Saturday, September 11, 2010

Hezbollah as a strategic arm of Iran

Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center
at the Center for Special Studies (C.S.S)


* This Bulletin deals with Hezbollah’s place in Iranian strategy and the vast amounts of aid and support Iran has given the organization since its founding 24 years ago. Hezbollah, and the Lebanese Shi’ite community among whom it took root, are actually the only successful example of exporting the Islamic revolution. Hezbollah also demonstrates how Iran uses the concept to further its ambitions for regional hegemony and the struggle against Israel and the West.
* The massive support Iran and it ally, Syria, have given Hezbollah since its founding increased during the past six years, turning it not only into a terrorist organization with military and political capabilities, but also an Iranian stronghold in the heart of the Arab world . Hezbollah’s capabilities, which go far beyond those of a terrorist organization, are a clear-cut threat to the population of Israel , as was well illustrated in the second Lebanon War (which took place earlier than Iran and Syria had planned) . The presence of an stronghold in Lebanon has given Iran cultural influence and political clout, increased its regional influence and enabled it to use terrorism against Israel without being linked involved. In addition, and more even importantly, it provides Iran with a military option to both attack Israel and destabilize the region during a crisis (for example, in response to an attack on its nuclear installation).

* The second Lebanon war weakened both Hezbollah’s military capability and its political power in Lebanon. However, the organization was not defeated and its pre-war capabilities can be restored . Therefore, Iran and its ally, Syria, can be expected to make an effort to rehabilitate the organization’s capabilities, especially by smuggling arms in from Syria in spite of the embargo imposed on arms shipments to Hezbollah. At the same time, Iran can be expected to use Hezbollah to pour vast amounts of money into rebuilding Lebanon and compensating the local residents (the overwhelming majority of whom are Shi’ites) who were harmed by the war.

* From the Israeli perspective, the Islamic regime in Iran presents a danger to its existence . The regime’s ideology uncompromisingly and publicly calls for the destruction of the State of Israel, fosters the Palestinian terrorist organizations and systematically strives to attain unconventional nuclear capabilities while thumbing its nose at the demands of the international community. It also clearly presents a threat to American and Western interests in the Persian Gulf and the Middle East in general. Much of the Arab/Muslim world is also apprehensive of an Iranian threat.

* For that reason, the State of Israel and the entire international community must make an effort to hamper the post-war rehabilitation of Hezbollah’s strategic capabilities as part of a general struggle against the threat of Iran and its stronghold in Lebanon.

* This Information Bulletin contains the following :

A. The concept of exporting the Islamic revolution

B. The establishment of Hezbollah by Iran during the Lebanon War, 1982-1985

C. Strengthening Hezbollah after the Lebanon War

D. Iranian aid and support for Hezbollah

1) Overview

2) Exporting Iranian ideology

3) Massive supplies of state-of-the-art weapons

4) Ways of bringing weapons into Lebanon

5) Training Hezbollah to use weapons

6) Supervising the build-up of Hezbollah’s military strength and preparing it for a possible confrontation with Israel

7) Financing Hezbollah

8) The damage done to Hezbollah’s military infrastructure during the war.

E. Summary and conclusions

Birds of a feather…

Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah hugs Iranian president Ahmadinejad during a visit to Iran
(Iranian News Agency, IRNA, August 1, 2005)

Exporting the Islamic revolution

* The desire to export the Islamic revolution to the rest of the Muslim world (and even to non-Muslim societies) is an integral part of the philosophy of the Ayatollah Khomeini, who led the Islamic revolution in Iran in 1979. Khomeini and his confederates sought to ignore national division and the religious differences between Shi’ite and Sunni Muslims by creating a revolutionary Islamic power. That power, led by Iran, would stamp out the “root of evil,” the superpowers which had, in their view, led to world corruption, especially the United States (“the big Satan”) and its ally, Israel (“the little Satan”).

* For Khomeini (and his heir, Ali Khamenei), the concept of exporting the revolution served as a means of advancing Iranian strategic interests, centering around the desire for regional hegemony and the battle against Israel and the West , by intervening in the internal politics of other countries.

* As part of its marketing strategy, Iran provided particularly generous aid to subversive Islamic movements and terrorist organizations in the Middle East, the Balkans and Africa . At the same time, it undertook an intensive propaganda campaign in various parts of the world to disseminate the principles of the Islamic revolution. That activity continues to this day. In practice, and in addition to Hezbollah, Iran provides support for the Palestinian terrorist organizations (particularly the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hamas) and the Shi’ite militias in Iraq , helping them to destabilize the country and hinder the democratization process the Americans are trying to advance.1

* Hezbollah is the most prominent terrorist organization receiving Iranian aid and is clearly a priority for the regime’s attention and allotment of resources , and not by chance. During the 24 years which have passed since Hezbollah’s founding, it has entrenched itself among the Lebanese Shi’ites, had impressive achievements and become, in Iranian perspective, the most shining (albeit the only) example of its success in exporting the revolution .

The establishment of Hezbollah by Iran during the Lebanon War (1982-1986)

* The first Lebanon War, which began on June 6, 1982, reduced Syria’s influence there, destroyed the Palestinian terrorist infrastructure and led to the collapse of the central Lebanese government. The Iranians correctly identified the opportunity presented by the political upheaval and exploited it to transport the Islamic struggle to the Lebanese arena, in the heart of the Arab world , and from there to wage its battle against Israel and the United States without direct involvement .2 The Iranians were active mostly among the Shi’ites, the largest sect in Lebanon, which has traditionally suffered from political, economic and social deprivation.

* Iran’s strategy was compatible with the interests of Syria, which at that time struggled against Israel’s presence in Lebanon from a position of military and political weakness. The meeting of Iranian and Syrian interests led to Syria’s permitting 2,500 Iranian Revolutionary Guards to enter Lebanon and to set up a stronghold within the Shi’ite population in the Beqa’a Valley.

* Although the Syrians prevented the Iranian force from participating in the fighting against Israel and large numbers of them returned to Iran, the remaining 1,000-1,500 Iranians entrenched themselves in Baalbek, which was under Syrian military control. They established a military-logistic infrastructure at the Sheikh ‘Abdallah camp in Baalbek , which they took over from the Lebanese army, and at the Zabadani camp in Syria , northwest of Damascus. Intelligence and operational Revolutionary Guards elements were later installed in Beirut, Zahle and Mashgharah in the southern Beqa’a Valley. The military infrastructure set up in the summer of 1982 played an important part in establishing Hezbollah and using it to carry out terrorist missions.

* The Revolutionary Guards’ most conspicuous achievement was successfully uniting the various radical Shi’ite groups which objected to the Israeli presence and Western influence in Lebanon. The Revolution Guards established Hezbollah from among those groups and supported them by training their members, transmitting technical know-how, and providing weapons (through Damascus), ideological guidance and extremely generous funding.

* The key role in establishing Hezbollah in Lebanon and dispatching its members on terrorist missions against Israel and the West was filled by Hujjat al-Islam ‘Ali Akbar Mokhtashemipour , who was then the Iranian ambassador to Damascus (and is currently head of the Headquarters for Intifada Support, and important in providing Iranian support for Palestinian terrorism).

* Guided by the Iranians, during its first years Hezbollah developed two modes of action which became the trademarks of Iranian-directed Shi’ite terrorism :
o Suicide bombing attacks : suicide bombing attacks in Lebanon were carried out by Shi’ite terrorists sent to sacrifice themselves for the sake of Allah as part of jihad, an important element in Khomeini’s ideology (and that of his heirs).3 The first suicide bombing attacks were directed against Western targets , and later against Israeli targets in Lebanon and Jewish and Israeli targets abroad (Argentina). During the first Lebanon War Hezbollah carried out a series of suicide bombing attacks against American and French targets, killing hundreds. As a result of the attacks, the multinational force was evacuated from Lebanon and the Palestinian terrorist organizations were encouraged to copy the Lebanese model, using the suicide bombing attack as the main weapon in their terrorist campaigns against Israel (in the middle 1990s and during the second intifada).

The attack on US Marine Headquarters in Beirut, 1982: an aerial photo of the headquarters before the attack and the rubble afterwards

The attack on the American Embassy in Beirut in 1982. All photos from ‘Amaliyyat al- istishhadiyyah (“Suicide Bombing Attacks”) a book published in Beirut in November 1985

o Abducting hostages : During the 1980s Hezbollah abducted scores of Western civilians in Lebanon, murdering some of them. Abduction became its primary means exerting pressure on Western countries to change their policies regarding the Iran-Iraq war and the Arab-Israeli conflict, and to secure the release of Shi’ite terrorists in prisons all over the globe.4

Strengthening Hezbollah after the Lebanon War

o During the second half of the 1980s and during the 1990s, Syria permitted Hezbollah to strengthen its position in the Shi’ite community in Lebanon and to set up an extensive military infrastructure in south Lebanon, to a great extent at the expense of Amal, the movement representing the pragmatic Shi’ite trend. The Syrians, Iran’s allies, did not disarm Hezbollah after the other armed militias had turned in their weapons following the Taef Accord in 1989, which marked the end of the Lebanese civil war. Thus Hezbollah’s position was strengthened among the Shi’ites and within Lebanese politics in general, and it could continue its campaign against both the IDF and the Southern Lebanese Army in the security zone established by Israel, under the banner of “struggle against the occupation.”

o The IDF’s complete withdrawal from the security zone in south Lebanon on May 24, 2000, and Israel’s full implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 425 should have obviated Hezbollah’s internal-Lebanese justification for the continued armed campaign against Israel. However, the above notwithstanding, Hezbollah, encouraged by Iran and Syria, refused to disarm and cease its terrorist attacks against Israel. During the past six years Hezbollah has carried out occasional attacks against IDF forces along the border, shooting and abducing soldiers, and establishing a broad military infrastructure in south Lebanon. It has found various new pretexts, such as the Sheba’a Farms and the release of Lebanese prisoners, to continue its military campaign against Israel. At the same time it has increased its support for the Palestinian terrorist organizations and encouraged them, in return for money, to carry out suicide bombing attacks within Israel, including during the second Lebanon war.

Iranian aid and support for Hezbollah


* During the six years since the IDF withdrew from Lebanon, Iran and Syria (under Bashar Assad) have increased their assistance and support of Hezbollah. Both countries regard Lebanon as their front line against Israel and Hezbollah as their strategic proxy. Iran, along with Syria, has upgraded Hezbollah’s military capabilities, primarily by providing the organization with rockets and constructing an arsenal of between 12,000 and 13,000 ground-to-ground missiles of various ranges. They also assisted in creating a well-planned and organized Hezbollah military deployment in south Lebanon, in accordance with Iranian military doctrine.

* The Iranians leading and directing the support of Hezbollah belong to an elite unit of the Revolutionary Guards know as “the Jerusalem [Qods] Force.” The unit, headed by Qassem Suleimani, is responsible for Iranian military activity and for directing terrorist organizations in Lebanon and other places around the globe (including Palestinian terrorists). Iranian support for Hezbollah through the Qods Force includes financing (more than $100 million annually), training in Iran and Lebanon, and supplying state-of-the arts weapons and intelligence about Israel.

Qassem Suleimani

Exporting the ideology of Iran’s Islamic revolution

* Material captured from Hezbollah terrorists in south Lebanon during the second Lebanon war included material relating to Iranian ideology, clear evidence of the export of the Iranian Islamic revolution radical ideas to Lebanon. The materials were printed in Arabic by publishing houses connected to Hezbollah and distributed among Hezbollah and the Shi’ite community in Lebanon. Hezbollah has adopted Iranian ideology and like Iran, considers the destruction of the State of Israel its mission.

* For example, in the village of Marun al-Ras (and others) copies of a booklet called Jihad were taken from Hezbollah terrorists. It was apparently initially meant for the Iranian armed forces, especially the Revolutionary Guards. It contains many quotations of statements made by Khamenei, who views jihad as a doctrine and plan of action by which every Muslim can “sacrifice his life for the sake of Allah and reach paradise.” The height of jihad is shahadah, a martyr’s death for the sake of Allah. Jihad and shahadah are two of the central themes in religious Islamic perception as conceived by the Ayatollah Khomeini and his heir, Khamenei.5

Exporting Iranian ideology

* The cover of the booklet Jihad, which was published in 2004 by the Imam Khomeini Cultural Center in Haret Hreik, a suburb of south Beirut. It was captured from Hezbollah terrorists in south Lebanon during the second Lebanon war. The picture at the right is Khamenei, under which is a picture of three “fighters” The booklet recounts experiences of Revolutionary Guards in Iran.

* During the second Lebanon war, a booklet entitled “My Leader” was captured from Hezbollah operatives in the village of Yarun. It was published by Hezbollah’s scouting movement (“the Imam al-Mahdi Scouts”) and contained biographical information about Iranian leader Khamenei, around whom Hezbollah terrorist-operatives have formed a personality cult. Khamenei is represented in the booklet as admirable and worthy of emulation, and as an example of a devoted jihad fighter who contributed much to the Islamic revolution. 24.

* The cover of the booklet with a picture of ‘Ali Khamenei (right) and the leader of the Islamic Revolution in Iran, the Ayatollah Khomeni in profile (left). The upper text reads, “The Imam al-Mahdi Scouts” and the lower, “Selected passages from the biography of the commander, the highest source of [Shi’ite Islamic] authority, the imam Khamenei, may Allah grant him long life.”

The emblem of the Imam al-Mahdi Scout

Massive supply of state-of-the-art weapons

Center: ‘Ali Akbar Mohtashamipour, one of the founders of Hezbollah and today head of the Headquarters for Intifada (i.e., Palestinian terrorism) Support. Right: Khaled Mashal, head of Hamas’s political bureau. Left: Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah’s secretary general (January 2003). Mohtashamipour admitted that Iran had given Hezbollah long-range Zelzal 2 missiles.

* During the past six years the supply of high-quality weapons from Iran and Syria to Hezbollah has been accelerated, and some of them were used by Hezbollah during the second Lebanon war. Prominent among them were the long range missiles targeting civilian population centers in Israel (such rockets cannot not be aimed with precision, and therefore they indiscriminately hit the civilian population).

Hezbollah’s weapons threat to Israel’s population centers:
range of Iranian rockets in Hezbollah possession

* There were three categories of weapons:
o Weapons manufactured by Iran’s military industry , including long range Fajr-3 rockets, with a range of 43 km ( miles) and Fajr-5, with a range of 75 km (47 miles). In our assessment, in some instances Hezbollah independently decided to fire the weapons in accordance with what it perceived as the needs of the war, and in some instances needed Iranian approval.
o Weapons manufactured by Syria’s military industry , including 220 mm rockets with a range of up to 75 km (47 miles) and 302 mm rockets with a range of more than 110 km (68 miles). At least partial payment for the rockets came from Iran. Hezbollah preferred the Syrian rockets during the war.
o Weapons manufactured in other countries and given to Hezbollah by Syria and Iran , including 122 mm long range rockets made in China and furnished by Iran. For example, advanced Kornet and Metis anti-tank missiles, RPG-29s and SA-7 and SA-14 anti-aircraft missiles, all made in Russia and furnished by Syria, and Chinese C-802 land-to-sea cruise missiles given to Hezbollah by Iran.
* The weapons furnished by Iran were mostly manufactured by the Iranian military industry, although some were manufactured elsewhere. They included:6
o Long-range Zelzal ground-to-ground rockets , which can reach targets 125-210 kms (78-130 miles) away, depending on the model.7 Zelzal-1 rockets have a range of 125 km and Zelzal-2 rockets have a range of 210 km. Both have a diameter of 610 mm (2 ft) and carry a warhead weighing 600 kg (1320 lbs). In our assessment, such rockets were severely damaged during the second Lebanon war and were not used.



Zelzal rocket launchers

Remains of a Zelzal rocket near Beirut whose launcher was hit by the Israeli Air Force
(Al-Jazeera TV, July 17).

o Long-range Fajr-3 and Fajr-5 ground-to-ground missiles manufactured in Iran. The Fajr-3 has a maximum range of 43 km (27 miles), a diameter of 240 mm (almost 10 inches) and carries a warhead weighing 90 kg (208 lbs). The Fajr-5 has a maximum range of 75 km (47 miles). Their technology is very simple and they are inaccurate. Strategically they were the main threat to Israel’s northern population, although they were used infrequently during the second Lebanon war (they were aimed at Haifa and hit the outskirts of the city). We are uncertain whether that was because they were damaged or because Hezbollah and/or Iran decided not to use them.


The remains of Fajr-3 rockets (including engine)
o Iranian-manufactured Falaq rockets which carry a large warhead and are used to attack fortified targets . The Falaq-1 has a range of 10 km (almost 6 miles), a diameter of 240 mm and carries a 50 kg (110 lb) warhead. The Falaq-2 has a maximum range of 11 km (almost 7 miles), a diameter of 333 mm (13 inches) and carries a 120 kg (264 lb) warhead.

Vehicle carrying a Falaq -1 rocket launcher,

Falaq -1 rocket,

Falaq -2 rocket

o Iranian-manufactured long-range Naze’at rockets of various models (4 through 10). They have a maximum range of 80-140 km (50-87 miles), diameters varying from 356-450 mm (14-18 in) and carry warheads weighing between 240 and 430 kg (528-946 lbs). As far as can be ascertained, they were not used during the second Lebanon war.

A Haifa house destroyed by a rocket
(Photo courtesy of the Israeli Police For

o Upgrad Iranian-manufactured anti-tank missiles with a double tandem-type warhead which can penetrate armor even after reactive shielding: 8 the Raad, an Iranian version of the Sagger, has range of 3000 meters (1.86 miles) and can penetrate 400 mm; the Raad-T, an Iranian version of the Sagger with a tandem warhead, has a range of 3000 meters and can also penetrate 400 mm (16”) after reactive shielding; the Toophan is an Iranian version of the TOW, has a range of up to 3750 meters (2.33 miles) and can penetrate 550 mm (22”) steel armor. Iran and Syria delivered advanced anti-tank missile to Hezbollah and they were used with a high degree of skill day and night, hitting dozens of armored IDF vehicles in south Lebanon.

o Chinese-manufactured land-to-sea C-802 cruise missiles , such as the one which hit the Israeli gunboat off the coast of Beirut on July 14,two days after the war began. The missile killed four crewmembers and Chinese C-802 land-to-sea missile e damage to the boat. The C-802 has a range of 65 naval miles and carries a warhead weighing 165 kg (363 lbs).

o Ababil unmanned air vehicles (UAVs) , developed and manufactured by the Iranian areonautical industry. There are a number of different models, including reconnaissance and “attacker” UAVs carrying warheads weighing scores of kilograms. The “attacker” UAVs have two guidance systems: a camera with a range of dozens of kilometers and GPS with a range of more than 100 km (62 miles). Hezbollah sent reconnaissance UAVs into Israel a number of times before the war.9 On August 7 Hezbollah launched an “attacker” UAV which was shot down over the Haifa shore. On August 13, its remains were found in an open field near Kibbutz Kabri, about 4 km (2 1 miles) east of Nahariya.

A poster showing an airplane on which is written Mirsad-1 (the Ababil is called Mirsad-1 by Hezbollah). It was carried in the “Jerusalem Day” procession in Baalbek (Al-Manar TV, November 12, 2004)
o Motorized hang gliders , to which a small piston motor can be attached, as they were used by Palestinian terrorists during “the night of the hang gliders,” (November 25, 1987). The system preserves the form and operation of the hang glider but gives it propulsion sufficient to raise it to a greater than usual height and assure it a prolonged stay in the air, allowing it a range greater than 100 km (62 miles).
o Russian SA-7 and SA-14 anti-aircraft missiles.
o Various types of artillery and mortars.
o Improved Iranian-manufactured Nader RPGs , an Iranian version of the RPG-7. It has range of 300 meters (328 yds), its main warhead has a diameter of 80 mm (3”) and it can penetrate 280 mm (11”) of steel.

RPG rocket-launcher found in Lebanon by the IDF, bearing the emblem of Iran’s military industry (Photo courtesy of the IDF spokesman)

o Night-vision goggles .10
o Equipment and weapons for small-scale sea fighting. It is possible that Iran also sent Hezbollah vessels such as torpedo boats, miniature submarines, etc .

Ways of smuggling weapons into Lebanon

o The Iranians smuggle most of the weapons into Lebanon by a combination of air and overland routes. They reach Lebanon in Iranian planes which land at the Damascus international airport. From there they are transported overland to Hezbollah in Lebanon. The Syrians have studiously ignored repeated appeals from the United State, the international community and the UN to keep their territory from being used as an illegal Hezbollah weapons and ammunition supply route.

o During the past few years the Iranians have exploited the opportunities which presented themselves, such as the humanitarian aid flights for the victims of the earthquake at Bam in southeastern Iran (December 2003-January 2004). On at least nine separate occasions, the Qods Force used the Iranian and Syrian cargo planes bringing humanitarian aid, loading the return flights with large amounts of weapons and other equipment for Hezbollah.

o During and after the second Lebanon war the Iranians continued sending Hezbollah weapons, disguising them as humanitarian aid.11 In our assessment, some of the attempts were foiled by IDF activity. According to Security Council Resolution 1701, the Lebanese government is supposed to prevent the smuggling of weapons to Hezbollah (aided by UNIFIL, should it so desire). The Syrians have already made it clear that they will oppose UNIFIL action along the Syrian-Lebanese boundary.

Training Hezbollah

* The Iranians instruct and train Hezbollah terrorists to use the new weapons at designated training camps in Iran, using Revolutionary Guard bases and installations. Additional instruction and guidance are provided by the Revolutionary Guards for Hezbollah terrorists in Lebanon.12

* The two main camps used by the Qods Force to train foreign terrorist-operatives are the Imam ‘Ali camp in Teheran and the camp at Honar near Karaj, north of Teheran. Two of the Hezbollah terrorists who were captured by the IDF during the second Lebanon war revealed during interrogation that they had been trained by the Revolutionary Guards at the training camp at Karaj. One of them even stated that in 1999 he had received anti-aircraft training and that his instructor had been a high-ranking Iranian named Hassan Irlu.

* Hezbollah operatives have undergone varied training courses in Iran, from combined maneuvers through the use of anti-tank missiles (including Saggers and TOWs) to the use of anti-aircraft missiles. Special attention has been paid to Hezbollah units operating weapons perceived as strategic, such as ground-to-ground rockets with a range of more than 75 kms (46 miles) and UAVs. It should be noted those who helped Hezbollah launch the UAV into Israel in November 7, 2004 were Revolutionary Guards officers.

* Hussein ‘Ali Suleiman, a Hezbollah terrorist who was involved in the abduction of the two IDF soldiers on July 12, was captured during the second Lebanon war. During interrogation he said that he and 40-50 other Hezbollah members had undergone training in Iran. Their passports, he said, had not been stamped in Syria or Iran in order to hide the fact that they had been trained in Iran.

“It was my job to block [IDF] reinforcements from the [IDF] post [called Livneh], and the internal road.” Hussein ‘Ali Suleiman, trained in Iran, during interrogation (Photo courtesy of the IDF spokesman)

Supervising the build-up of Hezbollah’s military strength and preparing it for a possible confrontation with Israel

* During the six years since the IDF withdrew from the security zone in south Lebanon, the Iranian Revolutionary Guards in Lebanon upgraded Hezbollah’s military operational capabilities while preparing for a possible confrontation with Israel .

* The Revolutionary Guards established a well-organized and well-planned military deployment zone for Hezbollah in south Lebanon. It was more in the style of an Iranian division than the force of a terrorist organization . Thus the Revolutionary Forces created the model of a terrorist organization for Hezbollah with state capabilities. The Hezbollah “division” was constructed with the supervision and counsel of members of the Revolutionary Guards, who visited south Lebanon frequently and sometimes even approached the fence along the border with Israel.

* That was confirmed by one of the Hezbollah terrorists captured during the war, who said that a year and a half previously, while he was on guard in south Lebanon, two Iranians and two Hezbollah commanders visited the post. He identified one of the Iranians as “Mahmoud,” a member for the Revolutionary Guards who had been his instructor during anti-aircraft training he had had in Iran.

* In effect, the Hezbollah formation in south Lebanon was the direct product of Iranian doctrine and technology supplied by Iran and Syria . Hezbollah’s military zone in south Lebanon was composed of a number of territorial brigades and anti-tank, artillery, logistics, engineering and communications units. It was subordinate to a kind of Hezbollah “general staff” in the southern Beirut Shi’ite neighborhood of Dahia. The “general staff” had various functions such as a “strategic weapons” unit (ground-to-ground rockets) an aerial unit (UAVs), a marine unit and others.

Financing Hezbollah

* The cost of supporting Hezbollah’s vast military and social infrastructure is beyond the organization’s resources. Its annual budget is estimated at about $100 million, most of which comes from Iran. The money finances the organization’s terrorist-operative activities and infrastructures, purchases weapons, pays the operatives salaries, pays for training and is also invested in financing terrorist attacks in the Palestinian Authority.

* In addition, the generous Iranian financial support pays for the organization’s expenses and broad social activities , such as the operation of schools, hospitals and clinics, welfare institutions, etc., and also finances propaganda and indoctrination activities . These activities are aimed at deepening its penetration of the Shi’ite community and creating new generations of terrorists.

* The Iranians transfer the funds to Hezbollah through the Revolutionary Guards’ Qods Force, the foreign ministry, and its embassies in Damascus and Beirut. The Hezbollah budget is also paid by quasi-government institutions and charitable societies and organizations under Khamenei’s control which have branches in Lebanon.

* It should be noted that Iranian financial aid to Hezbollah increased after the IDF withdrew from the security zone, with the objectives of improving the organization’s military capabilities and increasing support for the activities of the Palestinian terrorist organizations in the PA. After the second Lebanon war the Iranians can be expected to provide Hezbollah with massive amounts of money, in our assessment several hundred million dollars,13 to repair the heavy damages caused to the Shi’ite populations in Beirut and south Lebanon.

The damage done to Hezbollah’s military infrastructure during the war

* During the second Lebanon war the IDF severely damaged Hezbollah’s broad military infrastructures in south Lebanon, Beirut and the Beqa’a Valley. Weapons and headquarters were destroyed and more than 500 terrorists were killed. It will apparently take Hezbollah a great deal of time to rehabilitate its fighting force. The arsenal of rockets it stockpiled through the years was significantly damaged , especially its long-range rockets . However, the organization still has the capabilities to fire rockets into the State of Israel .

* Despite the blows Hezbollah’s military infrastructure suffered, and despite the blow to its standing in Lebanon, it was not defeated and can be rehabilitated . Thus it can be expected that Iran, supported by Syria, will made the effort to repair the damage done to its front-line outpost in Lebanon by supplying weapons (especially rockets) and pouring large sums of money into rebuilding civilian infrastructures.

Summary and Conclusions

* Through the massive support given to Hezbollah by Iran and Syria since its inception, the organization has turned from a local Lebanese terrorist organization, one of the many operating in Lebanon, into a military force with strong military operational capabilities and a great deal of influence both within the Shi’ite community and on the overall Lebanese political scene . In the eyes of its sponsors, Hezbollah has become a strategic asset which serves their regional policies well.

* Hezbollah’s terrorist-operative capabilities, which are those of a state, not a terrorist organization, were demonstrated during the second Lebanon war, earlier than what Iran and Syria had planned . It was evident that the military infrastructure constructed in Lebanon permitted the Iranians and Syrians to both attack and respond to Israel, and that its control was largely in Iranian hands .

* Hezbollah’s existence has made the Iranians, in their own eyes, a factor with the ability to escalate the destabilization of the region without direct intervention and to harm Israeli and Western interests in accordance with Iranian policy considerations . Thus in the near future the Iranians and Syrians can be expected to make an effort to rebuild Hezbollah’s military infrastructures and ignore Security Council Resolution 1701.

1. The Iranians provide the Shi’ite militias in Iraq with weapons, ammunition, money and instructions for preparing explosive charges and even carrying out attacks.
2. Shimon Shapira, Hizbullah between Iran and Lebanon, (Hebrew) Hakibbutz Hameuchad Publishing House, (Tel Aviv, 2000), pp. 96-133.
3. For further information see our Information Bulletin entitled “’Exporting’ the radical ideology of the Islamic revolution in Iran,” at and
4. For further information about Iranian and Shi’ite terrorism and about Iranian-directed Hezbollah attacks, see both parts of our Information Bulletin entitled “ Hezbollah: profile of the Lebanese Shiite terrorist organization of global reach sponsored by Iran and supported by Syria,” at and Also see “Iran as a state sponsoring and operating terror,” at or
5. See Footnote 4.
6. The list does not include weapons given to Hezbollah by Syria.
7. In an exceptional statement, ‘Ali Akbar Mohtashamipour admitted that Zelzal-2 rockets had been given to Hezbollah (in an interview with the reformist daily paper Sharq, August 3).
8. A new type of tank armor which explodes a projectile before it comes into contact with the tank body.
9. On the morning of November 7, 2004, Hezbollah sent a reconnaissance UAV which passed over Nahariya and crashed into the sea as it returned to south Lebanon, apparently because of a technical fault. On April 11, 2005, the organization sent another reconnaissance UAV which flew between Acre and Nahariya and landed safely in south Lebanon.
10. The spokesman for the British Foreign Office stated that the IDF had found British-made night vision goggles used by Hezbollah in south Lebanon. The London Times reported that the 250 pairs of goggles found in south Lebanon had been sent to Iran by Britain in 2003 as part of a British-Iranian joint effort to fight drug-smuggling.
11. Some of the flights exploited for the transport of weapons went through Turkey. A spokesman for the Turkish Foreign Ministry confirmed a Turkish newspaper report which claimed that the authorities had forced two Iranian planes on their way to Syria to land because they suspected them of being used to smuggle weapons to Hezbollah.
12. Iran also supports the Palestinian terrorist organizations and members of the Qods Force train Palestinian terrorists in Lebanon and sometimes in Iran as well.
13. Hezbollah has publicly committed itself to pay $150 million in reparations for the destruction of houses, especially in south Lebanon and Dahia. Only from Iran can the organization receive such sums.

Friday, September 10, 2010

Burning the Koran: Why Not?

September 10, 2010 - Vincent Gioia

Once again the world shows Muslims we are deathly afraid of them and they can do anything with impunity. We might expect this of the wimpy states of Europe but not of the United States of America. What happened to the American spirit that repulsed the Muslim Barberry pirates? Incredibly we see leaders on the right and left all announcing fear of reprisals for the decision by a pastor of a congregation of about fifty people to burn the Koran as a reminder that it was Muslims who killed over 3,000 people September 11, 2001. These murders were not ordinary killers, they acted out of their belief in the Koran edicts to kill non Muslims. Why should anyone respect a book that's only message is that Muslims and their arrogant ideology must rule the world?

Consider the array of Americans of all stripes who denounce the burning of the Koran. Of course leading the pack is the self-avowed Christian of Muslim background, the illustrious President Barack Hussein Obama. This is not surprising but joining Obama is Tea Party favorite, conservative Sarah Palin. General Petraeus says burning the Koran will incite more Muslim killings; do Muslims need more reasons to kill American soldiers? Hillary Clinton, herself the perpetrator of numerous disgraceful acts, calls the burning of the Koran a "disrespectful, disgraceful act." It is reported that "In Washington, a broad coalition of religious leaders from evangelical, Roman Catholic, Jewish and Muslim organizations called Jones' plan a violation of American values." This is amazing since in virtually all Muslim countries the bible is prohibited and anyone preaching from it can be killed.

Attorney General Eric Holder, called burning the Koran idiotic and dangerous. This from the man who would not prosecute Muslim Black Panthers for intimidating white voters at election halls.

If that's not enough to frost your britches, get this, Obama's press secretary told reporters "Any type of activity like that that puts our troops in harm's way would be a concern to this administration." Really? You mean that if the Koran is not burned our troops would not be "in harm’s way?"

It gets even more ridiculous. State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said the administration hoped that more Americans would stand up and condemn the church's plan.

Crowley said "We think that these are provocative acts. We would like to see more Americans stand up and say that this is inconsistent with our American values; in fact, these actions themselves are un-American."

Un-American indeed! Since when is exercising free speech considered "un-American?"

Crowley added "We hope that between now and Saturday there will be a range of voices across America that make clear to this community that this is not the way for us to commemorate 9/11. In fact, it is consistent with the radicals and religious bigots who attacked us on 9/11."

Is the Obama administration really comparing burning a book equivalent to the destruction of the twin towers, an attack on the Pentagon, killing of all passengers aboard four airplanes and murder of over 3,000 people?

No Mr. Crowley and Mr. President Obama, it is my hope that more Americans will rise up in support of the Pastor and say to the world "I'm fed up and can't take it anymore."

Unfortunately after visits by the FBI (why would the FBI visit except to frighten the Pastor into submission) and incredible pressure from those in and out of the country, the Pastor has relented and agreed not to burn the Koran as he intended.

Now that we have caved in to Muslim demands and the Koran will not be burned, what message are we sending Muslims? We announced to the Muslim world that all they need to do is threaten violence and the world will give in to their demands. Why wouldn't Muslims at some point tell us to convert to Islam or face death? This worked centuries ago and, it seems, it would work again now.

Get ready for a Mosque near you and start learning Arabic. Contributing Editor Vincent Gioia is a retired patent attorney living in Palm Desert, California. His blogs at and he may be contacted at

Wednesday, September 08, 2010

Beloved Emblem of a Conflicted Israel

Gilad Schalit -- Jerusalem Post Person of the Year
September 8, 2010

All of us, no matter whether we pray, how we pray or where we pray this coming holiday, will have a common prayer on our lips, and in our hearts. It will be the prayer that 5771 be the year in which Gilad Schalit emerges from darkness into light, from bondage to freedom, from the grip of evil to the embrace of a society desperate to help him heal. It will be the prayer that somehow, some way, this will be the year that we prove to ourselves, and to him, that because he's our son, we never relinquished our dream, never abandoned our hope and never abdicated our duty to bring our son home.

Saving IsraelSaving Israel: How the Jewish People Can Win a War that May Never End, which won a 2009 National Jewish Book Award, will be available in a paperback edition in mid-September. It is also available in hardcover, as well as in a Kindle edition for immediate download. There's also an audio version available.
"Few books can combine the sweep of Israel's complex and extraordinary history with personal insight and passion. Saving Israel accomplishes this and more, it educates and inspires it readers while furnishing them with well-grounded hope for the future. Daniel Gordis has written an essential text for students, scholars, journalists--anyone concerned with the survival of the Jewish State."
--Michael Oren, Israeli Ambassador to the United States


'Our dear, sweet Gilad: Abba and Ima, Yoel and Hadas very much want to hear from you and hope that you are healthy and are feeling well, as well as is possible in your situation.' Who among us could have imagined, back on June 26, 2006, as a rapt Israel listened to the radio and heard those words and the letter from Gilad Schalit's parents that followed, that more than four years later he would still not be home? That some 1,540 interminable days and lonely nights later, his captors would still not have permitted him a single visit from the Red Cross. Or that with five birthdays now marked in captivity, that boyish face with the innocent grin would have united us, moved us, haunted us and inspired us the way he has.

Gilad Schalit has become us. As individuals, as a society and as a country, we have all come to see ourselves in him.

He is our son, regardless of who we are. Left or Right, religious or secular, hawks or doves - it makes no difference. There is not an Israeli who does not yearn to welcome him home.

He's afforded us a dream we all share - each and every one of us desperately wants Gilad returned to his parents, to his siblings, to his home in Galilee. Wistfully, we imagine the day he returns. Picture this: thousands of people, holding Israeli flags, standing silently alongside the road, honoring the Schalit family's sacrifice and their nobility as a car drives from some Gaza crossing, or an airstrip somewhere, up to Galilee on the way to Mitzpe Hila. It won't be that, probably, but there's hardly one of us who hasn't formed an image of what it might be like.

He's made wonderers of us all. His picture appears on our computer, or we see him on a poster outside, and we find ourselves staring into space, wondering where he is. What he knows. What he's thinking. Does he know that there are millions of us thinking about him, yearning to see him home? Does he know that though the decisions about how to get him back have become divisive, the fact that we desperately want him returned to the embrace of the country he was serving when he was stolen is one of the few subjects on which we're all united? Does he know his name is mentioned in hundreds of synagogues every week, in Israel and throughout the world? That his photograph has become ubiquitous, that his image is the "profile picture" of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people on Facebook?

GILAD HAS BECOME our son because there is not an Israeli parent with a son or daughter in a combat unit who doesn't, during some sleepless night, shudder with the dread that the Schalit family nightmare could become theirs. Because of him, we hug our sons a bit tighter, and longer, when they come home from their units. Because of Gilad, we have asked ourselves, in the dark of night or perhaps at the dinner table in heated discussion with our spouses, our children and our friends, why we're here. What was it that brought us here? Or that keeps us here? What is it that we believe in so deeply and passionately that we, too, knowingly send our children into harm's way, fully cognizant that "they - the Schalits" could, God forbid, become "we."

He has brought us to ask ourselves the most important questions Israelis can ask - who else in recent memory has done that?

Because of Gilad, and because of his parents, we have been reminded of the fundamental decency of everyday Israelis. Four years after they unhappily and unwillingly entered our collective consciousness, four years after they crawled, of necessity, under our national microscope, has anyone uttered even a single critical word about Noam or Aviva Schalit? Of course, some Israelis object vehemently to the trade the Schalits pray we'll make. But have we heard anything at all critical of them personally?

Ours is a cynical country, with a sometimes heartless media. But the Schalits have nothing to hide. They are the epitome of utter decency. Four years after their son was kidnapped, it is still obvious that they shun the camera; they ask for nothing more than that their son, and then their privacy, be returned to them. Years of frustration and desperation, and, one must assume, deep anger, have never evoked a single non-patriotic word from them.

Even with their son in captivity, the Schalits sent their daughter off to the army. Without fanfare, without seeking to leverage her service for more attention to their son's plight. Because they represent an Israeli goodness that many of us feared no longer survived. And because, quite amazingly, they still believe in the country that has been unable to redeem their son from the horrors of desperate aloneness, unimaginable suffering and prolonged captivity. They have taught us the dignity with which it is possible to be furious with a government and still loyal to the country it represents.

And yet, though Gilad is everywhere, he is nowhere. He is nowhere because we do not know where he is. And he is nowhere because even after more than four long and agonizing years, we do not really know him. We know his name, his rank, his age. We know the names of his parents, his siblings, his home town. But all that, of course, tells us nothing about Gilad Schalit. What he loved before he was taken. What made him laugh. When he cried. Of what he dreamed. What he wanted to do after the army. The music he likes and the books he'd still not gotten around to reading. What he thought about his country, his army.

WE KNOW NONE of that. So he is everywhere, but he is nowhere. Omnipresent, he is still elusive. And in a strange and unexpected way, that omnipresence and elusiveness capture who we are - we care deeply about him, but know virtually nothing about him. It is, perhaps, just like our love of this country, to which we are so deeply committed, without knowing what sort of place it will ultimately become.

And in many ways, Gilad Schalit has become a metaphor for Israel, and for Israel's condition.

Who would have imagined four years ago that the boy with the grin and the gun that looks too big for him would become one of the few symbols of Israel to be embraced by the international community? In an era in which Israel is vilified almost everywhere, the world has embraced our stolen son. Miami, New Orleans, Rome and Paris have all made him an Honorary Citizen. It does him no good, of course, and he's probably unaware of it. But one day, we pray, he'll know that in this age of relentless delegitimization, it was he - Gilad Schalit - who still managed to bridge the Jewish state to the too-often hardened hearts of a still hate-filled Europe.

Gilad's fate has also become emblematic of one of our deepest traumas - he is a captive only because our enemies tricked us, capitalizing on the fact that we were careless. Had we been more vigilant, Gilad might be home, and his comrades, Lt. Hanan Barak and St.- Sgt. Pavel Slutzker, might still be alive. Were we less cavalier about our allegedly ragtag foes, we might not have fared so poorly in the Second Lebanon War, and we might have prepared better for the seemingly innocuous flotilla making its way to our shores.

Have we learned from Gilad's bitter fate? Are we going to make similar mistakes with Iran? The botched circumstances of his capture remind us that we are too often cocky and arrogant, and too dismissive of those who seek our destruction. What a horrific price he and his family are paying for someone else's bravado.

Gilad is "us" because our inability to get him home is a metaphor for the undeniable decline in our strategic position. Gone is the euphoria of June 1967. The days of Entebbe are long passed; our enemies have become infinitely more wily. This is the era not of Uganda, but of Lebanon II, of flotillas and of the dread of the "morning after" should Israel decide that there's no alternative to preventing a nuclear Iran. His prolonged captivity is an agonizing reminder of what we can no longer pull off.

And because his ongoing captivity points to our diminished power, his cause evokes rage and bitter disagreement. Perhaps, some say, his parents should have focused the international community's attention not on Israel's government, but on Hamas and Iran, who after all, are the ones holding him in violation of countless international standards.

GILAD SCHALIT has become the lightning rod for our deep divisions about how to survive in this dangerous part of the world: If we make the outrageous trade that Hamas demands, will we end up attending more funerals, as we bury the newest victims of murderers we have just released? Can an entire country and its security be held hostage because of one admittedly unfortunate soldier?

But what is the alternative? To let a soldier, yes - but also a son - rot in Gaza for decades to come? Shall we send our next sons to war burdened with the knowledge that were they captured, we would not bring them home? It is that impossible bind that Gilad has come to represent - an Israel that is humane and parental to the point of being willing to empower our enemies by returning murderers to their ranks, but also an Israel desperate to regain the ruthlessness we may need to survive in this region.

So far, though, we have found neither the capacity to free him nor the possibly necessary callousness required to say en masse that despite the horror, we will not trade. Ours is a society mired and divided - and Gilad Schalit represents the agony that has emerged.

Finally, Gilad, along with his parents, Noam and Aviva, has helped us recover the passion, the belonging and the belief in what we're building here, of which too many of us have begun to despair.

On a sweltering day in early July, just outside the Gaza border, Zubin Mehta conducted the Israel Philharmonic Orchestra during a concert in support of the Schalits' march to Jerusalem. Perhaps because public concerts on political subjects are too closely tied to our memories of the Rabin assassination, many people paid the concert scant attention.

But that evening was one of those moments when the power of the Israeli collective transcended our well-honed cynicism. The philharmonic played, and Shlomo Artzi sang. And then, the concert concluded with "Hatikva"; yellow balloons, released into the sky, drifted above the border. Even visitors to Israel, who were in attendance but who didn't speak Hebrew, and who therefore couldn't follow the proceedings, understood they had just seen something extraordinary. They were witness to a society that, despite it all, has still not forgotten how to dream and how to join hands, and that still understands that Israel is more than a country - it is a project.

IN THAT WAY, too, in this era of insufferable divisiveness, Gilad Schalit has unknowingly brought us together.
Kol od balevav pnima, nefesh yehudi homiya. "As long as the Jewish heart still yearns," "Hatikva" assures us, "our hope is not yet lost." Gilad Schalit affords this cynical and often pain-racked society a reason to hope. For a better year. For a son returned home. For parents redeemed from their agony. For a horrifically painful chapter of Israeli history to be closed, before it is too late.

All of us, no matter whether we pray, how we pray or where we pray this coming holiday, will have a common prayer on our lips, and in our hearts. It will be the prayer that 5771 be the year in which Gilad Schalit emerges from darkness into light, from bondage to freedom, from the grip of evil to the embrace of a society desperate to help him heal. It will be the prayer that somehow, some way, this will be the year that we prove to ourselves, and to him, that because he's our son, we never relinquished our dream, never abandoned our hope and never abdicated our duty to bring our son home.

Comments and responses here:

What Glenn Beck can teach Israel

Caroline B. Glick
A prayer for 5771

On August 28, Fox News commentator Glenn Beck confounded his colleagues in the media when he brought hundreds of thousands of Americans to the Lincoln Memorial on the National Mall in Washington, DC for a rally he called "Restoring Honor." While former Alaska governor Sarah Palin was the keynote speaker, the rally was decidedly apolitical. The speakers said nothing controversial. The crowd was enthusiastic but not rowdy. US President Barack Obama was never even mentioned by name. In the event, the massive crowd gathered, prayed, celebrated American military heroes, listened to patriotic speeches and songs. Then the participants picked up their garbage and went home.

So what was it all about? Why do many people see it as a watershed event?

Although Beck called the rally "Restoring Honor," it wasn't really about restoring honor. It was about restoring something even more important. It was about restoring the American creed.

That creed is so ingrained that it has served as the subtext of every major political and civic speech by every American political and civic leader since the eighteenth century. The American creed has two main components. First, its core belief is that America is an exceptional country and that the American people are an exceptional nation. Second, it asserts that as Abraham Lincoln first said outright, America is the last, best hope for mankind.

The reason Beck's rally was a watershed event is that in the Age of Obama, millions of Americans for the first time feel the need to reclaim what they believe is their birthright as Americans. Because what distinguishes Obama from his predecessors is that he is the first American President who clearly rejects the American creed.

This basic truth was first brought to the public's attention during Obama's visit to Turkey last year. A reporter there asked him, "[Do] you subscribe, as many of your predecessors have, to the school of 'American exceptionalism' that sees America as uniquely qualified to lead the world, or do you have a slightly different philosophy?"

Obama replied, "I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism."

That is, the US President said, no, he doesn't believe in the American exceptionalism. He rejects the American creed.

Obama's unprecedented position stands at the core of the actions he has taken and the positions he has adopted since coming into office. From his move to nationalize the American healthcare system, to his attacks on the free market; from his insinuations that his political opponents are bigoted and primitive to his effective rejection of the mantle of US superpower status and global leadership in favor of transnationalism, Obama has clearly rejected the building blocks of America's national DNA.


Every weekday publishes what many in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". HUNDREDS of columnists and cartoonists regularly appear. Sign up for the daily update. It's free. Just click here.

O And this is why Beck's rally was important. At the rally Beck and the crowd he assembled committed themselves to repairing the damage Obama is causing. What the multitudes who congregated at the Lincoln Memorial two weeks ago understood is that America's greatness as a nation is entirely predicated on its creed. If the creed is abandoned, while America may hang around for awhile, its path to ruin will be inexorable.

Lincoln once called Americans "G0d's almost chosen people." In saying that, he linked American history to the history of the Jews. Whereas the Jews singled ourselves out as the chosen people by agreeing to accept G0d's law, in Lincoln's view, Americans accepted the burdens and the gifts of a unique national path and mission in accepting the American creed.

The American creed has been cultivated, preserved and defended for some 350 years. The Jewish creed America's founders turned to for inspiration has been cultivated, preserved and defended for 3,500 years.

The Jewish creed is predicated on the dual destiny of the Jews: to be both a nation that dwells alone and a light to the nations.

G0d bestowed the Jews with three tools to achieve these twin, and seemingly contradictory missions. He gave us the Law of Israel. He gave us the Nation of Israel. And he gave us the Land of Israel.

The law of Israel, the Torah, is the human path to righteousness and holiness. By obeying the laws and recognizing the frailty of mankind as a collective, the Jews comprise a distinct nation that is a blessing and an inspiration to the world.

By building our lives in the land of Israel, our birthright, the Jews are able to cultivate our heritage and perform our dual mission in relative peace and make the blessing of choseness tangible for ourselves and the world as a whole.

For 3,500 years, successive generations of Jews have understood our mission and creed. They internalized it and lived their lives by it.

Since the dawn of modern Zionism, the overwhelming majority of Jews, in Israel and throughout the world have recognized the return to the land of Israel as the harbinger of redemption for the Jewish people — and through it, for the world. This understanding has been so ingrained that it has seldom necessitated a mention.

On almost every level, the State of Israel has been an overwhelming success for the Jewish people and for the world that has enjoyed its blessings. Economically today, the Israeli economy is the envy of the world. And this is no mean feat. In its first forty-five years of independence, Israel's socialist and otherwise economically backwards leaders went to extraordinary lengths to stifle market forces and essentially doomed Israel's economy to sclerotic performance and basket-case status.

But the reforms enacted over the past fifteen years or so, mainly initiated and pushed through by Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu have transformed Israel into an economic powerhouse. Although much remains to be done to expand economic opportunity and growth, because of Netanyahu's sound economic leadership, Israel has been largely immune to the recession now plaguing much of the Western world.

Technologically as well, as the world is now recognizing, Israel has become a pintsize superpower. As George Gilder demonstrated in The Israel Test, Israeli computer entrepreneurs created the foundations of the digital age by inventing, among other things, the microprocessor and the main components of cellular telephone technology. The world we inhabit would be inconceivable without Israel's pioneering role in building it.

As for Judaism, it is flourishing in Israel today as it never has at any time in the past two thousand years. The Jewish people emerged from the brink of annihilation 65 years ago to build a Jewish state whose population is more learned in Jewish law than any Jewish community has ever been. More Jews study in institutions of Jewish learning in Israel than have studied at any time in our history. And even non-observant Jews live Jewish lives in Israel to a degree their families could never have enjoyed or imagine just four generations ago.

Israel's extraordinary success is marred by but one failure. Since Theodore Herzl's untimely death in 1904, Israel has lacked a leader who recognized the importance of espousing the Jewish creed both to the world and to the Jewish people. That is, since Herzl, Israel has lacked leaders who have understood the first principle of statecraft. For a nation to flourish and succeed over time, its leaders must assert its creed with utter confidence both to their own people and to the world at large. They must assert their nation's creed with complete confidence even to leaders who reject it. And they must never give anyone else the right to deny their people their identity.

That is, whereas Obama is the first American president to deny and denigrate the American creed, Israel has never had a prime minister who was willing to assert Israel's creed. Leftist prime ministers have failed to assert the creed because they don't accept it. Rightist prime ministers have failed to assert our creed because they fail to understand what it means to have the confidence to boldly assert an identity that people don't want you to have.

Many scholars have argued that Jewish history is also the history of anti-Semitism. By not asserting Israel's creed, Israel's leaders have essentially accepted this claim. But this claim is utterly false. The history of the Jews and the history of anti-Semites are based on parallel narratives — one is true and one is false. And like parallel lines, they never intersect.

Throughout history, anti-Semites have sought to deny Jews the right to define ourselves by replacing our creed of law and holiness and homeland with a false creed of conspiracy and avarice and rootlessness. Today the instruments anti-Semites employ to tell Jews who we are involve accusations against a monstrous "Israel lobby," and an attempt to deny our rights to the land of Israel.

Jews have survived repeated attempts to destroy us not because we have argued the finer points of the anti-Jewish narrative of the day, but because we have been faithful to our creed. That is, we have not survived by attacking anti-Semitic slurs, but by loyally upholding our truth.

Yet in Israel, rather than proudly assert the extraordinary, tenacious and indeed miraculous nature of our people, our law and our land, our leaders have turned our creed into a bargaining point. And if this course is not soon abandoned, it will be our undoing.

Our leaders are leading us astray by insisting that it is possible to achieve peace in the near term with our neighbors. Peace today is impossible because our neighbors reject at least two of our national creed's three components: Jewish nationhood and the Land of Israel.

Furthermore, by introducing the demand that the Arabs recognize Israel as the Jewish state, our leaders are only making matters worse. In presenting this demand, our leaders are suggesting that the Arabs have the power to grant or deny that which is not theirs to give or take away.

This evening we begin our observance of Rosh Hashana. The bible describes Rosh Hashana as the day of trumpeting. When we assemble in prayer and blow the shofar, we engage in a loud and boisterous celebration of national unity and uphold our sacred birthright to our religious heritage and the land of Israel.

At his rally Glenn Beck reminded us of the importance of loud, boisterous celebrations which recommit nations to their destiny and creed. Yet what Lincoln referred to as "the mystic chords of memory" cannot only be recalled in times of celebration. Like the American nation, for the Jewish nation to survive and prosper, that creed must resonate in all we do on all the other days of the year when the trumpets are silent.

It is my prayer for the coming year that our leaders take a measure of strength from our people and our creed. I pray that they recognize that it is both their sacred duty and their great privilege to confidently represent and defend our exceptionalism and our destiny as the nation of Israel.

Tuesday, September 07, 2010

Protest: Red Cross Headquarters or Hamas Base?

Hillel Fendel
A7 News

A group of concerned citizens held a protest outside the Red Cross offices in Jerusalem last night, demanding an end to what they called the “disgrace” taking place in the heart of the capital. Three Hamas leaders, fearful of arrest and/or deportation by Israeli authorities, have taken refuge in the Red Cross offices, near the Shimon HaTzaddik/Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood. They have been receiving visitors for more than two months, giving press interviews, and in general making themselves at home there both personally and professionally.

David Ish-Shalom, who organized the protest, told INN TV, “The police and government are, for the meanwhile, allowing Hamas leaders safe haven just 100 meters away from the National Police Headquarters – precisely as Hamas plans more terrorist attacks, perhaps from this very place, of the kind they perpetrated last week in which four Jews were killed and two were wounded.”

“We are here to demonstrate against both the Israeli government and the Red Cross,” another protestor, Dr. Aryeh Bachrach of the Terrorist Victims Association, said. “How can the government allow this situation to continue, in which diplomatic asylum is given to Hamas leaders in the heart of the country? ... At the same time, we believe that it is an unacceptable disgrace for the Red Cross, which is supposed to be a neutral organization working for peace, to not demand and insist and receive the right to visit Gilad Shalit, while at the same time it hosts and gives support and asylum to the leaders of the very organization that is holding him captive. This is hypocrisy that we cannot ignore.”

"At the Approach of Rosh Hashana"

Arlene Kushner

It is doubtful that I will post again before the beginning of Rosh Hashana, tomorrow evening. I will pick up again after Shabbat.

There are times to put aside the politics in order to concern ourselves with more ultimate issues. Rosh Hashana is certainly such a time. A time for prayer and acknowledgement of the Almighty before whom we stand. For arousing ourselves to our full potential. To each of you who will begin celebrating the holiday tomorrow night, I send my most sincere wishes for a Good Year, a year of fulfillment and health, of love and inner peace, and of prosperity. May the Almighty watch over us, guide us in the way we should go, and protect us from our enemies.


In the spirit of the holiday, I share here a very special video (with thanks to my daughter Sharon). This is the exceedingly moving story of a time pre-state, when the British forbid the blowing of the shofar at the Kotel, and of the brave young boys who risked arrest to do it anyway.


A few diverse notes in the way of politics and defense issues, before the holiday begins. Unfortunately, the world goes on as it is:


Last Friday, Michael Oren, Israeli ambassador to the US, described to AFP that Hezbollah has an arsenal of approximately 15,000 rockets amassed on Lebanon's border with Israel, including some with a long enough range to hit the southern city of Eilat.

"The Syrian-Iranian backed Hezbollah poses a very serious threat to Israel...[It] now has four times as many rockets as it had during the 2006 Lebanon war. These rockets are longer-range. Every city in Israel is within range...

"In 2006, many of their missiles were basically out in the open, in silos and the Israeli air force was able to neutralize a great number of them...Today those same missiles have been placed under hospitals, and homes and schools because Hezbollah knows full well if we try to defend ourselves against them, we will be branded once again as war criminals."


It was not simply a randomly-timed observation Oren was delivering. His statement followed an explosion in a Hezbollah weapons storage facility in the town of Shehabiyeh in Lebanon, a Shia stronghold. While several people were injured during the explosion, Hezbollah trucks were observed coming in to evacuate the weapons. UNIFIL forces were prevented from entering the area until the weapons had been relocated to nearby Hezbollah villages.

The IDF has video footage of this.


Much has been made of late of the greatly improved competency of the PA security forces. So much has that competency been exaggerated that I find many people don't realize how extensively the IDF still operates in PA areas. And so I would like to call your attention to this article by Hillel Frisch of the BESA Center, "What Abbas Wants":

"Hamas, and to a much lesser extent, Islamic Jihad, remain a substantial threat to Abbas, and the threat of a Hamas takeover in the West Bank has yet to dissipate. Dealing with this threat entails good security cooperation between Abbas and Israeli security forces - an arrangement in which Israel deals with the Hamas terrorist infrastructure by night while Abbas' security forces harass Hamas terrorists by day...

"Abbas is essentially using the IDF to gain the kind of political and security foothold Arab leaders recognize as being essential to the art of ruling. He is assuming the role of the traditional Arab ruler - controlling all the funds, avoiding elections (which will only be held if the outcome is a foregone conclusion), allowing no opposition, and making sure that his picture appears daily on the front page of the media.

"Such security cooperation can hardly take place once any kind of peace arrangement is achieved. At that point, Israeli security presence in the West Bank would have to cease. This would leave Abbas' security forces to face Hamas alone. So Abbas prefers not to make progress in the peace talks until the terrorist swamp is more effectively dried up. A Hamas takeover in the West Bank must be averted at all costs. This means that no substantial progress in the peace talks can be made before such a danger is dealt with.

At the same time, the pretense of peace talks is essential to placating the 'Arab street.'"


I make a further observation here: Frisch speaks of "until the terrorist swamp is more effectively dried up," but there is no indication of this happening. Especially is this the case as we are, very foolishly in my opinion, ceding the PA forces more control in some areas. Part of those 'confidence building measures' or something.

My own impression, based on interviews with a variety of experts, including a reserve general, is that the PA forces are simply not going to strengthen to the point of going it alone.


The World Jewish Congress just held a meeting with 200 representatives from around the world in David's Citadel Hotel, which is on King David Street in WEST Jerusalem.

According to WAFA, the PLO news agency, Israel's willingness to open her doors for this meeting is "a provocation to
the feelings of Arab and Islamic nation..."

Routinely, for Western ears, the PLO claims eastern Jerusalem as the capital of a future Palestinian state. In theory Jerusalem is supposed to be divided, with western Jerusalem to be retained by us.

But those of us who have followed Palestinian Arab statements over a period of time have observed that in many contexts in which you would expect reference to "East Jerusalem," you can find only "Jerusalem."

Now we read the truth of the matter expressed more blatantly as the PLO International Relations Department "called for all relevant international and Arab bodies to stand in the face of these activities, the Israeli aggression against the holy city, stressing the need for a national conference on high-level response to the situation of Israeli activity against a just solution to the Palestinian cause..."

All Israeli actions in Jerusalem are "invalid and illegal" because Jerusalem is "occupied territory."


There is something profoundly ludicrous about this PLO position. But I take it with absolute seriousness because it's a key to Palestinian Arab intentions. They want the whole thing. Mark my words, if (G-d forbid) they were to get what is called "East Jerusalem," it would be their intention to use it as a first step towards getting the whole city.

Bookmark this article from WAFA and keep it for future reference:


In no sense do I wish to downplay the need for vigilance with regard to concessions our government might make. The dangers of setting the wrong precedents and of weakening us in a variety of ways are real and still exist. I made this concern obvious yesterday.

And yet, I see that there is a possibility for the "peace negotiations" to fall apart even more quickly than we might have hoped. I would be perfectly pleased to say that our prime minister played it prudently, should that turn out to be the case.

Who knows what will happen between now and next week, especially in this part of the world. What we do know is that Secretary of State Clinton is due to come to Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt for the next round of talks -- it would be the first talks in our new calendar year of 5771 -- and it's looking as if the highly choreographed honeymoon is over.

In the presence of Obama, in Washington, everyone played his role to the hilt -- and that very much included Netanyahu.

Now Abbas is raising issues, once again, that he diplomatically avoided in Washington. Just yesterday he told Al-Quds al-Arabi that he would "pack my bags and leave” before compromising on the borders of a projected state. What is more, he isn't interested in compromise on refugees either.

And, while the US is looking ahead to the third meeting another two weeks hence, possibly in Jerusalem, PA negotiator Saeb Erekat told Army Radio that there was no point in even thinking about this unless progress is made in Egypt.


Egyptian officials, too, played their allotted role in Washington, and have now reverted more to type. Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit has expressed concern about Israel's demand to be recognized as a Jewish state. (This demand is important for Netanyahu in part because it would preclude "return" of refugees. But perhaps even more significantly, it would signal the end of the conflict, in that it would mean Arabs had accepted us here.) Gheit professes to be worried about what would happen to our Arab citizens if we were recognized as a Jewish state. Would we throw them out?

Not for a second do I believe Gheit is worried about this. He's grandstanding simply to be obstructionist. But it is in Gheit's home territory that the next meeting will take place, and this obstructionist view is likely to further sour the tone.

Said Gheit: "If the international community defines Israel as a Jewish state – such a decision should be approved by the UN."

I hasten to remind him, one, that this region was allocated by the League of Nations in 1922, as being set aside for a Jewish homeland, via the Mandate for Palestine (which allocation is still valid within international law). And two, that this recognition was forthcoming a second time in 1947, when the General Assembly recommended division of Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab state. There is thus more than ample precedent in international law for recognition of our state as Jewish. It's just that the Arabs have perennially refused to acknowledge this. And this, clearly, is not about to change.


And, so, I'm heading into Rosh Hashana, prayerful that once again, and without delay, the Arabs will back out, as they always do. And then, I'm going to be watchful next week of how Hillary handles all this.

see my website

Monday, September 06, 2010

"Taking No Chances"

Arlene Kushner

The ambivalence about where Netanyahu is headed is quite pervasive. His signals are not clear. As someone knowledgeable I spoke to said, "He's dancing between the raindrops." That is, there is no clearly defined, straight-ahead policy. There is, rather, an attempt to keep from getting "wet," which leads to a zig towards the left and a zag towards the right. Analysts' columns are replete with the suggestion that there is a "new Netanyahu." This new one, if he exists, would not, at least from my perspective, be an improvement on the old one.

Carolyn Glick spoke about this in her column last Friday. She cited him as having said in Washington:

"I have been making the case for Israel all my life. But I did not come here to win an argument. I came here to forge a peace...."

Uh oh. Glick suggests that if he means what he is saying, we should be very worried.

But then, in his defense, she noted that he also said, "We left Lebanon, we got terror. We left Gaza, we got terror...a defensible peace requires security arrangements that withstand the test of time."


Will the real Binyamin Netanyahu please stand up. Is there a "real" one?

And it's not only we "common folk" who are in the dark, Silvan Shalom (Likud), who is a deputy prime minister, as well as minister of regional cooperation, complained a couple of days ago that the prime minister is not properly informing his cabinet of what has been said in meetings with Obama and Abbas.

Not a comforting thought. Leads one to suspect that Netanyahu is playing it close to his chest because he assumes his cabinet wouldn't like what he has to say.


In the midst of all of this, a situation has arisen that involves Netanyahu only peripherally. A situation of potentially enormous import:

Last week, Defense Minister (and sometimes de facto foreign minister) Ehud Barak gave an interview to Ari Shavit in Haaretz that caused quite a stir.

According to a misleading Haaretz headline, which was repeated in many venues, Barak revealed that "Israel ready to cede parts of Jerusalem in peace deal."

That's not exactly the case, however, when one reads the interview. (This is a signal lesson on how not to take headlines at their word.) Barak, of course, would be perfectly happy to see us cede parts of Jerusalem. Actually, he attempted to do so himself in 2000, when he made such an offer to Arafat and was spurned. And so, we must begin by remembering that Barak speaks for himself and his own political predilection and not for the government.

Shavit actually wrote that Barak, until Netanyahu took off for Washington, had been attempting to convince him to "cross the Rubicon," and move towards a settlement. But, Barak didn't know if he succeeded or not. And so, he could not have been speaking for the government.

In the course of the interview, Barak indicated that he thought amazing changes were underway that made peace more likely now: "I'm not saying that there is a certainty for success, but there is a chance. This chance must be exploited to the fullest."

OK. He may believe this. Or at least want to promote this perspective.


Barak was then asked what he believed a deal would look like. (What he believed.) He mentioned many aspects including a solution for Jerusalem.

When asked what this solution would look like, he responded:

"West Jerusalem and 12 Jewish neighborhoods that are home to 200,000 residents will be ours. The Arab neighborhoods in which close to a quarter million Palestinians live will be theirs. There will be a special regime in place along with agreed upon arrangements in the Old City, the Mount of Olives and the City of David."


This sets bells clanging, even as we remind ourselves that Barak may have been speaking only for himself and what he believes.

The troublesome part of this is the silence that followed. There was no denial issued from the prime minister's office, as might have been expected.

That's when it's possible to start asking if Barak spoke with Netanyahu's sanction, and if this is a trial balloon.

It could be. But we still don't know.


My gut tells me that precisely because Netanyahu is a political animal first, this is not an issue he would be inclined to go out on a limb for now. It is the single issue that would be most likely to bring his government down, as the Likud platform is for a united Jerusalem, and the positions of a solid percentage of his coalition, as well as of the Knesset, are opposed to a division of the city. Dividing Jerusalem is perhaps the hottest issue there is.

I've spoken to two politically savvy people who speculate that this may be a part of Netanyahu's game-playing -- similar to what I've written about in recent days: That Netanyahu saw that it fit his purposes not to issue an official denial of what Barak said, because it allowed people to believe he had shifted left (thus keeping the more leftist faction of the coalition as well as the Obama administration content or optimistic), while he, having committed to nothing, remained "clean."

It makes sense in a way, but it is in the end only speculation.

In fact, another speculation I've encountered is that this is a smoke screen, so that we'll not notice that he's preparing to give away Judea and Samaria.


In any event, we who love Israel and are determined that she not be divided -- not Jerusalem, most of all, but not Judea and Samaria either -- cannot take chances based on speculation.

And so this is the time to begin to yell. And we will not stop until we're confident that our nation and our holy city are safe. If this IS a trial balloon that Netanyahu has sent out via Barak, he has to know we will shoot it down. If he is simply allowing a misimpression to be floated for political advantage, he, and Obama, and Abbas, have to know we will not sit still for it.

After Rosh Hashana I hope to have information on the start up of a more sizeable campaign for a united Jerusalem.

Here, I want to begin with something else. I implore all of you who care to take the time to send a few messages, and to then share this with as many others as possible. Particularly is this true for those who are in Israel.

I know I've said it a hundred times before, but numbers do matter and what has to be done is that we have to create a deluge.

Below you will find a handful of names of persons of significance or power within our nation. The message is not exactly the same for each, and so I ask you to attend closely to the instructions.

As always, I beg you to keep the messages polite, short, and clear. No lengthy paragraphs. No historical reviews. Using your own words, get to the point, succinctly and graciously, and forcefully:

Jerusalem must not be divided. It would be a disaster for the Jewish nation and the Jewish people. It would represent a surrender of our heritage and our rights and would create a security risk as well. This message or a variation on it should be sent to each person below, along with the personalized words for that individual.


Minister of Strategic Affairs Moshe Ya'alon (Likud).

We have every reason to believe he is solidly with us, and we don't know what objections he's been making to Netanyahu privately. But we're not hearing his voice publicly and we need to. Please convey the message to him that he is greatly respected and that his voice is important at this time. Ask that he make a public statement regarding the necessity to keep Jerusalem united, and that he persist in sending this message publicly.

Best way to reach him is via his aide Anat:

Minister Without Portfolio Bennie Begin (Likud)

Same approach, same message here as for Ya'alon.

I'm advised that he reads his own e-mail:

Minister of Diaspora Affairs Yuli Edelstein (Likud)

Ask him to work in every way that is possible to help prevent a division of Jerusalem -- both by speaking out and what he does inside the Likud. Let him know you're counting on him.

Best to reach him via his aide Olga:

MK Ze'ev Elkin (Likud), Head of the Knesset Coalition

Ask him to act in every way that is possible for him, inside the Knesset, to keep Jerusalem safe and united. Let him know that he is a man with a solid reputation and that what he does now is exceedingly important for the nation.

Contact him at: or by fax: 02-649-6438

Uzi Arad, National Security Advisor for PM Netanyahu (he solidly has his ear).

Implore him to use his influence to the utmost to make certain that Jerusalem remains united no matter the circumstances.

You can reach him via the e-mail for the prime minister's office. (underscore after pm). Put "For Uzi Arad, National Security Advisor" in the subject line.

You can also use the fax number for the prime minister's office -- 02-670-5369 -- with a clear note at top that it is "For Uzi Arad, National Security Advisor."

Tzvi Hauser, Secretary of the Cabinet.

Ask him to convey to the prime minister and other ministers of the Cabinet the enormous distress and anger felt with regard to any suggestion that Jerusalem might be divided, and the absolute necessity to ensure that this never happens.

He can be reached using the same contact information for the prime minister's office as for Arad, above: (underscore after pm) and fax number 02-670-5369, with a clear note in either case indicating that this is "For Tzvi Houser, Cabinet Secretary."


My friends, I thank you. This needs to be done quickly, before Rosh Hashana. There will be much more to do in the course of matters later.


see my website

Bibi Leading The League in Clichés‏

Sunday is Cabinet Meeting Day in Israel. And following every cabinet meeting details of the proceedings are released to the press. This Sunday, Netanyahu "debriefed" his ministers on his triumphant meeting in Washington, and in the process, reincarnated clichés most of us had thought were long-dead. I've taken the liberty to condense them into one sentence which should give you a sense of what this great Israeli leader (and orator) has on his mind. "Creative thinking, original solutions and thinking outside the box" are key to the success of the peace process, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu told the cabinet meeting on Sunday.

Now, to say that is hackneyed is not to say that it's meaningless. Netanyahu's poor imitation of an 80s adman tells us a lot. This guy is going to twist himself and Israel into a pretzel if that what it takes to sign a piece of paper on the White House lawn - and that includes evicting 100,000 Jews and koshering Hamas, which is already in the works.

To use another cliché, the road to peace is littered with potholes, and Bibi knows that he's approaching one already. On Sunday he was quite original on that score. "Addressing the issue of the settlement freeze due to expire on September 26, Netanyahu reiterated that no decisions had been made."

The time for "thinking outside the box" has arrived.

Dan Friedman

Sunday, September 05, 2010

The Bridge on the River Wye

Emmanuel Navon

If today’s Middle East was the plot of a novel, the manuscript would be rejected by any serious publisher as corny. Which reader, in his right mind, would want to read a book where same story keeps being repeated chapter after chapter, where the protagonists never learn their lessons, and where you’re never sure if you are supposed to laugh or cry? Twelve years ago, Prime Minister Netanyahu flew to the United States in order to sign an interim agreement with Arafat under President Clinton’s aegis. The result was the Wye River Memorandum, which was supposed to generate a permanent status agreement between Israel and the Palestinians by May 1999.

Twelve years later, the permanent status agreement is still on hold. The only tangible progress is that Arafat is dead and that the Clintons married their daughter.

In truth, certain things have changed during those twelve years. But chances of achieving peace between Israel and the Palestinians are as null today as they were then.

On the Israeli side, Netanyahu has publicly endorsed the two-state solution, has agreed to a ten-month settlement freeze, and has removed many checkpoints. All these decisions would have been anathema twelve years ago for the Chairman of Likud. The leaders of Israel’s largest parties (Kadima, Likud, Israel Beitenu, and Labor) are more or less of the same opinion when it comes to the "permanent status agreement" with the Palestinians: some 90% of the West Bank would go to a demilitarized Palestinian state; Jerusalem’s eastern Arab neighborhoods would be included in the Palestinian state and sovereignty over the Temple Mount would be shared; the Palestinians, by abandoning their claim to resettle the 1948 refugees within Israel, would implicitly recognize Israel as the legitimate nation state of the Jews.

This Israeli consensus is as wide as it is irrelevant. The Palestinians reject it and they show no sign of maturation.

Like Arafat in July 2000, Mahmoud Abbas turned down, in September 2008, a peace offer based on the "Israeli consensus." Ehud Olmert’s offer actually went beyond that consensus: it consisted of a Palestinian state on 97% of the West Bank (with land swaps), on the entire Gaza Strip, of a safe passage between two entities, of a shared sovereignty in Jerusalem, and of the acceptation by Israel of a symbolical number of Palestinian refugees. Abbas insisted he would never give up on the "right of return."

The so-called "right of return" is a euphemism to turn Israel into a bi-national state. While the Palestinians keep saying that they will never abandon that claim, many Israeli leaders pooh-pooh them by saying that they don’t mean it. But the fact is that the Palestinian insistence on the "right of return" is what made them turn down Barack and Olmert’s offers in July 2000 and in September 2008 respectively. Why else do they refuse to recognize Israel’s Jewishness? (Saib Erekat said Netanyahu "will have to wait 1,000 years before he finds one Palestinian who will go along with him" on that issue).

While Netanyahu’s Likud party has tacitly acquiesced to his endorsement of the two-state solution and to his government’s decision to stop all Jewish construction beyond the 1949 armistice lines for ten months, Abbas’ Fatah has made no similar ideological (or even tactical) moves. At its sixth general congress, held in Bethlehem in August 2009, Fatah reaffirmed its commitment to "armed struggle," and confirmed that "this struggle will not stop until the Zionist entity is eliminated and Palestine is liberated."

Abbas shows no sign of distancing himself from this rhetoric. He made a point, before flying to the US for the upcoming "peace talks," of attending the funerals of Amin Al-Hindi, one of the senior planners of the murder of eleven Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics. This is a few months after Abbas attended a ceremony that named a square in the memory of Dalal Mughrabi, who massacred thirty-seven Israelis and one American in 1978. Then there is Abbas’ state controlled TV that keeps "teaching" Palestinian children that all of Palestine is occupied. "The Best Home," a children’s show currently broadcast three times a week during the month of Ramadan, describes Haifa, Jaffa, Lod, Ramle, and Acre as "occupied cities."

Publicly honoring terrorists and toeing to the line that Haifa is occupied not only say a lot about Abbas. This is also the only way for him to keep his job.
Legally, his tenure as PA Chairman ended in July 2009. It is because there is no rule of law in the PA that Abbas has been able to "extend" his office, but he hardly represents his Hamas-dominated constituency. Hamas won the 2006 legislative elections (including in the West Bank) and has been ruling Gaza since 2007. For Abbas, being even perceived as a peacemaker with Israel would be politically suicidal.

Is this a Greek tragedy or just a bad novel? If it’s the former, I’ll play Cassandra. If it’s the latter, I’ll volunteer to rewrite the script. In it, Israel will continue to play the "peace process" game only to give itself enough time to bomb Iran and complete the separation fence with the Palestinians. There will even be a happy end: People will stop fooling themselves ever after.