Israel Espionage Machine’s War on Free Speech - Our Puppet Governments Could’t Be Happier

” See no Israeli espionage, hear none, and never discuss it … Any questions?”

Israel spies sent after boycott backers: Report

… by  Press TV, Tehran,   …with Jim W. Dean commentary

“It is good to see you again”

[ Editors Note: Once again, a story like this is no shock to VT readers, but incredibly, at this late stage of the game, the real story is how not a single Western country will take any criminal action over what is an obvious conspiracy to subvert the rights of its respective citizens.

The history of the total stand down on prosecuting Israeli espionage is a huge scandal in every country where it occurs.

And I regret to have to say that the various publics have pretty much been on their knees to it as you never see this issue raised during political campaigns, debates, or at conventions of major institutions, not even law enforcement ones.

James Woolsey – a huge disappointment

I can use my own Association for Intelligence Officers, where ex-CIA chief James Woolsey is an honorary board member. He recently upped his game on trying to get Jonathan Pollard released by claiming that anyone who was against that was an anti-semite.

Despite Woolsey having taken a dump on his oath of office and the CIA, who lost over a 1000 agents and assets due to Pollard, it is felt that because of his past position that his right to speak out is not something others have the right to do anything about.

The real reason of course is, like virtually everyone else, they don’t want to visit the front lines on this issue, but remain safely in the rear area doing the ‘safe stuff’. I don’t mean to pick on AFIO…because you could make a huge list of others who would do exactly the same thing…nothing.

Huge numbers of you are in organizations where if you brought this to them they would not even understand why you did. That is a very big part of the inertia problem we are having. We need the org support to really put the hammer on the bad guys and they are AWOL. Their attitude is, “It’s not my job, man.”

And the outrage of it all is the groups asking for support for their respective organizations tasked with defending the national security…they don’t see the inconsistency.

Ethel and Julius Rosenberg

And no, they don’t hear many complaints from members that ‘they should do something’, so the few voices who do are deemed a ‘fringe’ minority. It is they, who are undermining our efforts. You can just imagine how popular I am in such places.

So I am going to keep banging my drum that Americans and other free peoples have to get it through their heads that they can vote over, and over and over, by making a list of people and organizations to send some challenging missives out to on a regular basis.

And then if you wanted to get into ‘vote rigging’ you can create groups of folks to do the same thing. That is a power that is sitting in everyone’s hands that is the most underused weapon that we have. Please do it…Jim W. Dean ]

______________________________

- First published February 12, 2014  -

“What’s not to love about Israelis?”

A report says Israeli spies have been ordered to try to link supporters of an economic boycott against Tel Aviv to terrorists and enemy states.

Israel has convened a ministerial meeting to discuss how to respond to the growing number of foreign companies refusing to do business with Israeli entities operating in illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank, The Times  reported on Tuesday.

The United Nations regards the Israeli settlements as illegal because the territories were captured in the war and are hence subject to the Geneva Conventions, which forbid any constructions on the occupied lands.

The meeting saw Israeli Minister for Intelligence and Strategy, Yuval Steinitz tabling a plan for media propaganda against organizations advocating boycotts.

Earlier in the month, US Secretary of State John Kerry pointed to “an increasing de-legitimization” campaign building up against Israel internationally and “talk of boycotts” if the Israeli-Palestinian conflict did not end.

Last month, a major Dutch pension fund, PGGM, which is one of the world’s largest pension asset managers, said it would divest from five Israeli banks it says are involved in financing construction of Israeli illegal settlements in the occupied Palestinian lands.

In mid January, two of Europe’s largest banks, Nordea Bank of Sweden and Danske Bank of Denmark, announced they would terminate all joint operations with Israeli banks that deal with the settlements Israel is building in the West Bank.

The American Studies Association (ASA), an alliance of US professors, has also said it would refuse formal collaborations with Israeli academic institutions or with scholars who represent those institutions or the Israeli government until “Israel ceases to violate human rights and international law.”

Read More

Netanyahu hints at secret ties with KSA , hey Netanyahu give us some New News

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has hinted that the Tel Aviv regime has clandestine relations with Saudi Arabia and Persian Gulf littoral states.

Netanyahu’s remarks in Knesset this week that Arab states have begun to realize that Israel is not their enemy reveal the clandestine relations, which have been recently fortified, Ynetreported. 

This secret network of relations includes countries which don’t have official diplomatic ties with the Israeli regime. 

The report added that the tension in the Middle East has brought the security and political interests of Israel and these states, which see the Tel Aviv regime as a steady and reliable ally, closer. 

It said that Israelis informed of these relations say that certain countries in the region, in the absence of the US, seek a reliable collaborator which they can work with even secretly."Common interests were created within regional instability," an Israeli source said. 

According to the report, some of these countries see Israel as a substitute for the US and a bridge to Washington. 

Israel has already publicly criticized US President Barack Obama’s administration, its handling of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and the ouster of former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. 

Read More

Saudi, Israel stuck in war mindset towards Iran

Israel, Saudi Arabia and the other Persian Gulf oil sheikhdoms are stuck in a war bunker mentality towards Iran.

by Finian Cunningham

Representatives of Iran and the six world powers attend first round of talks in Geneva, Switzerland, on October 15, 2013.

This will prove to be a serious impediment to a possible diplomatic deal between Tehran and the West to break the 10-year nuclear deadlock.

But the more troubling questions are: from who, what and where does this war mindset towards Iran originate?

Cordial, businesslike discussions this week in Geneva between Iran and Western powers appeared to break the ice that has frozen relations for the past decade, since when the United States and its allies began accusing Tehran of secretly building a nuclear bomb.

Following discussions in the Swiss capital, there was unusual high praise from the United States and the European Union for Iran’s presentation on how to resolve the nuclear issue.

A senior US administration official was quoted in the Financial Times as saying of the two-day meeting that Washington “never had such intense, detailed, straightforward, candid conversations with the Iranian delegation.“ He added: “I would say we really are beginning that type of negotiation where one could imagine that you could possibly have an agreement.”

So, the scene is seemingly set for more diplomatic thawing in a follow-up meeting next month between Iran and the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany – this time perhaps at the full foreign minister level.

However, take note of these countercurrents. In the same week of cordial negotiations in Geneva, the Israeli regime and the Persian Gulf monarchies were going ballistic – literally.

There seems little doubt that any positive movement in diplomacy between Iran and the US in the coming weeks and months will be met likewise with louder banging on the war drums.

“We can’t surrender the option of a preventive strike,” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned his parliament, as Iranian-Western discussions were getting underway in Geneva.

Jerusalem (AFP) – Israel urged the world to avoid a partial deal with Iran which could see a relaxing of sanctions, as a new round of nuclear talks was launched Tuesday in Geneva.

At the same time, Israel’s Air Force was mounting war exercises. Such exercises are of course planned far in advance, but the latest maneuvers laid emphasis on simulated long-distance flights “for possible strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities,” reported The Jerusalem Post.

Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates announced in recent days that they were seeking nearly $11 billion-worth of advanced US-made missiles, including air-launched cruise missiles. More significant than the actual weapons purchase is the rationale behind it.

The Associated Press reported that the Saudi and Emirati orders were motivated “to stay ahead of claimed military strides by rival Iran.” It added: “Gulf nations regularly spend billions of dollars on US military equipment and upgrades amid lingering regional tensions with Iran.”

Evidently, the Israeli and Persian Gulf Arab regimes are apoplectic at the prospect of normalizing relations between Iran and the US and its Western allies.

If such normalization was to take place and the crippling sanctions on Iran’s prodigious economy were lifted, then the already impressive regional stature of Iran can only but grow even more robust. That outcome is anathema to both the Zionist regime and the House of Saud, as well as the latter’s Wahhabi cronies in the Gulf.

This is because Iran, through its legitimate political discourse and development, exposes the despotism of these regimes. In a very real way, Iran poses an existential threat to Israel and the House of Saud. The threat is not through war and unlawful subversion, but simply because Iran provides an alternative political model as a nation state, one that by its very nature undermines the illegitimate anti-democratic foundations of Israel and the oil monarchies.

With zero-sum mentality, the Israeli and Arab dictatorships must therefore always be in a state of war towards Iran, talking up military threats and accusations of clandestine subversive plots. Normal relations and peace in the Middle East region are fatal to the existence of these rogue states, whose foundations would crumble if democratic freedom were to take hold.

Indicative of this mentality were the calls this week by the Saudi ambassador to the UN, Abdullah al-Muallimi, who told Al Arabiya TV that “Iran should not play a key role” in the forthcoming Geneva II peace talks over Syria. The Saudi diplomat claimed that this was because Iran “interferes in the affairs of Arab countries” through the “Hezbollah terrorist organization.”

While it is amusing to watch the Israeli and Arab warmongers hyperventilate over improved diplomatic relations between Iran and the Western states, this reactionary seizure is nonetheless indicative of an underlying structural problem that will clash with future negotiations.

The West’s standoff with Iran did not start 10 years ago over an alleged nuclear threat. The West has been in aggression mode towards Iran ever since the Islamic Revolution of 1979 – dating back 34 years.

This is because the ongoing dispute has nothing to do with nuclear technology. It is about a competing political vision; between whether a country’s natural resources are primarily for the benefit of the people in that country, or for the enrichment of foreign capitalists.

It is no coincidence that 1979 marked a watershed in Middle East relations. The US and its Western allies then began warning of the “Iranian threat” and the “Shia Crescent” holding sway over the region.

Of course, the despotic regimes in Israel and the Persian Gulf willingly obliged, out of self-preservation, in this ideological war against Tehran.

The US and its Western allies thus share the responsibility for the systematic hostility that today indelibly defines Israeli and Saudi perception and policy towards Iran.

In negotiations between Iran and the Western states, individual politicians may be amenable to reason and dialogue. It is human nature. But we need to differentiate between the personal effect and what comprises the all-important structural policy.

One of those structural interests determining policy is the weapons industry. The US economy, as with other Western states, has become increasingly dominated by behemoth weapons companies. Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Boeing and British Aerospace play a crucial role in election fundraising, trade balances, revenues, stock markets, banks, jobs and illicit vote buying.

In short, war is not just good for capitalist business. In many ways, in today’s de-industrialized Western economies, war and the means of war is the only business.

Individual politicians in close discussion forums can appear reasonable and conducive to normal relations. That can generate upbeat headlines for a while. But a state’s policy is not set at this level.

It is the overbearing influence of corporate power on the White House, Congress, as well as lobby groups, which determine the state’s policy.

Israel and Saudi Arabia are war states, and war states in particular towards Iran. But these warmongers are not isolated anomalies that can be easily dismissed for the sake of diplomacy.

As we saw this week with the lucrative American weapons sales to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, as well as the war exercises conducted by Israel, the aggression of these regimes is not some detachable aberration. It is a symptom of the underlying aggression that is structural to US economics and foreign policy.

Diplomatic success for Iran is long overdue and eminently deserved. Perhaps even individual Western diplomats are beginning to recognize that. But the policy of the US and its allies towards Iran is deeply hostile in a way that is beyond the smiles and handshakes of political personalities.

Read More

Will Iran’s Call for ‘No Nukes’ Inspire US Media to Probe Israel’s Nuclear Policy?

Recently elected president of Iran Hassan Rouhani. (AP/Ebrahim Noroozi)

It’s no secret that Israeli leaders have, so far, acted cooly about the new offers (including at the United Nations this morning) by Iran’s new president Hassan Rouhani to renounce the building of nuclear weapons. Andrew Sullivan had a good take on this yesterday, suggesting that some no doubt prefer the current ambiguity, which encourages a possible Israeli and US strike against Iran to allegedly resolve most of their fears.

But another reason, rarely explored until now, is that Israel knows that the anti-nuke claims by Iran also focus attention, finally, on the fact that Israel already has a top-secret nuclear arsenal, with at least eighty weapons, according to the latest expert analysis.

So it’s one thing for Iran to now say it will never build nukes. It’s another when they call (as Rouhani did today) for a nuclear-free region.

Calls for a nuclear-free world, or global abolition, always sound grandiose and unrealistic. But regional? The only regional nuclear nation there is Israel. Yet neither Israel nor the US will even admit publicly what everyone knows—the Israelis have had nukes for decades and already “used” them as deterrent and hammer in Middle East conflicts.

The US media has long failed to mention, or at least highlight, the existence and issues raised by Israel’s nuclear program. You won’t find many pundits in the archives writing about—and certainly not denouncing it. I’ve done a bit of a search and so far can’t find a single poll that has asked the American public the simple question, “Does Israel possess nuclear weapons?” I would guess the that something like 20 percent would say yes. I’m afraid many in Congress and in the media are also ignorant or uncertain about this.

But we may be starting to see more media attention. Here’s an extensive AP story today. And The New York Times carried an op-ed a few days ago written by two American experts on non-proliferation, titled, “Let’s Be Honest About Israel’s Nukes.” Just one excerpt:

An obstacle of America’s own making has long prevented comprehensive negotiations over weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East. While the world endlessly discusses Iran’s nuclear capabilities and the likelihood that it will succeed in developing an atomic arsenal, hardly anyone in the United States ever mentions Israel’s nuclear weapons.

Mr. Obama, like his predecessors, pretends that he doesn’t know anything about them. This taboo impedes discussions within Washington and internationally. It has kept America from pressing Egypt and Syria to ratify the chemical and biological weapons conventions. Doing so would have brought immediate objections about American acceptance of Israel’s nuclear weapons.

And their conclusion:

And if Israel’s policy on the subject is so frozen that it is unable to come clean, Mr. Obama must let the United States government be honest about Israel’s arsenal and act on those facts, for both America’s good and Israel’s.

Greg Mitchell’s book Atomic Cover-up is available in new print and ebook editions.

Phyllis Bennis gives Obama’s speech on Iran a close read.

- See more at: http://www.thenation.com/blog/176362/will-irans-call-no-nukes-inspire-us-media-probe-israels-nuclear-policy#sthash.hdmnqQlJ.dpuf

Read More

Israeli ambassador calls Al-Sisi a "national hero for all Jews

No wonder Israel loves Al-Sisi.

 

Since staging the military coup on July 3rd he has killed 300 and wounded 7000 peaceful demonstrators; he has launched operation "desert storm" in Sinai to "fight terrorism" emulating and ingratiating himself to his masters in the US and Israel; and he has targeted Hamas and Hizbullah as the enemy.

http://www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/middle-east/6617-israeli-ambassador-calls-al-sisi-a-qnational-hero-for-all-jewsq

 

Israeli ambassador calls Al-Sisi a "national hero for all Jews"

The Israeli ambassador in Cairo has told a minister in the interim government that the people of Israel look upon General Abdul-Fattah Al-Sisi as a "national hero". According to Israel Radio, the ambassador rang Agriculture Minister Ayman Abu-Hadid to congratulate him on his new post and said, "Al-Sisi is not a national hero for Egypt, but for all Jews in Israel and around the globe."

Israel is looking forward to the launch of new relationships with Egypt, said Yaakov Amitai, as well as joint efforts in the war on terror. His mention of "terror" is understood to be an oblique reference to President Mohamed Morsi’s supporters protesting against the coup which removed him from office.

The two men agreed on the resumption of the work of the Supreme Egyptian-Israeli Agricultural Committee. Meetings of the committee are held alternately in Cairo and Tel Aviv every six months. They also agreed to reactivate the Egyptian branch of the Future Leaders Network, which includes Egyptian, Jordanian, Palestinian and Israeli youths.

 

Read More

Diskin: Israel nears point of no return on two-state solution

Former Shin Bet chief calls on Netanyahu to "overcome fears"; fears Mideast conflict is taking a back seat in Israeli public interest.

By YUVAL DISKIN

We are approaching a point of no return regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In fact, it may be that we have already crossed it.

The issue may not seem as urgent to the Israeli public as the Iranian nuclear program, which has become, with the help of our leaders, a central focus of discussion at the expense of other pressing issues.

To my regret, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has yet to reach a prominent place at the top of our list of priorities, nor has it become the second-, even third-most important issue.

However, this subject has a place in our essence, in our identity, in our souls, in our security, and in our perception of morality – as a society or nation that has come to rule another nation.

The relative security calm that we have recently enjoyed creates a dangerous illusion that our problems have been solved, and maybe worse – that we have “frozen the situation”: a kind of de facto strategy in the face of the “Arab Spring” that is raging all around us. But it is clear that it is impossible to truly freeze the situation as social, economic, political and other processes are never frozen in time. Unfortunately, we have yet to find a strategy or the technology that can freeze frustration.

Look no further than at what’s been happening in the Arab world in recent years, at what’s been happening in Egypt in the past several days, what is happening simultaneously in Brazil, at what happened in Russia after Vladimir Putin was elected, and at what happened in Iran in the latest election – and even at what happened in the social protests which took place in Israel during the summer of 2011 – and you will understand that in the latest era, which is represented by the “Arab Spring,” there is no way to freeze the frustration of a nation or of any public entity.

Among the Palestinians, there is a growing sense of anger and frustration.

The fading hopes for a real change in the situation haven’t just lowered the Palestinian street’s faith in a solution to the conflict through negotiation, but it is also the reason, at the end of the day, the Palestinians will take to the streets, leading to another round of bloody violence.

And the construction of settlements (whether or not this is taken as a symbolic gesture toward Mahmoud Abbas) is not stopping; the number of settlers or “residents” in the West Bank, outside the main settlement blocs, is growing (if it has not already arrived) to dimensions that no Israeli government will be able to dismantle in an orderly fashion, unless it is with the consent of the residents – and it doesn’t appear that the current government possess the will or the desire to buck the trend.

No less worse – many of our friends in the world, whose support of the peace process with the Palestinians is critical, understand the powerless leaderships of Binyamin Netanyahu and Abbas. They see the continued expansion of the settlements and are choosing to call it quits regarding the possibility of ever implementing the solution of “two states for two nations.”

A minority between the sea and the river

Until recently I believed with all my heart that there was still a chance for the two-state solution. However, the absence of true leadership willing to take real actions, instead of making idle statements, has me convinced more and more that this option, which until recently was preferred by the Israeli majority according to surveys, is becoming increasingly unrealistic and is no longer feasible.

It is possible to compare our situation to flying in a plane. When we fly, it’s worthwhile to know if we have enough fuel to return home.

There won’t be any obvious signs that we have reached the point of no return; there won’t be any exploding sounds, and it won’t be possible to paint it on a poster to present during speeches made to the United Nations or anywhere else. Even research and reports won’t be able to prove that we’ve crossed the line, it will be more like the picture of the cat that slowly turns into a dog. Except in this case, the dog will also be buried.

I will summarize my argument: In terms of the future, the identity, the nature and security of the State of Israel and the Jewish nation, it will be impossible to know when we have passed the point from which we will never be able to return home and retain our identity as a democratic, Jewish state.

The blame game taking place between Netanyahu and Abbas is foolish in my eyes, a useless game that is dangerous on a strategic level, in which the real losers are not the leaders, but rather their two nations, and mostly the Jewish, democratic State of Israel.

As for the Palestinians, I believe that in the long term they will not lose from the disintegration of the two-state option and the shift to a nearly inevitable outcome of the one remaining reality – a state “from the sea to the river,” in other words, “one state for two nations.”

When we get there, we will face an immediate existential threat of the erasure of the identity of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state, and in a few years, the reality of the country’s demographics will lead to a Palestinian- Arab majority and a Jewish minority, with all that entails.

Anyone who wants can see the data of the Research and Information Center Division (based on a study by Prof. Arnon Sofer and Prof. Sergio DellaPergola), suggesting that at the end of the year 2010, the share of Jews – if you add up the total population between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River – was only 53%.

If we study the geographical distribution of the various populations in the area between the sea and the river, we will understand that we will have created a state with a Jewish majority (temporarily) concentrated in small sections of its territory.

National state of emergency

Meanwhile, the quiet on the security front creates the illusion of “everything is okay,” mistakenly lulling us into believing that there is no reason to worry. But what else do we need to recognize the fact that we are in a state of national emergency in every sense of the term, an emergency whose resolution should have long been at the top of the list of priorities? One only needs to consider what took place in the largest political parties that supposedly support a twostate solution. When asked to comment on their positions during the election campaign, Likud chairman Binyamin Netanyahu, who for the most part was certain that he was en route to a crushing victory, said nothing of consequence about the subject or other matters. Yair Lapid of Yesh Atid continued to dazzle us with mediocre pronouncements that were designed to be well-received by all, shrewdly avoiding the need to commit himself either way as it relates to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Shelly Yacimovich has steadfastly refrained from any clear-cut statement on the topic, which has traditionally been a litmus test issue for her predecessors in the Labor Party.

The only politicians in the center of the Israeli political map who took a clear stand were Tzipi Livni, the leader of Hatnua, a party that placed a solution to the conflict as the central item on its agenda; Meretz, headed by Zehava Gal-On; and the disintegrating Kadima Party.

The reasons for this disappointing and disconcerting state of affairs can be found in a misunderstanding of the gravity of the situation as well as discomfort with meeting this issue head-on, a discomfort motivated by narrow political interests. Then there is the populist stance taken by leaders who prefer uncontroversial, palatable sound bites that appeal to the widest possible audience. They take this stance while avoiding the task of dealing with a fateful, weighty and unpopular issue that is still on the national agenda.

Whoever is adept at constantly drawing “red lines” for the Iranians would be better off taking a look at his next-door neighbors rather than at those on the other side of the faroff, darkened hills, for doing so would reveal to him that it is here, right here, where we are nearing the point of no return. The problem is that our planes which will take off toward the unknown will be of no use in solving the problem.

The dissipating vision of the founding fathers

If our leaders in Israel and the Palestinian leadership both lack the necessary will power to lead us to a twostate solution, it would be best to begin thinking about the binational alternative in realistic terms. This isn’t because I necessarily support the binational model, but rather because it is gradually turning into the only alternative on the table. If the situation remains as is, then it would be best to begin preparing for the inevitable.

This alternative entails addressing some serious concerns. What status will be conferred upon the Palestinian citizens in this “from the river to the sea” state that we have created with our own hands? Will they have full voting rights like those enjoyed by Israeli Arabs? Will they be given equal rights as residents with the exception of the right to vote? Will we grant the Palestinians autonomy that will allow them to manage their own affairs? And what of the Arab citizens of Israel? Won’t they demand autonomy of their own? Will the security situation improve in such a setting? Will the Palestinians really relinquish their demands once this “river to the sea” state arises? Will we remove the security fence in such a state? How will we sort out our identity as a Jewish and democratic once we turn into a minority? Will our status in the eyes of the family of nations improve as a result? We cannot simply brush off these questions as nothing more than “shrapnel in the buttocks,” in the words of Naftali Bennett of Bayit Yehudi. Indeed, in the eventuality of a “river to the sea” state, one of the most difficult questions that need to be addressed is who is the shrapnel and who is the buttocks? These are questions that cannot be evaded by means of “bypass routes” or highway junctions, nor can they be sidestepped by annexing pieces of Area C or establishing Palestinian autonomous zones in line with the “progressive” vision propagated by Bennett and others. There really is no way to avoid these issues.

If we don’t wish to continue ruling over another people and thus turn into an ostracized apartheid state, there is no alternative but to grant full rights, including the right to vote, to Palestinians. In such a scenario, there is no need to hold further discussions about the future of the Jewish and democratic vision as put forth by our founding fathers, the same vision on which we were reared and educated. It will melt away and disappear.

Lapid and Yacimovich must help Netanyahu

Yes, on the surface this issue is quite simple, yet at the same time there is no more complex conundrum. It seems simple because everyone knows what the parameters of a settlement will inevitably entail: the establishment of a demilitarized Palestinian state along the 1967 lines with territorial swaps that will allow Israel to keep large settlement blocs; a symbolic right of return for refugees, with financial compensation being paid to Palestinians in the diaspora; dismantling of settlements that are beyond the agreed-upon borders and compensation to those who will be evicted from them; a political partition of Jerusalem which would be in line with our interest to avoid ruling over a large Palestinian population; a creative solution regarding sovereignty over the holy sites in the Old City (internationalization, perhaps?); a resolution of the future status of the Temple Mount and the Western Wall; and a diplomatic solution over the contours of Israel’s eastern border and the Jordan Valley.

This alternative is also extremely complex for a number of reasons.

There are the enormous psychological gaps and lack of faith between those who are charged with leading the negotiations; the fact that apparently neither Netanyahu or Abbas has what it takes to lead their peoples to such a solution; the fact that Abbas has no solution to the serious rift that has been created between his Fatah-led West Bank and the Hamasruled Gaza Strip; the fact that it is impossible to solve this conflict without Hamas; and – let’s face it – the fact that Netanyahu has no realistic solution to the federation-like network of settlements that has grown out of control in the West Bank.

There is no way to solve this conflict without involving our brothers (and this is said without a hint of cynicism) the settlers.

There are those who say that the conflict is insoluble. I believe there are many strategic and tactical risks involved, but the alternative – a “river to the sea” state and continued occupation of another people, with all that it entails – is far worse. As such, the problem is unavoidable. It cannot be put on hold or contained.

This is Netanyahu’s moment of truth. He can prove to all of his most vociferous naysayers and critics (me among them) that he is not just a politician passing his – and our – time in the Prime Minister’s Office, but a leader who is capable of grasping the gravity of the situation; a leader capable of freeing himself of his trepidations, fears and secret advisers; a leader capable of understanding the critical need to rise above himself and establish a proper set of priorities; and, most important, a leader capable of shepherding the nation (or, at least a majority of it) to the right path. I have huge doubts as to whether Netanyahu is such a leader, but I will be the first one to praise him if he proves otherwise.

This is also a moment of truth for Yair Lapid, who has a chance to liberate himself from the image of a Facebook-centric, shallow politician, and for opposition chief Shelly Yacimovich, who can restore the soul of a party gone awry. Together, these two individuals can help Netanyahu rise above himself. There’s no need to worry about Tzipi Livni and Hatnua not extending their support for such a move, and I am convinced that Zehava Gal-On of Meretz will also back it, as will what remains of Kadima and other parties.

This is also the moment of truth for another key figure – Naftali Bennett – who can prove that he possesses the maturity of someone who understands the strategic significance of this point of no return as it relates to the future of the state and this nation.

This is not a matter of Right versus Left, or who is in the political Center.

This is a matter that requires national responsibility of the highest order.

It requires taking advantage of what may be the last opportunity to extricate ourselves from the deadly clutches of our conflict with the Palestinians, clutches which we have tethered to ourselves.

Unilateralism? Forget about it

I, too, believe that the risks are considerable, and success is not guaranteed because this is a very deep conflict, with dimensions that are religious, nationalistic and territorial. In the Middle East, blood doesn’t turn into water. The two sides are also separated by deep economic, cultural and psychological gaps, and the wounds are still fresh. We are still more likely than not to experience moments of crisis, disappointment and failure, and there will be further need to readjust our expectations amongst ourselves as well as with our Palestinian interlocutors.

I still believe that genuine leadership that charts a clear path toward a defined goal could propel forward a process which if moved in a truly positive spirit (and I emphasize a truly positive spirit) could instill hope and create the momentum and positive atmosphere on the Israeli and Palestinian streets, thus leading to the crystallization of strong majorities on both sides that will support the process. Such a process would have to be devoid of pettiness and intrigue, and it would have to entail generous, confidence- building gestures by Israel. It would have to gradually establish a relationship of trust between the leaders, a relationship that just may form the basis of fruitful negotiations.

As part of this effort, a complete, immediate cessation of all construction in the settlements (with the exception of some building within the large blocs) for an indefinite period is critical to keeping alive the chances of creating a positive atmosphere conducive to relaunching negotiations. Even acceding to the Palestinian Authority’s request for the release of “pre- Oslo” prisoners and bolstering Fatah’s credibility in the eyes of the Palestinian street is, in my view, a worthy gesture. It is far more preferable than capitulating to the dictates of a terrorist organization that abducted an Israeli soldier and agreeing to the disproportionate release of murderers in prisoner swaps which will only encourage more abductions.

Perhaps we will fail. One cannot discount this possibility, which would most likely lead us to begin entertaining all sorts of interim alternatives that some have bandied about, most prominent of which is a unilateral Israeli move in which we exit most of the territories that we control today without coordinating it with a partner or delineating an agreed-upon border.

It would also be done most likely without summoning significant public support for the evacuation of outposts and settlements that lie outside of the large settlement blocs.

Such a move may partially – and temporarily – improve Israel’s image in the eyes of the world, though this is doubtful. It will not, however, solve the problem. Obviously I would recommend against giving this alternative any sort of preference at this stage. I do not believe in the utility of such a move, or in the ability to implement it.

Given the complexity and the gravity of the situation, I would recommend that Prime Minister Netanyahu, who is famous for his admiration for Winston Churchill and is wont to quote him, make it a point to internalize this quote from the latter: “Success is stumbling from failure to failure with no loss of enthusiasm.” This is true leadership in a nutshell. It is a leadership that adheres to a determined path, one that is determined to realize the goals that it has established.

There is no alternative but to enter into a diplomatic process with the Palestinians, here and now, despite the anxieties and the numerous risks. Without such a process, we will certainly cross the point of no return, after which we will be left with one state from the river to the sea for two peoples. The consequences of such a state for our national identity, our security, our ability to maintain a worthy, democratic state, our moral fiber as a society, and our place in the family of nations would be far-reaching.

This article was translated by Amishai Gottlieb.

Read More

German Weapons and Warmongering in the Middle East

Dr. Seyyed Reza Mirtaher, Expert on International Security & Strategic Issues

The German government is accused of selling weapons and security systems to dictatorial regimes and supporting them against democracy calls of their nations, especially in the Middle East and North Africa. Selling arms to such regimes takes place despite the fact that Saudi Arabia has not been playing a peaceful role in regional developments during the past few months.
It has been suppressing the popular uprising in Bahrain, on the one hand, while playing a sinister and destructive role in the Syrian unrest, on the other hand.
Israel, another major customer of German weapons in the Middle East is still pursuing its warmongering policies in the region after being delivered very advanced German submarines. Tel Aviv continues to threaten Iran with the use of force over Tehran’s nuclear energy program and has frequently underlined the role of these submarines in any possible attack against Iran.
Germany and Saddam’s Regime The issue which cannot be easily ignored is the high-profile part played by (former West) Germany and German companies in providing Iraq’s former Baathist regime with all kinds of weaponry during its eight years of imposed war against Iran. Experts say no country ever helped Iraq with building weapons production complexes and a chemical weapons arsenal as much as Germany did.
In the meantime, Iraq imported a total of about 625 million dollars worth of military equipment from Germany between 1982 and 1986 to become the fourth biggest importer of German weaponry in the world. Of course, the figure only encompasses weaponry exports for which an official permit had been issued.
In those years, some state-run circles in Germany suspected that 170 German institutes and companies were bypassing legal bans for the transfer of arms or their technical know-how to Iraq and had launched an investigation into performance of 25 space research firms. The investigation led to incrimination of Karl Kolb and Pilot Plant companies from Darmstadt in addition to Water Engineering Trading Co. of Hamburg as being responsible for delivering chemical arms to Iraq.
However, although trial of 10 company managers in Darmstadt went on for many years, only three of them were handed suspended jail sentences. Therefore, although German state officials were trying to exonerate themselves of charges about involvement in transfer of necessary materials and technology to Iraq which was later used by that country to build chemical weapons, the pressure put on them by certain Western media and analysts made it clear beyond any doubt that German officials had helped Iraq to build chemical weapons on purpose.
This measure by German government had been taken in concert with other Western states, which also embarked on selling huge amounts of various weapons to Iraqi Baathist regime in addition to extensive intelligence which was provided to Baghdad about Iran’s activities in the warfronts. Latest Measures In the meantime, Germany has tried in recent years to keep a high-profile and effective presence in the Middle East weapons market.
In line with that policy, selling Leopard tanks to Saudi Arabia and Dolphin class submarines to Israel, as well as proposing to sell warplanes to the United Arab Emirates have been among the most important measures taken by Berlin to continue selling weapons to regional states. By increasing export and sales of weapons between 1998 and 2009, Germany has increased its global ranking in this area from the fifth to the third.
According to the German constitution, when it reflects on the country’s arms sales, the government must inform the German parliament every three months of requests for purchasing German arms by countries other than the member states of the European Union or countries which are at war with other states. According to this legal stipulation, the German government is not entitled to embark on exporting weapons without obtaining prior permission of the lawmakers.
Germany and UAE In its latest arms sales proposal, Germans have reportedly offered to sell Eurofighter planes to the United Arab Emirates (UAE). In line with that proposal, Thomas de Maiziere, the German defense minister, paid a visit to UAE to discuss selling 60 Eurofighter planes to the Persian Gulf state with UAE officials. Eurofighter planes are jointly produced by major members of the European Union; that is, Germany, Britain, Spain and Italy.
Negotiations between German defense minister and UAE officials during his recent visit to Abu Dhabi were, therefore, focused on strengthening bilateral relations and cooperation especially with regard to military equipment. Net value of 60 Euroifgher jets has been estimated at about 6 billion euros. The German defense minister’s Abu Dhabi visit was part of his tour of a number of Persian Gulf littoral states. De Maiziere’s effort to sell Eurofighter jets to UAE followed France’s recent failure in its effort to convince UAE buy 60 Rafale fighter planes from Paris.
After the first Persian Gulf War in 1991, UAE decided to modernize its military forces and, in recent years, it has launched a far-fetched effort to equip its air force with long-range assault planes as well as air superiority fighter aircraft. As a result, Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) reported that UAE has ranked the sixth in terms of buying arms between 2006 and 2010 with Germany being one of the four main suppliers of weapons to UAE.
Therefore, it is clear that Germans have taken another step in line with their warmongering policy in the Persian Gulf by selling Eurofighter planes to UAE. The UAE has been a strategic partner to Germany since 2004, which has also cooperated with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Meanwhile, this country has not signed many international treaties which are, one way or another, related to human rights and has been frequently chastised by the Amnesty International for violation of women’s rights and bad working conditions of foreign immigrants. Germany and Saudi Arabia After Germany announced its decision to sell 270 Leopard 2 tanks to Saudi Arabia, some German lawmakers objected to the decision.
They emphasized that before conceding to Saudi Arabia’s request for buying tanks, the German government should have raised the issue in the parliament. Just recently, the Germany daily Bild am Sonntag carried a report on Saudi Arabia’s decision to purchase 600-800 Leopard 2 tanks which were, at least, two times higher than the figure that Riyadh was already expected to buy from Germany.
Another agreement for buying 300 German tanks is expected to be signed soon. The daily also reported that despite opposition of German Chancellery, Foreign Ministry and Defense Ministry, officials from German Ministry of Economic Affairs have supported the deal. Meanwhile, according to available reports, the German Federal Security Council, whose members also include the German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Defense Minister Thomas de Maiziere and Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle had indicated its agreement in principle to selling the tanks to Saudi Arabia last year. German tank makers, including Krauss-Maffei Wegmann and Rhine Metal need immediate buyers because of the urgent need to reconstruct the German army, on the one hand, and to make up for the decrease in Germany’s military budget, on the other hand.
From the viewpoint of those companies, Saudi Arabia is an ideal customer. Last year, a spokesperson for the German government refrained, when asked, to explain about this agreement. German official sources have also denied reports about possible agreement with Saudi Arabia to export 270 Leopard 2 tanks to the kingdom. Since information on exporting military equipment by Germany to any country is considered classified, it cannot be confirmed officially and any leak of information about contents of such agreement will entail cash fine or even jail sentence.
Meanwhile, after reports were released about Germany’s confidential agreement with Saudi Arabia to sell tanks, opposition parliament members mounted pressure on Chancellor Angela Merkel. They noted that the agreement was in violation of the country’s export policy with regard to military equipment. The daily Der Spiegel reported that during the past decades, former German governments had frequently deferred requests by Saudi Arabia for tanks because of their concern about security of Israel. However, it seems that Israel does not consider selling tanks to Saudi Arabia a threat to its existence anymore.
Germany and Israel Germany’s recent measure for selling the sixth Dolphin class submarine to Israel has been a clear act of warmongering which aims to fan the flames of war in the Middle East because such submarines are basically offensive vessels. Israel has been regularly and extensively threatening the Islamic Republic of Iran and from time to time, Tel Aviv has threatened that it will launch military, especially air, strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities.
Therefore, giving Dolphin attack submarines to the Zionist regime which can deliver missiles carrying nuclear warheads, will only bolster combat and aggressive capabilities of Israel and encourage the Zionist regime to embark on further acts of aggression against regional countries, especially the Islamic Republic of Iran. In the meantime, Germany, as a member of the P5+1 group – which in addition to Germany includes the US, the UK, France, China and Russia as well – has always called for complete halt of Iran’s peaceful nuclear energy program.
At the same time, German officials are well aware that there has been no diversion in Iran’s nuclear program toward military purposes. On the other hand, Western and even Israeli experts have frequently admitted that Israel is now in possession of 200-400 nuclear warheads some of which have already been mounted on Cruise missiles carried by Dolphin submarines which is a clear threat to the security of the Middle Eastern countries.
Basically, Germany’s measure can only be considered a blatant example of double standards applied by Berlin to different issues. In addition to Germany, this approach has frequently been taken to various international issues by other Western countries as well. Dr. Seyyed Reza Mirtaher

Read More

Going Rogue: America’s Unconventional Warfare in the Mideast

By Sharmine Narwani

The intent of U.S. [Unconventional Warfare] UW efforts is to exploit a hostile power’s political, military, economic, and psychological vulnerabilities by developing and sustaining resistance forces to accomplish U.S. strategic objectives…For the foreseeable future, U.S. forces will predominantly engage in irregular warfare (IW) operations.

So begins the 2010 Unconventional Warfare (UW) Manual of the US Military’s Special Forces. The manual attached here (TC 18-01) is an interim publication, developed to address the definition of Unconventional Warfare and some other inconsistencies in UW Doctrine. The new UW document (ATP 3-05.1) is in the initial draft and not yet available, though sources tell me it is unlikely to differ much from TC 18-01.
But most of us have not had the pleasure of leafing through this truly revelatory blueprint that shows how America wages its dirty wars. These are the secret wars that have neither been approved by Congress, nor by the inhabitants of nations whose lives – if not bodies – are mauled by the directives on these pages.
A quote from President John F. Kennedy in 1962 opens the document. These few lines illustrate a core Washington belief that US forces have the right to destabilize, infiltrate, assassinate, subvert – all in service of questionable foreign policy objectives, with no evident consideration of a sovereign state’s preparedness or desire for change:

There is another type of warfare—new in its intensity, ancient in its origin—war by guerrillas, subversives, insurgents, assassins; war by ambush instead of by combat, by infiltration instead of aggression, seeking victory by eroding and exhausting the enemy instead of engaging him. It preys on unrest.

Target: Middle East
The Bush Doctrine paved the way for the mainstreaming of unconventional warfare by establishing the principle of pre-emptive actions against a state that may one day pose a threat to American interests. It didn’t offer any specific criteria to gauge those threats, nor did it attempt to explain why anyone outside the United States should be held accountable for US “interests” – be they commercial, security or political.
The doctrine went largely unchallenged, and has been played out with disastrous results throughout the Middle East in the past decade. The prime targets of UW have traditionally been nations and groups that oppose US primacy in the region – mainly the Resistance Axis consisting of Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas – but UW has been carried out to some degree in virtually any nation where this Axis carries some influence.
The most nefarious aspect of UW – aside from the obvious violations of international law pertaining to sovereignty, territorial integrity and loss of human life/property, etc – is the proactive and aggressive effort to psychologically sway a population against its government. It is at this entry point where UW fails every American test of “values.”
The Arab Intifadas of 2011 provided a unique opportunity – amidst regional and sometimes domestic chaos – to ramp up UW activities in “hostile” states, whether or not populations sought regime change. Prime examples are Iran, Syria and Libya – all of which have been UW targets in the past year, at different levels of infiltration and with markedly different results.
Here is a chart from the Special Forces UW manual that demonstrates the scope of activity at the early stages:

Click to enlarge

February 14 was supposed to be the kick-off in Iran, but the Islamic Republic was already on guard, having gained experience with UW subversion in the aftermath of the 2009 Iranian presidential elections.
The use of social media to coordinate protests and widely disseminate anti-regime narratives in Iran’s post-election period marked a new era in the internet revolution globally. The Pentagon lost no time in claiming cyberspace as an “operational domain” and in the past year has substantially increased its budgetary allocation to subversion activities on the web.
Last July – as I wrote in this article – the technology arm of the Department of Defense, DARPA, announced a $42 million program to enable the U.S. military to “detect, classify, measure and track the formation, development and spread of ideas and concepts (memes)” within social media.
Wired magazine calls the project the Pentagon’s “social media propaganda machine” because of its plans for “counter messaging of detected adversary influence operations.”
In order to “allow more agile use of information in support of [military] operations” and “defend” against “adverse outcomes,” the project will enable the automation of processes to “identify participants and intent, measure effects of persuasion campaigns,” and ultimately, infiltrate and redirect social media-based campaigns overseas, when deemed necessary.
The UW campaign in Iran appears to more or less have faltered at technology sabotage, social media infiltration and assassinations. Libya is at the other extreme – and the following chart gives a bird’s eye view of the UW manual’s playbook for operations of that magnitude:

Click to enlarge

The Libyan scenario of course was slightly different in that it was conducted under NATO cover, with the US military “leading from behind.” In addition, the large-scale UW operation’s success relied less on ground combat than on air cover and intelligence-sharing for attacks conducted largely by Libyan rebels.
Target: Regime Change in Syria
In Syria, the UW task would have been a mix of the two. Because of the domestic popularity and strength of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad revealed here in a 2006 Wikileaks Cable, UW activities would necessarily need to start with some subversion of the population before graduating to a Libyan-style scenario.
Just as the Wikileaks cable recommends identifying “opportunities” to expose “vulnerabilities” in the Syrian regime and cause sectarian/ethnic division, discord within the military/security apparatus and economic hardship, the UW manual also instructs special forces to “exploit a hostile power’s political, military, economic, and psychological vulnerabilities.”
The Syrian demographic landscape is reflected in the UW manual: “In almost every scenario, resistance movements face a population with an active minority supporting the government and an equally small militant faction supporting the resistance movement. For the resistance to succeed, it must convince the uncommitted middle population…to accept it as a legitimate entity. A passive population is sometimes all a well-supported insurgency needs to seize political power.”
To turn the “uncommitted middle population” into supporting insurgency, UW recommends the “creation of atmosphere of wider discontent through propaganda and political and psychological efforts to discredit the government.”
As conflict escalates, so should the “intensification of propaganda; psychological preparation of the population for rebellion.”
First, there should be local and national “agitation” – the organization of boycotts, strikes, and other efforts to suggest public discontent. Then, the “infiltration of foreign organizers and advisors and foreign propaganda, material, money, weapons and equipment.”
The next level of operations would be to establish “national front organizations [i.e. the Syrian National Council] and liberation movements [i.e. the Free Syrian Army]” that would move larger segments of the population toward accepting “increased political violence and sabotage” – and encourage the mentoring of “individuals or groups that conduct acts of sabotage in urban centers.”
Now, how and why would an uncommitted – and ostensibly peaceful – majority of the population respond to the introduction of violence by opposition groups? The UW manual tells us there is an easy way to spin this one:

If retaliation [by the target government] occurs, the resistance can exploit the negative consequences to garner more sympathy and support from the population by emphasizing the sacrifices and hardship the resistance is enduring on behalf of “the people.” If retaliation is ineffective or does not occur, the resistance can use this as proof of its ability to wage effect combat against the enemy. In addition, the resistance can portray the inability or reluctance of the enemy to retaliate as a weakness, which will demoralize enemy forces and instill a belief in their eventual defeat.

And so on, and so forth.
The Bush Doctrine today has morphed under President Barack Obama into new “packaging.” Whether under the guidance of the recently-created “Atrocity Prevention Board” or trussed up as “humanitarian intervention,” the goals remain the same – destabilization of lives and nations in the service of political and economic domination, i.e., “American interests.”
When Arab governments yell “foreign conspiracy,” whether or not they are popular leaders they are surely right. There are virtually no domains left in key Arab countries – from the innocuous-sounding “civil society” filled to the brim with US-funded NGOs to the military/intelligence apparatuses of these nations to the Facebook pages of ordinary citizens – that are untouched by American “interests.”
The Ugly American just got uglier. And within these intifadas raging in the region, any Arab population that does not shut itself off from this foreign infiltration risks becoming a foot soldier in an unconventional war against themselves.

---

Sharmine Narwani is a commentary writer and political analyst covering the Middle East. You can follow Sharmine on twitter @snarwani.

Read More