Some days ago, I had shared with
my readers the fact that there would be a hiatus in my writing both for personal
reasons and because of a major project. As to the personal reasons, I am
functioning without major distraction now but advise you that, down the
road, I may again be focused on other matters for a period of time
during which I will not be posting.
As to the major project: I look
forward eagerly to sharing the details in a day or two, in a posting devoted
primarily to this.
Today's posting will be, as I
indicated, "normal."
~~~~~~~~~~
What strikes me is that in the
duration of time during which I have not been posting, nothing of major
significance has shifted. It's essentially more of the same, with slight
variations and permutations. The same nonsense. The same outrage.
One on-going source of outrage is
the manner in which an anti-Israel EU is conducting itself. And so I would like
to begin by sharing a part of Caroline Glick's column from this past week,
entitled, "Israel's European challenge." Writes Glick (emphasis
added):
"...In mid-September, the IDF
enforced a High Court of Justice order to destroy 250 structures built illegally
by Palestinian squatters in the Jordan Valley. The High Court acted in
accordance with the agreements signed between the Palestinians and Israel.
Those agreements gave Israel sole control over planning and zoning in the Jordan
Valley and throughout the area of Judea and Samaria defined in Area
C.
"Five days after the IDF destroyed
the illegal structures, Palestinian activists arrived at the site with
tents. Their intention was to act in contempt of the law and the
agreements the PLO signed with Israel, and to resettle the site.
"The Palestinians did not come
alone. They were accompanied by European diplomats. The diplomats
were there to provide diplomatic cover to the Palestinians as they broke
the law and breached the agreements PLO signed with the Israeli
government.
"This would have been bad enough,
but in the event, one European diplomat, Marion Castaing, the cultural attache
at the French Consulate in Jerusalem, decided that her job didn't end with
providing diplomatic cover for lawbreakers. She joined them. She punched an
Israeli border policeman in the face.
"Rather than apologize to Israel
for using European diplomats to support Palestinians engaged in criminal
activity, and for Castaing's shocking violence against an Israeli soldier
lawfully performing his duties, EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton
attacked Israel.
"Ashton called the tents,
presumably paid for by European taxpayers, 'humanitarian assistance' and
declared, 'The EU deplores the confiscation of humanitarian assistance carried
out by Israeli security forces yesterday in Khirbat al-Makhul.'
"'EU representatives have already
contacted the Israeli authorities to demand an explanation and expressed their
concern at the incident.
The EU underlines the importance of unimpeded delivery of humanitarian
assistance and the applicability of international humanitarian law in the
occupied Palestinian territories,' Ashton said.
"The EU's role in
financing illegal Palestinian building efforts in the Jordan Valley is not
unique. For some time, in contempt of Israeli law and the arrangements signed
between Israel and the PLO, the EU has been financing illegal building by Arabs
in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem.
"What was new in last
month's incident was the deployment of European diplomats at the scene to
provide diplomatic cover for Palestinian law-breakers...
"In recent months, there
has been a palpable escalation of European hostility toward
Israel..."
~~~~~~~~~~
"Outrage" is a fairly apt
description of what transpired here -- what continues to transpire. The
Europeans are growing increasing blatant in their anti-Israel positions.
There is nothing subtle about their behavior. And please note that they
fall back upon allusions to "international humanitarian law" when criticizing
Israel. That's the standard: Anyone, at any time, can refer to
"international humanitarian law," but this in no way means that such law
genuinely applies.
~~~~~~~~~~
Glick tracks what she sees as the
cause of the heighted EU hostility to Israel, much of it economic in
nature.
But that hostility transcends
economic issues and can be tracked back for some time. It incorporates
hypocrisy and a double standard applied to Israel alone.
"Consider," says Glick, "Europe's
position on Israeli communities built beyond the 1949 armistice lines.
Europe wrongly asserts that these communities are illegal. But
even if they were right, Europe's behavior toward Israel would still make a
mockery of its proclaimed devotion to international law. Europe has no problem,
indeed it has actively supported settlements for citizens of belligerent
occupying powers in areas ruled through occupation. As Profs. Avi Bell and
Eugene Kantorovich from the Kohelet Policy Forum explained in a recent paper on
the EU's guidelines, the EU supports settlements by occupying powers in Northern
Cyprus, Abkazia and Western Sahara. In light of this, it is clear that the
guidelines directed against Israel are inherently
discriminatory.
"The EU's supposed
commitment to international law is similarly exposed as a sham by its
willingness to turn a blind eye to the Palestinian Authority's diversion of EU
monies to finance terrorism. Despite mountains of evidence accumulated
over the past 13 years that aid is being siphoned off to finance terrorist
attacks against Israel, the EU has refused to take action. And its refusal to
act is itself a breach of international law."
It is time, says Glick, to begin
confronting the truth on these issues and stop giving a free pass to those "who
distort the very meaning of international law while making empty proclamations
of support for the cause of peace."
This is information -- and a
perspective -- that every supporter of Israel should have access
to.
~~~~~~~~~~
Another running theme is that of
Iran's race to become a nuclear power, and the refusal of the nations
negotiating with Iran to put a stop to what is imminent.
Perhaps at some time in the near
future I'll be motivated to discuss details once again. But for me now it all
seems so wearisome, so "been-there-done-that." The bottom line is
that everything that is being discussed is a half-way measure that won't stop
Iran. As PM Netanyahu continues to point out, nothing short of the
dismantlement of Iran's nuclear development capability will work. The
Iranian offer to stop enriching at higher levels is meaningless if the equipment
that would permit them to do so is still in their possession: In a matter
of weeks they could (would, as they wished) be up and running
again.
And I hasten to point out here,
that when it's said that the sanctions are working, that is not really so -- or
is only relatively so. The Iranians are in an economic bind and hope to
have sanctions eased, undoubtedly. But please note that they have not stopped
their program because of those sanctions. (See Ajami on this
below.)
~~~~~~~~~~
Fouad Ajami offers an
analysis of the situation -- both with regard to Obama's position on Iran and on
Syria -- in the Wall Street Journal (emphasis added):
"...The remarkable thing about
President Obama's diplomacy in the region is that it has come full circle—to the
very beginning of his presidency. The promised 'opening' to Iran, the pass given
to Bashar Assad's tyranny in Syria, the abdication of the American gains in Iraq
and a reflexive unease with Israel—these were hallmarks of the new president's
approach to foreign policy.
"Now we are simply witnessing the
alarming consequences of such a misguided, naïve outlook. [Note from Arlene: do
not write to me to tell me that Obama is not naive, please. This is an Ajami
quote, and he makes his case.]
"Consider this bit of euphoria from a senior Obama administration official after the Oct. 16-17 negotiations in Geneva with the Iranians over their nuclear program: 'I've been doing this now for about two years, and I have never had such intense, detailed, straightforward, candid conversations with the Iranian delegation before.'
"...True, the sanctions have had their own power, but they haven't stopped Iran from aiding the murderous Assad regime in Syria, or subsidizing Hezbollah in Beirut. And they will not dissuade this regime from its pursuit of nuclear weapons. In dictatorial regimes, the pain of sanctions is passed onto the underclass and the vulnerable.
"...The gullibility of Mr. Obama's pursuit of an opening with Iran has unsettled America's allies in the region. In Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates there is a powerful feeling of abandonment. In Israel, there is the bitter realization that America's strongest ally in region is now made to look like the final holdout against a blissful era of compromise that will calm a turbulent region. A sound U.S. diplomatic course with Iran would never have run so far ahead of Israel's interests and of the region's moderate anti-Iranian Arab coalition."
"Consider this bit of euphoria from a senior Obama administration official after the Oct. 16-17 negotiations in Geneva with the Iranians over their nuclear program: 'I've been doing this now for about two years, and I have never had such intense, detailed, straightforward, candid conversations with the Iranian delegation before.'
"...True, the sanctions have had their own power, but they haven't stopped Iran from aiding the murderous Assad regime in Syria, or subsidizing Hezbollah in Beirut. And they will not dissuade this regime from its pursuit of nuclear weapons. In dictatorial regimes, the pain of sanctions is passed onto the underclass and the vulnerable.
"...The gullibility of Mr. Obama's pursuit of an opening with Iran has unsettled America's allies in the region. In Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates there is a powerful feeling of abandonment. In Israel, there is the bitter realization that America's strongest ally in region is now made to look like the final holdout against a blissful era of compromise that will calm a turbulent region. A sound U.S. diplomatic course with Iran would never have run so far ahead of Israel's interests and of the region's moderate anti-Iranian Arab coalition."
~~~~~~~~~~
The last paragraph I cite above is
significant on two counts: The news here is filled with reports of the
severe disillusionment of Saudi Arabia -- the anger at Obama's failure to come
through.
For example, from
Reuters:
"Saudi Arabia's warning that it
will downgrade its relationship with the United States is based on a fear that
President Barack Obama lacks both the mettle and the guile to confront mutual
adversaries, and is instead handing them a strategic advantage.
"Riyadh is locked in what it sees as
a pivotal battle over the fate of the Middle East with its arch-rival Iran, a
country it believes is meddling in the affairs of allies and seeking to build a
nuclear bomb, charges Tehran denies.
"The kingdom's intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, has told European diplomats that Riyadh is contemplating a 'major shift' away from the United States over Washington's policies on a host of issues including Syria."
http://news.yahoo.com/analysis-saudi-move-reflects-fears-u-falling-iranian-180118004.html;_ylt=A2KLOzKtpmhSxU8A4j7QtDMD
"The kingdom's intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, has told European diplomats that Riyadh is contemplating a 'major shift' away from the United States over Washington's policies on a host of issues including Syria."
http://news.yahoo.com/analysis-saudi-move-reflects-fears-u-falling-iranian-180118004.html;_ylt=A2KLOzKtpmhSxU8A4j7QtDMD
~~~~~~~~~~
And Ajami is on the mark, indeed,
with the fact that here in Israel, where we get it right, we deeply
resent being represented as a stumbling block to a peaceful settlement with
Iran, a "warmonger," facing down the US's "peaceful" approach.
~~~~~~~~~~
There continues to be a very real
dispute between the US and Israel with regard to how much time there remains
before Iran has nuclear capabilities, i.e., the ability to put together a bomb
should its leaders decide to.
David Albright, president of the
Institute for Science and International Security and a former inspector with the
IAEA, has released a new assessment estimating that "Iran could produce
enough weapons-grade uranium to build a nuclear bomb in as little as a
month.
"The new assessment
comes as the White House invited Senate staffers to a briefing on negotiations
with Iran as it is trying to persuade Congress not to go ahead with a bill to
stiffen sanctions against Iran." (All emphasis
added)
Israeli assessments (roughly,
"months away") are much closer to the Albright estimate than to what Obama
is gambling on. Obama is
playing with fire of the most dangerous and lethal sort.
~~~~~~~~~~
The heart of the matter is the
question of what Netanyahu will finally decide to do, and when -- after all his
warnings are ignored and the world sails blithely towards a nuclear
Iran.
Last week, the New
Republic ran a major interview with Amos Yadlin, former head of IDF
intelligence and presently head of the Institute of National Security
Studies. Yadlin flew one of the planes that attacked the Iraqi reactor.
(All emphasis added)
Says Yadlin: "I supported
[Netanyahu and Barak] on the notion that if we come to the fork in the road [on
Iran], where we have to choose between very tough alternatives—the ‘bomb’ or the
‘bombing’—I’m with the prime minister, for the bombing."
Many people, he goes on to say,
thought that 2012 was the year in which Israel had to attack. He did
not. But he suggests that 2014 is. He believes Israel should go as
long as possible in giving diplomacy that chance. But then...
"Israel doesn’t need
America on D-Day. It can do it alone. It even can cope with the day
after, but it does need the United States for the decade
after.
"...even the most successful
operation theoretically—theoretically—will stop the program for five
years. If you want to make these five engineering theoretical years into a
decade, until the regime changes, you need the U.S. on board, with the
continuation of sanctions, with leading the international campaign against the
renewal of the nuclear program in Iran, and maybe supporting [Israel] in doing
it again. So that’s why I think 2012 was the wrong year to do it, because in
2012, it was a bright red light from Washington. I would like to
emphasize, Israel is not asking for a green light. Israel only doesn’t
want to do something that is going 180 degrees against American
vital interests as long as it is not a response to a threat that
is almost an existential threat. I think in late 2013 or early 2014,
especially if America sees that Iran is not serious about reaching an
acceptable agreement and only continues to buy time, the U.S. will accept
an Israeli attack because a nuclear Iran is absolutely against American vital
national security interests...
~~~~~~~~~~
"The coming year is a special
challenge because the Iranians are now very close. They may be able to produce a
bomb faster than intelligence can detect that they are breaking out or sneaking
out. And the breakout time may be shorter than the time necessary for the
decisions and planning and execution of an operation that can stop it. This is
what is unique here. ‘You cannot live with a nuclear Iran,’ that’s
was decided long ago, But in the coming year, the probability of
affirmative answers to all four fundamental questions [that must be asked
regarding possibility of success] will be higher than it has ever
been...
"[To those who say Israel cannot
do it] I say that they ignore history. The same people also thought that we
couldn’t destroy the Arab air forces in ‘67. They thought we couldn’t make it to
Entebbe and free the hostages in 1976. They thought it was impossible to strike
the reactor in Iraq. They thought we couldn’t destroy the Syrian air defenses in
the Bekaa Valley in 1982. There’s a lot they thought Israel couldn’t
do."
Yadlin is confident that Israel
can do it. Period. "It is doable...My confidence level is
quite high. We have been building the force and practicing for this day for
years."
He then addressed the issue of
probability of success -- with that probability dropping as Iran does more to
secure its facilities. Right now he thinks the probability is still quite high
-- 95% -- but that indeed it will be dropping.
As to Netanyahu: "The
prime minister is not bluffing. It is the main issue he cares about. He thinks
that stopping Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons is the most important issue
for the future of the State of Israel. And he hasn’t
changed."
~~~~~~~~~~
©
Arlene Kushner. This material is produced by Arlene Kushner,
functioning as an independent journalist. Permission is granted for it to be
reproduced only
with
proper attribution.
If
it is reproduced and emphasis is added, the fact that it has been added must be
noted.
This material
is transmitted by Arlene only to persons who have requested it or agreed to
receive it. If you are on the list and wish to be removed, contact Arlene and
include your name in the text of the
message.
No comments:
Post a Comment