billion a year and a further $1 billion in loan guarantees is possible. Given the conflagration in the region, the pressure on its borders and the domestic situation, further help may be necessary.
"The main things Israel can do to help Jordan are to lobby for it to be bolstered financially by the United States and for the U.S. in turn to lobby various Arab states to help Jordan financially," said Thrall, highlighting the threat of economic problems exacerbating the threat from the Syrian refugee crisis.
Are Israeli Settlements "Poisoning" the Peace Process? - By Cathy Sherman - http://www.newswithviews.com/Sherman/cathy102.htm
On October 1, the White House made a grave error in condemning yet another attempt by Israel to do normal things in the land. The Israeli government was ready to start accepting bids for building a new neighborhood in Jerusalem, for which basic bureaucratic groundwork of two years was finally complete. Immediately after the announcement was made, the US administration started issuing its kneejerk condemnation and threats against its one remaining Middle Eastern "ally".
The use of the word "settlement" was interesting, as within a few paragraphs, two totally different usages could be skewed different ways. Of course, when I read the breaking story, I heard, between the lines, that those of us Jews living where I live are now poison. We "settlers" are the problem - we're poisoning the peace process. Last week Obama supposedly admitted that IS has shown that it's not Israel's failure to make a suicidal deal with Hamas that is causing all the havoc in the Middle East, but now he's back to his favorite rant.
Not just one, but both lackeys for the president, Josh Earnest and Jan Psaki, issued condemnations. The concern from both the White House and State Department is that building homes in Jerusalem will prevent the Israelis and Hamas from making a peace settlement. The proposed extortion - oops peace settlement - would theoretically stipulate that if Israel gives Hamas a third or more of its prime land for yet another terrorist Arab state, Hamas promises not to kill Israelis. The threats concern warnings of additional condemnation from the EU, UN and other international non-friends of Israel.
The EU threatened Israel with vague warnings about the future development of relations with Europe, an amazing threat since this relationship has pretty much been on the skids for years, as Muslims gradually increase influence in Europe. The only part of the relationship that is still helpful to Israel is the trade aspect. Already there is talk from Israeli leadership about the need to go elsewhere for trading partners, so this threat could be nullified quite quickly by Israel's developing relationships with India and China.
All-in-all, it seems "settlement" is a problematic word. For the Israelis, such a settlement with Hamas would result in suicide, death to Israel. What use is a promise not to kill Israelis from Hamas, a terrorist organization totally existing only to destroy the Jewish state? On the other hand, Hamas does not really want a state, but is using this created illusion as an excuse. Why after so many years and so many media discussions of the Hamas Charter, does Obama keep beating this dead horse? Is it not the PA's unity with Hamas that should have "poisoned" the atmosphere of "peacemaking", rather than a few houses going up in Jerusalem?
If we want to talk about poisoning the peace process, we could bring up the refusals of several PA governments to accept deals which would give them their state. We could bring up the constant threat of terror attacks against Israelis all over Israel, not just in the disputed territories. Certainly the unity with Hamas poisons any discussions of peace. We could bring up the incessant lies which re-write the history of Israel on the part of Muslims, going back hundreds of years. Just one example was in the news recently, as Muslims celebrated a holiday recalling the binding of Isaac by Abraham.
Though Islam was born centuries after Israel's history was documented in the Bible, somehow they now claim it was Ishmael - not Isaac - that Abraham was willing to slaughter on Mt. Moriah. Surely such lies and efforts to re-write history should be labeled "poison", rather than a few homes. Speaking of the Temple Mount: Why doesn't the desecration brought on by constant Muslim rioting on the holiest of Jewish sites not poison the talks?
Maybe this brouhaha will make more sense in light of the facts on the ground. Here is the all-important background on the neighborhood, called Givat HaMatos (Airplane Hill in English):
1. The area in question is a neighborhood, not a settlement.
2. Though across the Green Line, the neighborhood is within the city limits of Jerusalem.
3. Over a third of the 2600+ homes are planned for Arabs!!!
4. In past discussions of "two states", this land was to stay with Jerusalem and Israel in the unlikely event there ever was a settlement.
The White House seems to think that settlements in Israel poison the atmosphere of "trust" between Israel and Hamas. There was trust between Israel and Hamas? When was this Ms Psaki? The US administration goes from strange to stranger in their comments.
The greatest irony here is that this new neighborhood seemingly could be a demonstration of peace between Jews and Arabs, as it includes housing for both groups. It is situated between a Jewish neighborhood and an Arab neighborhood.
It is ironic that the Jews are willing to share their neighborhoods with Arabs, but Arabs insist that anywhere in which their rule is sovereign, no Jews will be allowed. So, a basic issue here, though not really addressed by the media, is that it's okay for Arabs to forbid Jews to live in their towns and neighborhoods in what has for thousands of years been a Jewish land, but Jews have to give land to Arabs which they will never again be allowed to enter.
Many Arab towns in Judea and Samaria are now off-limits to Jews. For example, in order to visit Joseph's Tomb, located in Shechem (re-named Nablus by Arabs), Jews have to arrange in advance what time they will come (always during the middle of the night for safety reasons) and have to have an IDF protective force accompany them. At virtually all of the Arab village entrances along the Jordan Valley Highway, Israel has posted warning signs telling "Israeli citizens" to keep out, as the towns are dangerous for them. Yet such discrimination with the accompanying threats of violence on the part of the Arab Palestinians don't poison chances for peace?
At any rate, yes, settlement is a grave danger to Jews. If a settlement is reached with Hamas, Jews will be signing their death warrants. Settlements like Maale Adumim, however, give life to Jews, as they demonstrate how rooted we are to Israel and Jerusalem. Indeed, settlers are the solution. (Note: Though Maale Adumim began as a settlement, it now boasts about 37,000 citizens and is considered a city.)
There's an added issue subsumed within this issue. It remains a mystery why an integrated neighborhood of both Jews and Arabs, which will link a Jewish and Arab neighborhood, should arouse the ire of the US leadership. What is the possible basis for this, when Islamic State is threatening the lives of millions of Christians, Muslims, Jews, Kurds and other minorities across the Middle East? One possibility is that this is another distraction being used by the administration to cover up its inability to deal with real threats. Undoubtedly, the safety of the US is not threatened by a few hundred houses going up in Israel; the threats from IS and other new enemies of the US, the Ebola problem and illegal immigration deserve real attention from the administration and State Department.
Another theory which looks to be gaining credibility with this latest condemnation of Israel is that the US wants to isolate the Jewish state even further. The Obama administration has harped on the settlement program and made it an issue for the Muslims, as they've gleefully picked it up. While past administrations pushed the two-state fallacy, they refrained from picking on Jewish settlers. Though most Americans have indicated their support for Israel in any conflict with other Middle East nations, the president, through his personal hatred, does not reflect that. Therefore, the Obamedia also doesn't reveal that. Israelis have to search out the reports that indicate the support of most Americans, as the Mainstream Media seems to want to bury such news.
The question as to why the US president uses any pretext to condemn Israel, an ally, while passing up many opportunities to demonize Hamas, a US-designated terrorist organization, is fundamental. Possibly Obama is jealous of Israel and the Jewish success in technological innovations, or maybe it's a sense that Israel and Netanyahu represent the truth of God and the Bible. After all, Bibi has been documented quoting scripture to the UN at least five times. He has also given Obama a portion of the Bible as a gift. It likely isn't a coincidence that so many meetings requiring the attendance of Israeli leadership are scheduled for Sabbath and even holidays like Yom Kippur.
Even if not done on purpose, a more tolerant and respectful international community might schedule on any other day but Sabbath and holidays. Not much of respect is expected from the anti-Semitic international community, but since Obama calls himself "Christian", more such consideration could be expected. Moreover, since it's unlikely that crucial international meetings would be scheduled on a Muslim holy day, the same respect should be extended to Jews.
As an American in Israel, the condemnations from America hit doubly hard: one, because the US is my mother country, and two, because Israel has done much good for the world and in no way deserves such condemnation. The shock of a US which appears to support a terrorist organization whose goal is to kill me is wearing off, but the pain felt on behalf of all decent Americans is not. It's not lost on Israelis that those who curse Israel are cursed, while those who bless are in turn blessed.
Likewise, other Biblical promises from Torah and Prophets assure Israel that no matter how bleak things may look in one moment, in the next moment they could be completely turned around. We're also aware that most of the world, in one scenario, will come against Israel in the last days. But this is a warning, and as in Nineveh, if the warnings are heeded, we might reach Redemption and the coming of the Messiah, without going through all the traumas contained in the warnings.
In a future article, I hope to write about winds of change, or at the moment, breezes of change, that indicate the hoped-for season is almost upon us.
The Two-State Solution is Dead - by Joel B. Pollak - http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2014/10/19/The-Two-State-Solution-is-Dead
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry is at it again, this time blaming Israel for the collapse in the peace process with the Palestinians earlier this year--and, he implied the rise of the Islamic State across the region. Israeli leaders are now openly saying what only Minister of Defense Moshe Ya'alon was bold enough to say, before the peace process collapsed: Kerry is an idiot and an egoist who would burn the region and expect a Nobel prize.
Ya'alon, amusingly, is counseling his colleagues to be circumspect in their comments. But he surely knows he has been vindicated--not just on a personal level, but a policy level. Kerry is wrong on the substance of the two-state solution, which would certainly install a terror state on Israel's most vulnerable border. He is also wrong on the process: the idea that there is actually a "solution" to the conflict is the region's deadliest fallacy.
If the Israeli-Palestinian conflict had to be "solved" overnight, it would involve Israel annexing most of the West Bank, including the Jordan Valley; the dismantling of the Palestinian Authority, which has proved to be little more than a conduit for terror funding and Nazi-like propaganda; and a war that removed Hamas from Gaza. A rump Palestinian state would be permitted in a few West Bank cities--and no further. End of story, forever.
That "solution" would involve hundreds of lives lost, billions of dollars spent, and perhaps thousands of people displaced. It would probably yield a more stable equilibrium than exists at present.
However, it would pose very significant costs to Israel, in terms of international isolation far worse than anything previously experienced. And without solving the overall strategic problems of Iran and ISIS, such a "solution" could become irrelevant.
For now, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one that can only be managed. That is a point on which hawks like Ya'alon, and far-left doves like Tom Segev, agree--even if they disagree about how it is to be managed.
There really is no prospect of peace with a fanatical Arab neighbor that resorts to medieval blood libels. As George Orwell once wrote, the only thing worse than bombing cities is raising the next generation of children to hate:
By shooting at your enemy you are not in the deepest sense wronging him. But by hating him, by inventing lies about him and bringing children up to believe them, by clamoring for unjust peace terms which make further wars inevitable, you are striking not at one perishable generation, but at humanity itself.
It is because Palestinians presume--correctly--that Israel will be blamed for anything that happens in the region that they persist in hatred.
Blaming Israel has been standard operating procedure, both for Kerry and his predecessor, Hillary Clinton--and, of course, for President Barack Obama. Yet the two-state solution has been a bipartisan obsession for several decades. Though its defeat seems preordained, in retrospect, it was probably an experiment worth trying.
Nevertheless, it is a total failure. Left-wing thinkers like Hannah Arendt once warned against Israeli statehood as a dangerous delusion, given superior Arab strength. Yet the Palestinian state is the true delusion.
What must shift is the idea that Israel bears the cost. The demographic "threat" is an empty one, and Israel's economy has thrived despite decades of conflict. Empty gestures such as Britain and Sweden's "recognition" of Palestine just convince Israelis to dig in.
It is time Palestinians felt the diplomatic cost of their warmongering.
Hamas, Islamic Jihad salute Jerusalem terror attack, threaten new 'Palestinian intifada' in capital - http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Hamas-Islamic-Jihad-salute-Jerusalem-terror-attack-threaten-new-Palestinian-intifada-in-capital-379619
Hamas and Islamic Jihad hailed Wednesday's terrorist act by an east Jerusalem resident who rammed his car into a crowd of commuters at a light rail station, killing a three-month old infant and injuring seven others.
"The attack in Jerusalem is an act of heroism and a natural response to the crimes of the occupation against our people and our holy places," said Mushir al-Masri, a senior Hamas spokesperson.
"The attack in Jerusalem is a natural response to what is taking place in the city, given the harassment and overall attacks of Judaization affecting our holy places and Muslims," said another Hamas official, Salah Baradwil.
Hamas warned that the latest developments may augur the next "Palestinian intifada in Jerusalem."
Islamic Jihad released an official statement on Thursday through its military wing, the Al-Quds Brigade, saying: "There is Zionist aggression against all of our people, and today the resistance responded to this attack. This is a natural right."
"This attack is a strong response to the Israeli occupation, whose crimes are unable to break the resistance," the organization said.
Both Hamas and Islamic Jihad called on the Palestinian Authority to "halt its security coordination with Israel and to act in resistance in the West Bank."
The two groups also praised the residents of east Jerusalem "for their fierce stance against the crimes of the occupation."
Here's why Israel loses no sleep over Islamic State - By Dimi Reider - http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2014/10/21/heres-why-israel-loses-no-sleep-over-islamic-state/
At first sight, it seems that Israel is just as preoccupied with the rise of Islamic State as anyone else. Israeli media report diligently on the extremist group's assault on the Kurdish town of Kobani and run at least a story every few days on its atrocities. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu references Islamic State frequently, as do other Israeli ministers. And the stories of two Palestinian citizens of Israel who died fighting for the group have been recently featured in the press.
Still, Israel remains the least concerned and least directly threatened country in a region increasingly rocked by Islamic State's advance. It certainly does not see the group as an external threat. Shocking though the events in Syria and Iraq are, Israel is far beyond the range of even the most sophisticated of Islamic State's weapons. The group's immediate territorial interests do not extend to anywhere near Israeli borders, and its support in areas adjacent to Israel is still negligible. What's more, unlike many militant groups and states in the region, Islamic State has declared itself emphatically disinterested in intervening in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, preferring instead to draw its support from Sunni revanchism and introducing a semblance of order into war-torn regions of Iraq.
Islamic State also does not yet pose an internal threat to Israel. Unlike most countries bordering Syria, Israel has not been politically or demographically unsettled by the civil war there. The diversified systems of control employed by Israel - some liberal democracy and some military rule - have cemented differences among the country's constituencies disgruntled with the Israeli government. The divisions have precluded the emergence of a broad uprising similar to those that constituted the Arab Spring. The relatively short, highly militarized border between Israel and Syria has prevented the influx of refugees into Israel, as well as any significant spread of the fighting.
In the absence of incentives to change policy, Israel remains determined to display an official disinterest in Iraq and a staunch neutrality toward Syria. Although the government has often expressed sympathy for victims of the Syrian civil war and offered some of them medical treatment, and has on one or two occasions hit targets in Syria, Israel has been careful to signal to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad that it considers him a relatively reliable neighbor and would not work actively to replace him.
It's also unlikely that Israeli leaders will come under any internal pressure to change this position. While the images of the war in Syria have prompted some Palestinians to travel abroad and take up arms against the Syrian regime, sometimes fighting alongside jihadist organizations, the numbers have been small - and their wrath, for now, directed at the Syrian regime, not at Israel. Images of Islamic State's atrocities, combined with the group's religious fanaticism, contempt for nation-states and express disinterest in the Palestinian cause have left Palestinians - largely secular, nationalist and deeply committed to building their own nation-state - more alienated than attracted.
Even attempts by Israeli centrists and the U.S. to tie progress in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process to the fight against Islamic State have left Israel unmoved. Israel, the argument went, should make concessions in its talks with Palestinians to mollify Arab populations as their governments yet again throw in with the Americans - and by extension, with the Israelis. This tactic rests on the idea that the only real threat that Islamic State poses to Israel, however remotely, is if it toppled any of the "moderate" Arab states, especially Jordan, by invading them or capitalizing on their local discontents, or a combination of the two.
But the Israeli government, which has no interest, political or ideological, in facilitating a two-state solution, has so far responded with a shrug. The view in Israel is that the moderate Arab regimes are sufficiently threatened by the spread of Islamic State to prioritize drawing the Americans in, warts and all. If anything triggers revolutions in these countries, it will not be the plight of the Palestinians.
The lack of direct threats notwithstanding, Israel has been able to extract some short-term gains from unfolding catastrophe. With the West again mobilizing against a radical Islamist group, Netanyahu find himself on the familiar turf of the "war on terror." He is capitalizing on this by trying to equate Palestinian nationalism - especially the religious wing of it - with Islamic State at every conceivable opportunity (even if with little perceptible effect). Second, Israel is again making itself useful to the West as a corner of stability and pro-Western sentiment in an otherwise turbulent Middle East - and is using this to push the Palestinian issue further down the agenda.
These considerations apart, Israel sees Islamic State as something that's happening to other people - and the country will do its best to keep it so.
BE SURE TO CHECK OUT MY PROPHECY WEBSITES...............................
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.