Syria Continues to Stonewall the IAEA

by David Fontaine Mitchell

Israel attacked Syria's nuclear facility without going through the "proper channels" of the U.N. atomic energy agency...for good reason. The IAEA continues to be ineffective. Over three years after the bombing of a suspected nuclear facility at Al Kibar by the IAF, the rogue state continues to derail a full investigation by IAEA, the U.N. atomic energy agency.

On 6 September 2007, a previously undisclosed facility in Al Kibar, Syria, was destroyed by aerial firepower. The target, located roughly eighty miles from the Iraqi border, was widely rumored to have hosted a nuclear reactor that the Syrian government was clandestinely constructing with assistance from North Korea in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Press reports suggest that the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) was behind the attack; however, neither the United States nor Israel has confirmed or denied exactly what occurred.

Photos revealing various stages of the facility's development were reportedly obtained by the Mossad sometime in 2006. One of the photos was of particular interest, as it revealed Chon Chibu (a member of North Korea's nuclear program) and Ibrahim Othman (director of the Syrian Atomic Energy Commission) standing together at the site.

Press reports have also suggested that the Mossad was gathering intelligence from a human source planted inside the facility during the summer of 2007. The source is claimed to have provided Israel with visual evidence, including video footage, of the suspected nuclear site. The footage obtained revealed a reactor strikingly similar to the one in Yongbyon, as well as several North Koreans working at the location.

North Korea has long assisted Syria with their ballistic missile program, but the complex at Al Kibar was the first indication of cooperation between the two nations on a nuclear program.

It is suspected that sometime after midnight on 6 September 2007, seven F-15s from the 69^th Squadron of the Israeli Air Force (IAF) bombed the suspicious Al Kibar facility. The planes were able to penetrate the site's Russian-built Tor-M1 air defense system after taking off from Ramat David air base in Haifa. The attack has since become known as "Operation Orchard."

Following the attack, Syria issued a statement acknowledging that the IAF had indeed crossed the border; however, the report claimed, after the Israeli planes made an unsuccessful attack on an unpopulated area, the nation's air defenses "forced them to flee." Syrian foreign minister Walid Moallem reiterated this story four days later, proclaiming that live ammunition had been used by the IAF, but nothing had been damaged, and no one had been injured. It took almost a month before Syrian president Bashar al-Assad revealed to the public that the Israelis had in fact hit a facility, but he referred to it as an "unused military building." To this day, Syria has refused to acknowledge the site as a nuclear facility, referring to the allegations as "ridiculous."

Following the event, Israel immediately instituted a news blackout throughout the country, forbidding newspapers to write anything about the attack. When confronted about the raid, Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert simply stated that members of the IDF were "demonstrating unusual courage" and that Israel "cannot always show the public our cards." The nation remained silent about the matter until early October 2007, when Israeli Army Radio revealed that the IAF had hit a military installation "deep inside Syria." Details of the attack were omitted from the report.

The United States government initially refused to comment on the situation; however, intelligence issued a handout video to the media in early 2008 identifying the nuclear facility and the reactor suspected to be inside. The video revealed photos of the reactor's construction, the location of the site, and how the facility was operating. Satellite images of the site were also released by DigitalGlobe and SPOT Image Corporation. Although the U.S. has been forthcoming in their knowledge of the construction and capabilities of Al Kibar, they have still not officially recognized Israel's involvement in the attack. To this day, the United States has not admitted to playing a role in the destruction of the suspected nuclear site.

The nations involved were so uncharacteristically quiet in the immediate aftermath of the event that the IAEA's director general, Mohamed ElBaradei, first became aware of the bombing through press reports. After hearing the news, ElBaradei chastised both the U.S. and Israel, claiming that the two nations "shoot first and ask questions later." However, an investigation was authorized by the IAEA, which began to probe Syria, requesting access to the supposed military installation hit at Al Kibar.

If the site was in fact home to a nuclear reactor, Syria would be in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which they signed in 1968. Countries who have signed the treaty are authorized to pursue nuclear energy for peaceful means but are restricted from developing nuclear weapons. Virtually every U.N. member state has signed the treaty, and 151 of the 192 member states are members of the IAEA. Syria signed an agreement with the IAEA in 1992 obligating the nation to report its nuclear activity and plans to the agency, which is supposed to monitor their compliance with the NPT. If enough evidence is produced to find a signatory nation in violation of the treaty, the agency reports its findings to the U.N. Security Council. Syria has registered one nuclear reactor for research purposes; however, the nation has reportedly made several unsuccessful attempts over the last decade to purchase greater capabilities from Argentina and Russia.

Syria initially blocked the IAEA from inspecting the site of the bombing, claiming that the building was a military installation and that a visit from the agency would be unnecessary. Many outlets began to further question the credibility of Syria's claims following their hesitation to let inspectors into the country. If Syria had nothing to hide, why not invite the IAEA in to prove their innocence? Syria's obstruction, coupled with conflicting statements by various diplomats and government officials, led many to believe Israel was correct in its assessment and that Syria had in fact been constructing an illegal reactor.

To further dampen the hopes of an adequate investigation, satellite imagery began to reveal Syrian officials clearing the site of the suspected facility. On 10 October 2007, Syria conducted a controlled demolition of the remaining materials at the site. Several people were witnessed clearing the site and paving over it with concrete. The photos also reveal the removal of several large containers from the site and the erection of a new building over the location of the previous facility. Several press outlets have interpreted the mass alteration of the site immediately following the attack as a "tacit admission of guilt."

Roughly eight months after the attack, Syrian officials began to indicate a willingness to have the site inspected. They solidified this position in a 31 May 2008 letter that agreed to have IAEA inspectors visit Al Kibar to take environmental samples. The IAEA visited Syrian authorities in Damascus on 22 June, investigated the site on 23 June, and returned to Damascus for further discussion on 24 June. The IAEA reported that they had "unrestricted access" to all of the buildings on the site; however, Damascus would not grant the inspectors "any documentation relevant to the destroyed building, or any of the other buildings, to support its statements." During the 24 June meeting, the IAEA was repeatedly met with resistance over its requests for further documentation relating to the site. When Syria refused to provide records to the agency, the IAEA wrote a follow-up letter on 3 July reiterating their request for greater information and another visit. When Syria refused, another letter was sent on 15 August. Syria again denied the request, leaving the IAEA to conduct their investigation using only the samples they had acquired from the site on 23 June.

Following the IAEA's limited examination, the agency released a report on 19 November 2008. The report revealed that construction of the Al Kibar facility began sometime between 26 April 2001 and 4 August 2001 and continued until August 2007. The agency stated that the facility's "containment structure appear[ed] to have been similar in dimension and layout to that required for a biological shield for nuclear reactors, and the overall size of the building was sufficient to house the equipment needed for a nuclear reactor of the type alleged."

Based on information gathered during the 23 June visit, the IAEA was able to confirm that the water-pumping infrastructure located at the site had a capacity adequate for the size of the alleged reactor and that there was "sufficient electrical capacity to operate the pumping system." The environmental samples taken from the site were analyzed by the IAEA's Network of Analytical Laboratories, which concluded that "a significant number of natural uranium particles" were present and that the analysis of the particles indicated "that the uranium [was] anthropogenic, i.e. that the material was produced as a result of chemical processing." Syria proclaims that these traces were the result of the bombs dropped by Israel; however, the IAEA has dismissed this possibility as "highly unlikely."

To date, the Syrian government has refused to further cooperate with the agency, a refusal which has largely gone overlooked due to the international focus on Iran's nuclear program. Following requests from the United States and the European Union last month to comply with IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano, Damascus defied both parties once again. The United States has suggested that the IAEA request a "special inspection" during next month's Board of Governors meeting, which would grant the agency authority to inspect Syria with little notice. Amano is reportedly unwilling to request a special inspection -- a tactic not used since 1993 in North Korea -- out of fear of further confrontation with the rogue state. However, even if a special inspection request was extended to Damascus, they could always reject it. The consequence of such action would result in a vote from the agency's board to refer the dilemma to the U.N. Security Council. The prolonged case, which isn't expected to be resolved any time in the near future, has embarrassed the IAEA and frustrated several Western states.

The Al Kibar dilemma highlights the problematic nature of working with international bureaucracies such as the IAEA in a multilateral, as opposed to unilateral, approach. The IAEA is responsible for maintaining the compliance of signatory nations to the NPT. However, the agency failed to detect Al Kibar or exercise any degree of authority throughout their investigation. Syria refused to grant the IAEA access to the suspected site until several months after the bombing. They also denied the agency any requested documentation or follow-up visits, thus prolonging the investigation and obstructing the gathering of evidence.

Given that Syria was extremely reluctant to grant the IAEA access to the facility after the attack, Israel was correct in not contacting the agency prior to acting, considering the enormous time lapse that would have occurred. The case of Al Kibar demonstrates the lack of authority that agencies such as the IAEA have over nations disinclined to cooperate with investigations. Israel concluded that it was in their national security interest to act first and answer questions later due to the direct threat posed to them by Syria's suspected nuclear facility in Al Kibar. Had Israel waded through the requested international processes, there is a good possibility that Syria would have proceeded with their reactor while denying the IAEA access to the site.

David Fontaine Mitchell

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Fame Comes for the Archbishop

by Dexter Van Zile

Lebanese-born Melkite Archbishop Cyrille Salim Bustros garnered worldwide attention at the end of the Synod of Bishops for the Middle East in the Vatican when he assailed the belief held by many Jews (and Christians) that God's promise of the land to the Jewish people is irrevocable.

According to CNN reported Bustros asserted on Oct. 25 that “We Christians cannot speak of the 'promised land' as an exclusive right for a privileged Jewish people.” He also stated “This promise was nullified by Christ,” and that “There is no longer a chosen people -- all men and women of all countries have become the chosen people.”

These comments set off a row between Israel and the Vatican but will have little impact on the opinion of lay Catholics in the U.S., most of whom have never heard of the Archbishop or of the community of Greek Melkites that he leads. Still, with his statement, the Archbishop achieved a brief moment of notoriety that will fade long before the damage he has caused.

Archbishop Bustros's post-synod comments harkened back to an era prior to the Second Vatican Council when the Roman Catholic Church embraced a naked supersessionism that contradicts the spirit, if not the letter of Nostra Aetate, a declaration issued by the Second Vatican Council that called for a change in the Church's theological mindset toward the Jewish people. (The Vatican's affirmation of Nostra Aetate was, by the way, opposed by many Arab Christians living in the Middle East for fear that it would underscore the legitimacy of a Jewish state.)

In an effort to diffuse the controversy surrounding the Archbishop's statement, Church officials have referred observers to the “official” document issued by the synod. Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi stated that “If one wants a summary of the synod's position, attention must currently be paid to the ‘Message,' which is currently the only written text approved by the synod in the past few days.” (The Jewish Advocate, Oct. 29, 2010, page 3.)

Problem with Official Statement

This raises another issue: For all the outrage that the Archbishop Bustros' comments sparked, the “Message” issued by the synod itself is also problematic. Like many other Christian statements regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict, the “Message” issued by the synod subjects Israel and Jews to harsh scrutiny while treating Israel's adversaries and Muslim leaders with kid gloves.

For example, it admonishes the Jews that

Recourse to theological and biblical positions which use the Word of God to wrongly justify injustices is not acceptable. On the contrary, recourse to religion must leave every person to see the face of God in others and to treat them according to their God-given prerogatives and God's commandments, namely according to God's bountiful goodness, mercy, justice and love for us.

Compare this passage of the document – which obliquely accuses Israel of using the bible to justify the mistreatment of Palestinians – with the message it offers to Muslims:

Since the appearance of Islam in the seventh century and to the present, we have lived together and we have collaborated in the creation of our common civilisation. As in the past and still existent today, some imbalances are present in our relations. Through dialogue we must avoid all imbalances and misunderstandings.

If there is an “imbalance,” anywhere, it is in this document itself. The statement obliquely condemns Jews for using scripture for nefarious purposes but offers not one word of condemnation for the use of the Koran to mistreat religious and ethnic minorities in the Middle East, which according to the testimony offered by the Bishops themselves, is clearly a problem.

For example, Monsignor Raboula Antoine Beylouni, Titular Archbishop of Mardin of the Syrians, Curia Bishop of Antioch of the Syrians (Lebanon) made a statement during the Synod about the obstacles to religious dialogue between Muslims and Christians in the Middle East, which he says is oftentimes “difficult and ineffective.” The difficulties are not limited to discussions of dogma, the Monsignor said. For “even the subjects of a practical and social order are difficult to discuss when the Koran or the Sunna discusses them.” He continued:

Here are some difficulties which we have faced:

- The Koran inculcates in the Muslim pride in being the only true and complete religion, taught by the greatest prophet, because he was the last one. The Muslim is part of the privileged nation, and speaks the language of God, the language of Paradise, the Arabic language. This is why, he comes to dialogue with a sense of superiority, and with the certitude of being victorious.

The Koran, supposedly written by God Himself, from beginning to end, gives the same value to all that is written: dogma that supercedes all law or practice.

In the Koran, men and women are not equal, not even in marriage itself where the man takes several wives and can divorce at his pleasure; nor in the heritage where man takes double; nor in the testifying before judges where the voice of one man is equal to the voice of two women, etc...

The Koran allows the Muslim to hide the truth from the Christian, and to speak and act contrary to how he thinks and believes.

In the Koran, there are contradictory verses which annul others, which gives the Muslim the possibility of using one or the other to his advantage, and therefore he can tell the Christian that he is humble and pious and believes in God, just as he can treat him as impious, apostate and idolatrous.

The Koran gives the Muslim the right to judge Christians and to kill them for the Jihad (the holy war). It commands the imposition of religion through force, with the sword. The history of invasions bears witness to this. This is why the Muslims do not recognize religious freedom, for themselves or for others. And it isn't surprising to see all the Arab countries and Muslims refusing the whole of the “Human Rights” instituted by the United Nations.

This is a troubling litany of problems offered by Titular Archbishop Beylouni, but for some reason, the final document issued by the Synod made no reference to any of them. Did the synod not trust Monsiginor Beylouni's testimony?

Interestingly enough, Archbishop Bustros – who assailed Israel at the end of the synod – made similar statements in 2006. Speaking to a Catholic newspaper in Florida, the Archbishop acknowledged the problem a literalist interpretation of the Koran poses to Muslims and their neighbors in the Middle East. The article states, in part, the following:

While Islam has many different interpretations and no central arbiter of doctrine, such as the pope, he said, most Muslims are taught to interpret the Quran literally. Following its precepts, they divide the world into Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb – the land of Islam and the land of war, the land conquered by Muslims and the land yet to be conquered by Muslims.

Like Christians, Muslims are obligated to "convert nonbelievers." Unlike Christianity, however, "the doctrines of Islam dictate war against unbelievers." Jihad, or holy war, is justified as self-defense whenever Islam is threatened – whether by a conquering power or an offensive cartoon.

Most Muslims do not take those interpretations of Islamic teaching as far as Osama bin Laden and the Taliban, Archbishop Bustros said. But "the concept of nonviolence is absent from Muslim doctrine and practice," he added.

Although Islam calls itself a religion of peace, the peace it preaches is the literal interpretation of Islam, which means "surrender to the will of God."

"The peace in Islam is based on the surrender of all people to Islam and to God's power based on Islamic law," Archbishop Bustros said. "They have to defend this peace of God even by force."

Again, these are serious problems, and there was not one word of criticism leveled at Muslim leaders in the document. Why the silence?

Two State Solution, but …

It is important to note that the official document issued by the synod calls for a two state solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict, as does a statement issued by the Archbishop himself on Oct. 23 in which he states that “Palestinians and Israelis each have the right to have and to live in a sovereign State with secure borders.”

Accompanying the Archbishop's affirmation, however, is the following assessment of Israeli political life:

Israelis cannot betray either their faith or their nationalism. According to the Bible, the State of Israel – the national territory of the Kingdom of Israel – is the whole of Palestine. From the perspective of faith Palestine is the Promised Land of the chosen people and the national Homeland of the nationalist dream of Judaism.

Hence we can understand that any Prime Minister, Member of Parliament or other Israeli leader who proposes a solution that fails to take into account those two requirements – of faith and nationalism – would be seen as a traitor to his faith and nation.

The decision to decree that Israel is a Jewish country originates in this duality that underlies the State of Israel, a duality that, obligatorily, leads into an impasse every attempt at negotiations even if they are not still-born. Anyway, as at Masada, this is Jewish suicide.

Here, the Archbishop espouses a narrative in which he portrays Israel as unable to achieve peace with the Palestinians because of its Jewish identity.

Specter of Supersessionism

The problem with the Archbishop's post-synodical comments – official or not – is that by raising the specter of Catholic supersessionism, he gives Israel's adversaries in the Middle East good reason to think that in some quarters of Christianity at least, Jews are still regarded as an apostate fallen race who are not entitled to a sovereign state of their own.

Yes, on one hand, the Synod and the Archbishop himself spoke in political and worldly terms about the legitimacy of Israel as a Jewish state. But on a theological level, the Archbishop has introduced doubt about the Church's attitude toward the Jewish people and their state. To be sure, the Archbishop does not speak for the entire church and his statement seems to contradict Pope Benedict's statement (issued prior to his Papacy) that God's covenant with the Jews “has never been revoked.”

The Vatican's response to the Archbishop's statement will provide an important clue as to what type of leadership it will provide to its members outside of Europe and the United States where the Church's membership is growing rapidly.

This is an important issue. Christians outside the U.S. and Europe do not feel responsible for the Holocaust. Catholics in the Third World are also much less concerned about Christian-Jewish dialogue than their co-religionists in the West for one simple reason – they have little contact with Jews. Consequently, indifference and in some instances, outright contempt for Jews and Israel oftentimes manifests itself in organizations whose constituencies are located in the Third World.

To be sure, Catholic leaders, have in the main, spoken in much more responsible terms than the World Council of Churches headquartered in Switzerland and mainline Protestant churches in the U.S. Despite the Archbishop's outburst, the Vatican has stated that anti-Zionism sometimes serves as a “screen” for anti-Semitism.”

Hilarion Capucci

Regardless of how the Roman Catholic Church's hierarchy responds to the controversy surrounding Archbishop Bustros' remarks, his statement should not come as a surprise. Arab Christians, including Melkite leaders, have been known to assail Israel.

For example, a few months ago, another Melkite Archbishop – Hilarion Capucci – was a passenger onboard the Mavi Marmara, the vessel that attempted to run Israel's blockade of the Gaza Strip.

Most people would think it's pretty irresponsible for a man of the cloth to rub shoulders with members of the IHH, a terrorist organization headquartered in Turkey that has ties to Hamas, but not with Capucci's supporters who started a now-deleted Facebook page in his honor and posted comments about how proud they were of what he did.

As outrageous as this support is, Capucci enjoyed similar support when he was convicted of running guns into the West Bank for the PLO even though some of the weapons he smuggled into the West Bank were used to kill an Israeli taxi driver in Jerusalem.

Dexter Van Zile

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Fire From the Mountain

by Jonathan Speyer

Our PKK contact and driver arrived at the appointed time outside the hotel in Erbil. We had been told he would identify himself using an agreed term. We hadn't quite been ready for the fact that this single word would be the sole communication possible between us. The diminutive, scrawny youth who turned up at six that morning knew neither English nor Arabic.

Only Kurdish. That was how we began our journey from the Iraqi Kurdish capital toward the Qandil mountains, in the remote border area between Iraq, Turkey and Iran.

It is in these mountains that the guerrillas of the Parti Karkeren Kurdistan (PKK) live and wage their 26- year-old war against Turkey. They offer ideal terrain for guerrilla fighters. Accessible only through a network of narrow, near impenetrable passes, the mountains serve as a launching ground for the PKK and the allied Iranian Kurdish PEJAK into their respective areas of operation.

The writ of the Iraqi Kurdish regional government has little purchase in the Qandil area. The PKK is the de facto ruling authority.

Our contact from the Kurdish regional government in Erbil cheerfully wished us luck on the eve of our departure - and told us not to bother calling him if we got into trouble. There was, he said with a broad smile, "absolutely nothing he could do" in such a situation.

The PKK is waging a struggle in these mountains for autonomy and recognition for the Turkish Kurds. The Qandil area has become a little known but crucial window into the complex strategic arrangements that dominate today's Middle East.

FOUNDED IN 1978, the PKK began its armed campaign against the Turkish authorities in 1984. The Turkish military responded with ferocity. In the 1984-99 period, around 30,000 people lost their lives in the conflict. The Turks destroyed more than 3,000 Kurdish villages. The capture of PKK leader Abdullah Ocalan in 1999 led to a sharp downturn in the movement's fortunes.

Turkish governments failed to address Kurdish grievances following the capture of Ocalan. So from its base in Qandil, the PKK slowly rebuilt itself.

The movement, which ended a 12-month cease-fire in June, subsequently carried out a number of successful operations before renewing its cease-fire in August. The most daring of these was a mine blast along the Kirkuk-Ceyhan oil pipeline on July 21. The blast claimed two lives, temporarily halted the flow of oil along the strategic pipeline and served notice of the PKK's undimmed abilities to strike at its Turkish enemy.

As a result of the renewed campaign, Turkish aerial attacks on the mountains took place. Iranian mortar fire is also a common occurrence. The fighters of the PKK live in temporary structures, constantly alert and seeking to avoid the regular attentions of Turkish drone aircraft.

Finding our way to the PKK in the mountains had not been easy. It involved a long series of communications with supporters of the movement in Europe. Finally, the word had come and we had made our way to Erbil.

But relations between the Erbil-based Kurdish regional government and the PKK are complex. Hence the semi-clandestine arrangements for our trip to the mountains.

The KRG has created the most stable and peaceful part of Iraq. The Kurdish regional capital has the feel of a boom town, with new malls, hotels and office blocks springing up all over the city.

The cautious, pragmatic Iraqi Kurdish leadership has little in common with the ideologues of the PKK. At the same time, the Erbil leadership is unwilling to undertake the kind of drastic measures that would be necessary to remove the movement from its mountain fastness in Qandil.

As a result, the government uneasily tolerates both the presence of the PKK, and the Turkish and Iranian bombings which this presence brings about.

Checkpoints manned by the Peshmerga forces of the KRG dotted the highway leading into the mountains. The Peshmerga is one of the most professional and efficient military forces in Iraq. But the soldiers clearly had little interest in blocking the way to foreign journalists very obviously on the way to meet with the guerrillas of the PKK. Our passports were perfunctorily glanced at, and we were waved on.

The mountains, as they loomed suddenly before us, were majestic, harsh and beautiful.

The way to the heights where the PKK is to be found involves the traversing of near impassable gorges on the narrowest of dirt roads. In places, the paths simply disappear, washed away by mountain streams, and the vehicle must cross directly through the rushing water. The precise points at which Iraq, Turkey and Iran intersect are also not exactly clear. The second intelligible word our driver spoke to us was not reassuring. "Iran," he suddenly said at one stage in the ascent, pointing toward a narrow fence to our immediate left.

The leader [sic] We avoided Iran, and managed to stay on the tracks. Finally, we arrived at a house of a PKK sympathizer, where we met our movement contacts for the first time in the flesh. From there, we were driven to a remote house, passing a roadblock manned by PKK fighters, and to a small building, where again we were told to wait. Minutes passed.

Finally, Murat Karayalan, acting leader of the PKK, entered, accompanied by an entourage of armed fighters.

Karayilan, 67, gray-haired and mustached, is the acknowledged senior figure in the PKK. The pleasantries completed, he quickly turned the conversation to the issue of the AKP government in Turkey. The PKK leader wanted to talk about what he called the "strategic alliance" between the Islamist AKP and Iran. Karayilan first noted a recent visit by Iranian First Vice President Mohammad Reza Rahimi to Turkey, in which in a statement with Prime Minister Recip Tayyip Erdogan, he announced the launching of a joint strategy to develop economic relations.

Such a strategy, Karayilan suggested, would serve to help Iran bypass the economic embargo against it. It would also serve as a basis for joint action against the twin Kurdish guerrilla organizations present in the Qandil mountains - the PKK and PEJAK, its counterpart among the Iranian Kurds.

"The AKP is currently trying to draw the surrounding countries into hostilities against us," Karayilan said, "and through the ideology of Islam they want to control and dominate the whole Islamic world, in an attempt to use this power against peaceful coexistence between nations - this is Erdogan's game."

He also accused Erdogan of "double dealing" in his regional and international alliances. "Turkey has relations with the USA, and also with Iran," he said, "and both are used against the Kurds. In Qandil, US-made drones fly over the zone. They collect intelligence and bring it back to Turkey. Turkey then comes and bombs the area. But Turkey also passes the information on to Iran, which also bombards us."

The AKP, Karayilan maintained, has a plan to crush the PKK "in Sri Lankan style," and was in the process of attempting to firm up regional and international alliances - most importantly with Iran and Syria - to put this plan into effect.

Karayilan's manner was calm and friendly throughout the interview, more in the manner of a politician in late middle age than a paramilitary leader, despite his military uniform. (The PKK remains on both the US and the EU list of terror organizations.) He became more animated, however, when he alleged the deaths and jailing of Kurdish children under the Erdogan government.

He accused the Turkish prime minister of "lying" in his supposed support for the Palestinians and empathy with their suffering.

"On the one hand," said Karayilan, "he says this shouldn't happen. On the other, he is doing it himself."

He also related to the issue of Israel. He stressed the empathy felt by Kurds for the Jews, given their joint experience, as he put it, of "tragedies and genocides." He expressed his "respect" for the people of Israel, while also criticizing the government for its defense relationship with Turkey.

Karayilan reiterated the recent allegations that the Turks have used chemical weapons against the movement's fighters. He mentioned an incident he had dealt with personally in the Sirnak province in southeast Turkey. He said that 20 PKK fighters died as a result of Turkish use of chemical weapons.

He said that he had personally sent materials found at the site to a laboratory in Germany for testing, where it was confirmed that chemical weapons had been used.

But Karayilan also stressed what he called the "defensive" nature of the PKK's strategy and its desire for dialogue with Turkey. The impression given was not that of a militant leader hungry for conflict. Rather, the PKK is aware of its isolation, and appears to want to walk a careful line between militancy and political action to advance the cause of the Kurds in Turkey.

The fighters The morning after the interview, we were taken to observe a demonstration of tactics by young PKK fighters at a secluded spot high in the mountains. The fighters, a mixed group of young men and women, demonstrated a tactical response to an ambush. They were all very young, none of them much over 20. Nearly all of them from the villages of southeast Turkey.

They had signed up with the PKK for the duration, no longer able to reenter Turkey, living all year round in the mountains, constantly in motion to avoid the probing Turkish drones. No way to leave, our interpreter, who had lived for 14 years in Australia, told us, once you have signed up.

"They give their lives for the cause."

The PKK fighters looked young and fresh-faced, but there is every reason to believe that they would put up a fierce and capable resistance to any Turkish attempt to move in force against them. They are familiar with the terrain, well skilled in guerrilla tactics, and fiercely devoted to the organization and its overall leader, the jailed Abdullah Ocalan. Karayilan also indicated that should such an attack take place, the organization would undertake to spread the area of combat by initiating attacks in western Turkey, outside of the main area of Kurdish population.

Still, there are reasons to believe that such an outcome may not be immediately imminent.

The PKK elected to unilaterally continue its cease-fire for a further month after September 20. The organization may well be hoping to benefit from the widespread disillusionment felt by the Kurds of Turkey with Erdogan's perceived failure to deliver on early promises. Such a path requires patience and political organization, not militancy alone.

The road ahead The PKK has abandoned its dreams of a large Kurdish state and today says it seeks only autonomy and language rights for Kurds in Turkey. It has no interest in provoking the Turkish government to a point where a large scale incursion into the Qandil mountains would become inevitable.

From the Turkish point of view, too, such an incursion would ultimately solve little.

The military could certainly kill a large number of PKK fighters, but the "Sri Lankan" style solution that Karayilan claimed Erdogan seeks may be precluded by political considerations both domestic and international.

And for as long as the basic issue of the Turkish Kurds and their status remains unresolved, the PKK would be likely to organize and rise again.

So for the moment, at least, the stark Qandil mountains are likely to continue to play host to the isolated but formidable insurgent movement that currently dominates them. The PKK's cease-fires may continue to come and go. The growing Turkish-Iranian alliance will do its best to make life as unpleasant as possible for the movement's militants in their mobile bases on the peaks. The Kurdish regional government will go on developing further south, and looking nervously at its uninvited Kurdish compatriots in the mountains.

There was mortar fire in the distance as we drove down from the mountains, heading back to Erbil. Maybe it was the Iranian gunners, who fire regularly up at the Qandil area, in the general direction of the PJAK militants waging their own war against the Revolutionary Guards. Maybe it was a PKK training exercise.

One thing seemed certain as our driver negotiated the narrow descents and we made it to the highway back to Erbil - that there was no end in sight. The beautiful, blighted border zone of Qandil will be ringing to the sound of gunfire, the shouts of insurgents and the periodic thunder of Turkish aircraft and Iranian cannons, largely out of earshot of a largely indifferent world, for a long time to come.

Dr. Jonathan Spyer is a senior research fellow at the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, Herzliya, Israel. His new book, The Transforming Fire: The Rise of the Israel-Islamist Conflict will be released on November 16th.

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Statement by Ambassador Susan E. Rice, U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, after Security Council Consultations on Resolution 1559

by Susan E. Rice

Good morning everybody. I am going to deliver a statement on behalf of the U.S. Government.

The United States welcomes the Secretary General’s most recent report on resolution 1559, particularly its candid portrayal of the continuing threat to Lebanese sovereignty and security posed by the presence of Hizballah and other armed militias in Lebanon. We continue to have deep concerns about Hizballah’s destructive and destabilizing influence in the region, as well as the attempts by other foreign players, including Syria and Iran, to undermine Lebanon’s independence and endanger its stability.

We understand that certain actors within and outside Lebanon – including Syria, Hizballah, and Iran – may believe that escalating sectarian tensions will help them assert their own authority over Lebanon. However, these actors serve only to destabilize Lebanon and the region.

Syria, especially, has displayed flagrant disregard for the sovereignty, territorial integrity, unity, and political independence of Lebanon under the sole and exclusive authority of the Lebanese government, as affirmed in resolution 1559. For example, Syria has issued 33 arrest warrants for senior Lebanese officials and foreign nationals, which directly undermines Lebanon’s sovereignty as well as Syria’s stated commitment to respect Lebanon’s sovereignty and independence.

Additionally, Syria continues to provide increasingly sophisticated weapons to Lebanese militias, including Hizballah, despite Resolution 1680, which calls on Syria to undertake measures against the movement of arms into Lebanese territory. The Secretary General’s report again cites no progress in the disbanding or disarmament of militias since the last report. Hizballah remains the most significant and most heavily armed Lebanese militia. It could not have done so if not for Syria’s aid and facilitation of Syrian and Iranian arms, which also violates UN Security Council Resolution 1747. While Hizaballah appears to be attempting to exercise control over parts of Lebanon, Hizballah itself is not accountable to Lebanon’s democratic institutions.

The United States urges all friends and neighbors of Lebanon to play a constructive role in supporting the Lebanese government in good faith. We remain firmly committed to a sovereign, stable, and independent Lebanon, with strong Lebanese institutions. This is the only way to secure the best interests of the Lebanese people and the region as a whole.

Susan E. Rice

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

The Jihad Candidate

by Art Moore


Since his election to the House in 2006, Democratic Senate candidate Joe Sestak has fended off strong criticism of his relationship with the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a federally designated terrorist co-conspirator shown by FBI evidence to be a front for the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas.

Now in a tight race with Republican Pat Toomey for Sen. Arlen Specter's open seat, a report asserting Sestak was caught in a lie – denying that he was ever in the home of the director of CAIR's Pennsylvania chapter for a fundraiser on his behalf – has resurfaced.

CAIR Pennsylvania's Iftekhar Hussain affirmed to WND's Aaron Klein yesterday in a recorded interview for Klein's WABC radio show that he hosted a fundraiser for Sestak during the 2006 congressional campaign.

But in an April 9, 2007, radio interview with WPHT's Dom Giordano in Philadelphia, Sestak told a caller he had never been at the CAIR leader's home. The interview, along with a recorded excerpt of a November 2006 lecture by Hussain in which the Muslim leader referred to the event, was reported at the time by Pamela Geller on her Atlas Shrugs blog.

The 2007 radio interview took place just two days after Sestak went through with a controversial decision to speak at CAIR Pennsylvania's fundraising banquet in Philadelphia, and the freshman congressman was seeking to minimize the depth of his relationship with the controversial group.

Giordano played the 2006 clip of Hussain on his show earlier this week, and last night he aired the portion of the 2007 interview in which a caller named Brian confronted Sestak on his ties to CAIR.

"Have you ever received any funds from CAIR or have you ever been in the home of the chairman of the local CAIR?" the caller asked Sestak.

"No, I haven't," the congressman replied. "I've been in the homes of local American Muslims lots of times. As a matter of fact, they probably have given me a number of fundraisers ... as the local Jewish community has during the campaign. But, no, neither of the other two."

"You haven't been in Mr. Hussain's home?" Brian asked again.

"No, I honestly don't think I have," Sestak said. "I don't even know where he lives."

Sestak's spokeswoman April Mellody told Klein yesterday she didn't recognize Hussain's name and was not aware of the congressman ever having been in his home. She promised to inquire further but has not responded.

Sestak was the center of controversy last spring when he revealed the Obama administration offered him a position if he would drop out of the Democratic primary to clear the way for the incumbent, Specter. Republicans charged the offer was illegal, but Democrats insisted it was legitimate because the position was unpaid. Sestak went on to defeat Specter in the Democratic Party primary.

CAIR describes itself as a civil-rights group, but FBI evidence points to its origin as a front group for the Muslim Brotherhood and its offshoot Hamas, and the Justice Department designated it an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terror-finance case in U.S. history. The Washington, D.C.-based group, which has more than a dozen former and current leaders with known associations with violent jihad, is suing WND and two investigators behind the best-selling expose "Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That's Conspiring to Islamize America".

In an interview Sunday with Philadelphia's NBC television affiliate, WCAU, Sestak was asked if NPR's firing of news analyst Juan Williams last week for expressing fear when he sees people in "Muslim garb" on an airliner is "an example of why taxpayer money should not go to NPR, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting."

"No, it isn't," Sestak replied. "I think it was untenable what he said. He said [his fear] was irrational. I understand that. But you need to get over it."

As WND reported, NPR announced the termination of Williams' contract after CAIR issued a statement calling for the taxpayer-funded network to take action.

Rich Davis, a 20-year Navy veteran, told WND he recorded Hussain's 2006 lecture at Grove Methodist Church in West Chester, Pa.

Davis was participating in a class taught by Hussain that was part of a 10-week series called "Understanding Islam and the Quran."

In the clip of Hussain's lecture, the CAIR leader recalls being at his home with Sestak and a group of Muslims prepared to write checks for the candidate. Hussain said he asked Sestak if America was "capable of doing another internment camp – for Muslims?"

Listen to the excerpt of Hussain's 2006 talk:

Hussain said Sestak's answer – "I would hope not" – "scared the hell out of me."

"He didn't come out and say, 'No.' He couldn't do it," Hussain said.

Sestak, the CAIR leader recalled, "was trying to be intellectual."

"And I'm okay with that, but these guys are about to give you checks," Hussain said to laughter from the audience at the Methodist church. "Say the right thing. In the media, two-second blurb here, OK. He didn't do it. I understand. He's a good guy. Giving me a lot of grief lately, but he's a good guy."

'Promoting justice'

Sestak is now the target of a $1 million ad campaign by the Republican Jewish Coalition that criticizes him for his involvement with CAIR, his support of a civilian trial for Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his backing of partisan congressional declarations against Israel.

Prior to Sestak's appearance at the Philadelphia CAIR fundraiser, Jewish leaders held a meeting in which they pleaded with him to withdraw from the event. They argued that even leading Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer has described CAIR as an organization "which we know has ties to terrorism."

Sestak declined and gave a speech to the CAIR supporters in which he lauded the Muslim group for doing "such important and necessary work in a difficult environment to change such perceptions and wrongs – from racial profiling and civil rights to promoting justice and mutual understanding – at a time when it is challenging to be an American-Muslim and pass, for example, through an airport checkpoint."

At the banquet, CAIR Pennsylvania gave an award to the Muslim TV network founder who was convicted of beheading his wife. The presentation by Hussain and CAIR National Chairman Parvez Ahmed was made to Muzzammil Hassan less than two months after he was charged with killing his 37-year-old wife, Aasiya Hassan.

Sestak argued he rebuked CAIR in his speech, noting he stated it was their "duty to condemn not just terrorism – as you have done – but also condemn the specific acts, and specific individuals and groups by name, associated with those acts, such as Hamas and Hezbollah."

Sestak also responded with a statement on his website in which he reasoned that "establishing a dialogue with people is the only way to win the war of ideas."

"That is why I agreed to speak to CAIR," he said. "It even says in the Torah, understand the other side before you make a judgment, and once you make your judgment, speak the truth. In that vein, I went to CAIR tonight to speak honestly and frankly."

Sestak said, "First and foremost, I attended tonight's banquet because 250 of my Muslim constituents attended the event."

"The American-Muslim community is a wonderful community and they have my strong support," he said. "They are among our district's leaders, and, among other things, have contributed to the success of businesses, educational institutions, interfaith circles and the health sector. Their participation in civic life is indicative of the great diversity and tolerance of this nation."

Critics also point out Sestak hired a former CAIR staffer, Adeeba al-Zaman, to direct his local office. Al-Zaman was CAIR's director of communications from April 2005 to September 2006.

Sestak claimed he was not aware of the then 23-year-old Al-Zaman's background with CAIR when he hired her, although he interviewed her three times.

A new ad against Sestak produced by the newly launched Emergency Committee for Israel asks "Does Congressman Joe Sestak realize Israel is America's ally?"

The group is governed by a three-person board of Bill Kristol of Fox News and the Weekly Standard; evangelical political activist Gary Bauer; and Rachel Abrams, a writer married to former senior Bush administration official Elliott Abrams.

"Sestak raised money for an anti-Israel organization the FBI called 'a front-group for Hamas,'" the ad's narrator says, referring to CAIR. "Sestak signed a letter accusing Israel of 'collective punishment' for blockading Hamas in Gaza. Sestak refused to sign a bipartisan letter affirming U.S. support for Israel.

"Call Joe Sestak: Ask him to stand with Israel."

Last year, Sestak refused to join a pro-Israel letter, signed by 329 members of Congress, urging President Obama to work closely with Israel to advance peace. In March, Sestak also declined to sign another congressional letter that affirmed the U.S. and Israel are "close allies."

Critics note Sestak did sign a January letter lambasting Israel for using "collective punishment" against Palestinian residents of Gaza. The letter sought to put pressure on Israel to ease up on its blockade of the Hamas regime.

IMPORTANT NOTE: The CAIR legal attack on WND's [World Net Daily] author is far from over. WND needs your help in supporting the defense of "Muslim Mafia" co-author P. David Gaubatz, as well as his investigator son Chris, against CAIR's lawsuit. Already, the book's revelations have led to formal congressional demands for three different federal investigations of CAIR. In the meantime, however, someone has to defend these two courageous investigators who have, at great personal risk, revealed so much about this dangerous group. Although WND has procured the best First Amendment attorneys in the country for their defense, we can't do it without your help. Please donate to WND's Legal Defense Fund now.

Art Moore

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Its About Hate and Intolerance, Stupid

by Adam Levick


“It’s the economy, Stupid.” - A phrase, made popular by President Clinton’s campaign strategist James Carville, referring to the notion that Clinton was a better choice because President Bush had not adequately addressed the economy.)

The significance of my recent post “Almost half of all Palestinians support murdering Jews inside 1949 armistice lines” was, I thought, clear enough. 49% of Palestinians surveyed supported killing Israeli civilians (men, women, and children) within pre-1967 borders. However, I have reason to believe that the significance of this poll eludes many readers. Let me be clearer, then, on its meaning:

The most tired trope advanced by the mainstream media, and the Guardian in particular, is that “settlements” – referring, of course, to Jewish communities built in Judea and Samaria in the aftermath of the Six Day War (Israel’s war of defense waged to prevent its destruction) – are the main impediments to peace between Israel and the Palestinians. This argument rests on the premise (equation) that “occupation” = conflict and “withdrawal” = peace. However, this equation somehow ignores that results of Israels’ unilateral withdrawals from Southern Lebanon (2000) and Gaza (2005) – disengagements which only led to the strengthening of terrorist movements dedicated to Israel’s destruction (Hezbollah and Hamas respectively.)

Such folks always seem to ignore the fact that – regardless of Israeli policy – the failure of the Arab world, and Palestinians in particular, to acknowledge Israel’s very right to exist (within any borders) may be an impediment to peace. Further, such otherwise liberal and sober minds always find ways to justify – or conveniently ignore – the virulent anti-Semitism and demonization continually peddled in Palestinian political culture. One only need to read reputable sites such as Palestinian Media Watch or MEMRI to understand the depth of the problem.

I recently asked an extremely well-informed and thoughtful colleague why “progressives” – typically sensitive to even the most subtle forms of racism- seem to ignore the most vile and virulent anti-Semitism consistently on display In Palestinian society – a level of Jew-hatred that respected historian Robert Wistrich has characterized as on par with that advanced by Nazi Germany.

Wistrich said:

“The scale and extremism of the literature and commentary available in Arab or Muslim newspapers, journals, magazines, caricatures, on Islamist websites, on the Middle Eastern radio and TV news, in documentaries, films, and educational materials, is comparable only to that of Nazi Germany at its worst. Yet the Western world largely turns a blind eye to the likely genocidal consequences of such a culture of hatred…”

A frame from a Hamas video which claims that the Jews planned the Holocaust to get rid of disabled and handicapped Jews to avoid having to provide for their medical needs.

My colleague suggested that such “progressives” may actually believe that exposure to such information may hurt the “peace process.” That is, in the minds of many, facts regarding anti-Semitism and intransigence in Palestinian society may create an impediment to the trust and goodwill necessary to achieve a peace agreement. Let’s call them “inconvenient truths”.

Of course, such folks never consider that – beyond the public relations problems such facts cause – the REALITY of such Palestinian intransigence, hate, and intolerance towards Jews may be, in itself, an impediment to peace. In other words, maybe it’s not just a public relations problem but, rather, such hate may be an essential root cause of the conflict.

I often wonder what those who are convinced that “the settlements” are the root cause of the conflict would say if Israel withdrew from every last square meter of the West Bank, and granted the Palestinians a capital in East Jerusalem, and that such concessions not only didn’t result in peace, but actually emboldened the most radical elements within Palestinian society – making Israelis (men, women, and children living within its ’49 borders) even more vulnerable to deadly terrorist attacks – and rendered the Jewish nation’s very existence less secure.

Would such “proponents of peace” finally admit that they were wrong all along? More importantly to those, like me, who actually live here, would such an admission come too late?

Adam Levick

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

One Palestinian Cartoon Shows Why There Isn't (And Won't Soon Be) Peace

by Barry Rubin

After fifteen years of following the Palestinian Authority (PA) media on a daily basis, I've never seen anything that sums up the problem of why there's no peace better than this cartoon in al-Hayat al-Jadida, the official PA newspaper. If only the Western mass media ran this cartoon the situation would be crystal-clear and nobody would have any doubt who is blocking a peaceful, two-state resolution of the conflict.

In the cartoon, a young boy is being instructed in the Arabic alphabet by the teacher. But even before he starts with the letters, the very basis of his world view and knowledge is presented (in his thought balloon) as this: All of Israel must be replaced by Palestine. See the map on the right side of the balloon, remembering Arabic is read from right to left. This goal is presented as the foundation stone, the guiding light, the very basis of Palestinian thought and identity.

Nor is that all. On the desk, his pen has become a slingshot (symbolizing that violent struggle trumps education) with stones.

Not exactly: Hey kids! Stay in school, get a good education, help build a peaceful, prosperous Palestine living as a neighbor to Israel!

Remember, too, this is a PA newspaper. If "President" Mahmoud Abbas wanted to do so, which he doesn't, he could pick up the phone and tell the editor to stop it. We aren't talking about a broad spectrum of permissible belief or free competition of ideas here. Everything in the newspaper is what the PA wants to convey, indeed indoctrinate, its subjects and supporters to believe.

This context also explains why unilaterally declaring a state, rather than getting one through a negotiated agreement, is so attractive for the PA, allowing it to have its state and eat Israel, too. No negotiations, concessions, obligations, commitment to end the conflict, or to accept Israel's existence would be needed. Meanwhile, the next generation is being prepared what might be called--to borrow a Star Wars title--Episode 2: Return of the Jihadi.

How can a Palestinian government, media, and educational system that presents the struggle to wipe Israel off the map as the most fundamental principle of existence, the touchstone of national identity, possibly make peace with Israel? How could leaders, even if they wanted to do so, persuade their people to compromise when they have been brought up on ideas like this?

The situation is not one of Palestinians--at least in terms of public life, politics, and society--desperately yearning for a state of their own, a higher standard of living, the end of "occupation," a better life for their children, and the dismantlement of Jewish settlements. In reality, the situation is of Palestinians being taught, told, and led to believe that the only worth goal is one of total victory.

In this context, peace is betrayal, compromise is cowardice, a treason to be punished by dishonor or death. Turning kids into cannon fodder is the top priority, not only for Hamas but even for the PA.

One picture is worth a thousand martyrs.

PS:

Here's another example of the kind of people the PA admires as heroes--terrorists who attacked Israeli civilians. And here are more examples of claiming all of Israel as official policy. And PA television programming presenting Tel Aviv as a settlement.

And this is what happens when a woman in Ramallah writes questioning whether violence helps the Palestinians and opposing Islamization. The Palestinian reporter asks her: "You declared yourself a Palestinian. Many, however, view the things you write as offensive and hostile to Islam. What makes people question your Palestinian identity and accuse you of being hostile to Islam?"

In other words, if you don't want Hamas, prefer a more secular society, and want a two-state solution, how can you call yourself a Palestinian or Muslim at all?

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal.

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

The Scott Brown Precedent and Israel

by Caroline Glick

On Tuesday, US voters are set to repudiate US President Barak Obama's agenda for their country. Unfortunately, based on his behavior in the face of a similar repudiation last January, it is safe to assume that Obama will not abandon his course.

Last year, in an attempt to block Obama's plan to nationalize healthcare, Massachusetts voters elected Republican Scott Brown to the Senate. Brown was elected because he pledged to block Obamacare in the US Senate.

Rather than heed the voters' message and abandon his plans, Obama abandoned the voters. Instead of accepting his defeat, Obama changed the rules of the game and bypassed the Senate.

So it is safe to assume that for the next two years, Obama will do everything he can to bypass the Congress and govern by executive orders and regulations. Although much can be done in this fashion, Congress's control of the purse strings will check his domestic agenda.

In matters of foreign policy however, Obama will be less burdened by - but not immune - to Congressional oversight. We can therefore expect him to devote far more energy to foreign affairs in the next two years than he devoted in the last two years.

This bodes ill for Israel. Since entering office, Obama has shown that his primary foreign policy goal is to remake the US's relationship with the Muslim world. Obama has also repeatedly demonstrated that compelling Israel to make concessions to the Palestinians and empowering international institutions that seek to delegitimize Israel are his preferred means of advancing this goal.

To date, Obama's demands on Israel have focused on blocking construction and delegitimizing Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria and Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem. And as far as he is concerned, Israel's response to his demands to date has been unsatisfactory. In light of this, at a minimum we can expect that in the immediate aftermath of next Tuesday's elections, Obama will deliberately provoke a new crisis in US relations with Israel over Jewish building in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria.

But of course, this isn't Obama's only option. Indeed, he has nearly unlimited options for making life unpleasant for Israel. Obama doesn't even have to be the one to provoke the next crisis. He can simply take advantage of crises that the Palestinians provoke.

THE PALESTINIANS are threatening to provoke two such crises in the next several months. First, Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas is threatening to ask the UN Security Council to pass a resolution declaring all Israeli communities beyond the 1949 armistice lines illegal and requiring the expulsion of the 450,000 Israeli Jews who live in them.

Second, the PA's unelected Prime Minister Salam Fayyad is threatening to declare independence without a treaty with Israel next summer.

Simply by not opposing these deeply aggressive initiatives against Israel, Obama can cause Israel enormous harm.

Other outlets for pressure include stepping up harassment of pro-Israel groups in the US, holding up the transfer of arms to Israel, pressing for the IDF to end its counter-terror operations in Judea and Samaria, and expanding US financial and military support for the Palestinian army. All of these moves will doubtless be employed to varying degrees in the next two years.

This onslaught on Israel will be implemented against the backdrop of a dynamic regional strategic environment. The evolving threats that Israel faces include among other things, Iran's acquisition of a nuclear arsenal, and Iran's takeover of Lebanon, Gaza and Syria. Israel also faces the likelihood that instability and fanaticism will engulf Egypt after President Hosni Mubarak dies and that Jordan will be destabilized after US forces vacate Iraq.

Over the next two years, Israel will be required to contend with these developing threats in profound ways. And over the next two years, all of Israel's actions aimed at mitigating these threats will need to be taken with the certain knowledge that the country will be in and out of crises with the Obama administration throughout. Whatever military actions Israel will be required to take will have to be timed to coincide with lulls in Obama-provoked crises.

The one good thing about the challenge Obama presents to Israel is that it is a clear cut challenge. The Scott Brown precedent coupled with Obama's track record on Israel demonstrate that Obama will not modify his anti-Israel agenda to align with political realities at home, and there is nothing that Israel can do that will neutralize Obama's hostility.

By the same token, the massive support Israel enjoys among the incoming Republican majority in the House of Representatives is a significant resource. True, the Republicans will not enjoy the same power to check presidential power in foreign affairs as they will have in domestic policy. But their control over the House of Representatives will enable them to shape public perceptions of international affairs and mitigate some administration pressure on Israel by opening up new outlets for discourse and defunding administration initiatives.

Against this backdrop, Israel must craft policies that maximize its advantage on Capitol Hill and minimize its vulnerability to the White House. Specifically, Israel should adopt three basic policy lines. First, Israel should request that US military assistance to the IDF be appropriated as part of the Defense Department's budget instead of the State Department's foreign aid budget where it is now allocated.

This change is important for two reasons. First, US military assistance to Israel is not welfare. Like US military assistance to South Korea, which is part of the Pentagon's budget, US military assistance to Israel is a normal aspect of routine relations between the US and its strategic allies. Israel is one of the US's most important strategic allies and it should be treated like the US's other allies are treated and not placed in the same basket as impoverished states in Africa.

Second, this move is supported by the Republicans. Rep. Eric Cantor, who will likely be elected Republican Majority Leader has already stated his interest in moving military assistance to Israel to the Pentagon budget. The Republicans wish to move aid to Israel to the Pentagon's budget because that assistance is the most popular item on the US foreign aid budget. Not wishing to harm Israel, Republicans have been forced to approve the foreign aid budget despite the fact that it includes aid to countries like Sudan and Yemen which they do not wish to support.

When the government announces its request, it should make clear that in light of Israel's economic prosperity, Israel intends to end its receipt of military assistance from the US within five years. Given the Republicans' commitment to fiscal responsibility, this is a politically sensible move. More importantly, it is a strategically critical move. Obama's hostility demonstrates clearly that Israel must not be dependent on US resupply of military platforms in time of war.

The second policy direction Israel must adopt involves stepping up its efforts to discredit and check the Palestinian political war against it. Today the Palestinians are escalating their bid to delegitimize Israel by expanding their offensive against Israel in international organizations like the UN and the International Criminal Court and by expanding their operations in states like Britain that are hostile to Israel.

Israel must move aggressively to discredit all groups and individuals that participate in these actions and cooperate with its allies who share its aim of weakening them. For instance, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen who is expected to be elected Chairwoman of the House Foreign Relations Committee has been seeking to curtail US funding to UN organizations like UNRWA whose leaders support Hamas and whose organizational goal is Israel's destruction.

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and his ministers must lead the charge discrediting groups like UNRWRA, the ICC, and the UN Human Rights Council. Since the Obama administration seeks to empower all of these organizations, at a minimum, such an Israeli policy will embolden Obama's political opponents to block his policies by curtailing US funding of these bodies.

The Palestinians' threats to declare independence and define Israeli communities as illegal are clear attempts on their part to shape the post-peace process international landscape. Given their diplomatic strength and Israel's diplomatic weakness, it is reasonable for the Palestinians to act as they are.

But two can play this game.

Israel is not without options. These options are rooted in its military control on the ground, Netanyahu's political strength at home and from popular support for Israel in the US.

Israel should prepare its own unilateral actions aimed at shaping the post-Oslo international agenda. It should implement these actions the moment the Palestinians carry through on their threats. For instance, the day the UN Security Council votes on a resolution to declare Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria and Israeli neighborhoods in Jerusalem illegal, Israel should announce it is applying Israeli law to either all of Judea and Samaria, or to the large Israeli population centers and to the Jordan Valley.

If properly timed and orchestrated, such a move by Israel could fundamentally reshape the currently international discourse on the Middle East in Israel's favor. Certainly it will empower Israel's allies in the US and throughout the world to rally to its side.

THE CHALLENGE that Washington now poses to Israel is not unprecedented. Indeed for Netanyahu it is familiar.

During his first tenure as prime minister, Netanyahu faced a similar predicament with the Clinton administration. In October 1998, then president Bill Clinton was about to be impeached. The Republicans stood poised to expand their control over the House of Representatives. Paralyzed domestically, Clinton turned to Israel. He placed enormous pressure on Netanyahu to agree to further land concessions to Yassir Arafat in Judea and Samaria. In what became the Wye Memorandum, Clinton forced Netanyahu to agree to massive concessions in exchange for which, Clinton agreed to free Jonathan Pollard from prison.

At the time, Israel's allies in Washington enjoined Netanyahu not to succumb to Clinton's pressure. They argued that in his weakened state, Clinton had limited capacity to harm Netanyahu. Moreover, they warned that by caving to his pressure, Netanyahu would strengthen Clinton and guarantee that he would double down on Israel.

In the event, Netanyahu spurned Israel's allies and bent to Clinton's will. For his part, Clinton reneged on his pledge to release Pollard.

Netanyahu's rightist coalition partners were appalled by his behavior. They bolted his coalition in protest and his government fell. Rather than stand by Netanyahu for his concessions, Clinton and the Israeli Left joined hands to defeat him in the 1999 elections.

The lesson Netanyahu learned from this experience was that he cannot trust the political Right to stand by him. While not unreasonable, this was not the main lesson from his experience. The larger point is that Netanyahu must not delude himself into believing that by falling into the arms of the Left he will win its support.

The post-election Obama administration will make the lives of Israel's leaders unpleasant. But Netanyahu and his ministers are not powerless in the grip of circumstances. They have powerful allies and supporters in Washington and the confidence of the Israeli people. These are formidable assets.

Caroline Glick

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

WikiLeaks and the Myth of a “Lebanonized” Hezbollah

by Tony Badran


The classified military documents obtained by WikiLeaks, which disclose Hezbollah’s role in Iraq under the direct command of the Iranian regime, may not be particularly surprising or even groundbreaking. However, they serve as a reminder of the reality of Hezbollah – all myths aside – as a brigade of the Islamic Revolutionary guard Corps. They also help keep in focus the nature of the strategic threat facing the US in the region: the alliance system led by Iran.

Fans of Hezbollah in the Western media are fond of asserting that the Party of God has become “Lebanonized.” Consequently, and contrary to claims by the US, according to this view the group does not possess “global reach” and has long stopped being involved in attacks against American targets, being focused instead on the narrower issue of Lebanon’s territorial dispute with Israel.

The documents, published by The New York Times, detail, among other things, Iran’s and Hezbollah’s direct operational involvement in training and supplying militias in Iraq. As such, they chronicle yet another chapter in the ongoing, decades-long war by the Iranians against the US in the region – a war in which Hezbollah has been the spearhead.

Specifically, the documents relate how Hezbollah has trained select Iraqi Shia cadres in various combat tactics inside Iran. For instance, one document details how a commander in Muqtada al-Sadr’s militia, Jaysh al-Mahdi (JAM), Azhar al-Dulaymi, was trained in Iran by Hezbollah operatives under the supervision of the Islamic Revolutionary guard Corps’ Qods Force (IRGC-QF) to conduct military-style kidnapping operations with the aim of abducting American soldiers. Although al-Dulaymi was eventually killed by US troops, he succeeded in planning an operation that resulted in the capture and execution of four US soldiers.

This type of Iranian involvement, including the use of Hezbollah operatives in Iraq, has been repeatedly announced by US officials over the last four years, and it has been reported often in the press. For example, in August 2007, The Independent newspaper published an interview with a JAM militiaman in which he openly discussed receiving training in Lebanon at the hands of Hezbollah commanders in anti-tank ambush tactics, the use of explosively formed penetrators (EFPs) and sniper operations.

In late February 2008, an Iraqi military intelligence official told the Iraqi daily al-Zaman that the person who had supervised the movement of JAM fighters to Lebanon was none other than Hezbollah’s senior military commander, Imad Mughniyeh, who was assassinated earlier that month in Damascus, and who used to run external operations in close collaboration with the IRGC-QF. Indeed, the al-Zaman report noted that the training was also coordinated with Qods Force commander Qassem Suleimani.

Another veteran Hezbollah military official, Ali Moussa Daqdouq, who was in charge of observing the training of JAM and other so-called “Special Groups” such as the notorious Asa’ib Ahl al-Haqq (AAH) group, was captured in Iraq in March 2007 along with AAH commanders, the Khaz’ali brothers (who, regrettably, were released in 2008-09 in what is suspected to have been a swap involving British hostages).

According to a July 2007 briefing by Brigadier General Kevin Bergner, the Multinational Forces spokesman at the time, “In May 2006,” Daqdouq “traveled to Tehran with Yussef Hashim, a fellow Lebanese Hezbollah [member] and head of their operations in Iraq. They met with the Commander and Deputy Commander of the Iranian Qods Force Special External Operations,” and Daqdouq “was tasked to organize the Special Groups in ways that mirrored how Hezbollah was organized in Lebanon.” Bergner added, “It shows how Iranian operatives are using Lebanese surrogates to create Hezbollah-like capabilities.”

Indeed, Iran’s preferred formula is to spawn and develop politico-military movements in divided societies where the central government is weak. To date, the only successful such implant has been in Lebanon, where Iran has embedded an organic extension of its structures in the form of Hezbollah.

Observers have tended to mistake the grafting of Hezbollah onto the local Shia community for “Lebanonization.” However, regardless of whether the group is rooted in a local community, it is nevertheless a tool of the Iranian Islamic Republic and one of its military apparatuses. In fact, Hezbollah’s architects always saw their project in Lebanon as a springboard for furthering the reach of the Islamic Revolution, and Hezbollah has indeed been fulfilling that role in Iraq and elsewhere.

This leads to the implosion of another myth, popularized especially in the last decade, and that is the notion of “non-state actors,” which is how Hezbollah is often referred to. However, it’s always been clear that the group and its mission were very much a state enterprise.

For instance, after the 1983 bombing of the US Marine barracks in Beirut, the US understood that this was an act of war by the Iranian and Syrian regimes. Indeed, when President Ronald Reagan asked the Navy and the Joint Chiefs of Staff to draw up target lists for retaliation, they included “the Syrian defense ministry and other command targets in Syria” as well as “selected ‘snatches’ of Syrian officers based in Lebanon who had helped carry out the operation.”

It was in that vein that former ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, called in 2008 for using “military force against a training camp to show the Iranians we’re not going to tolerate this.” Yet the US did not pursue that option in 1983, nor has it done so today. That has allowed states such as Iran and Syria to strike at American targets without fear of retaliation. So much so, in fact, that, as detailed in the French Le Figaro on Monday, Syria feels confident enough to host Hezbollah arms warehouses on its own territory.

Instead of making clear the exorbitant price of such actions, we have come to entertain myths about the transformative powers of diplomacy that would ostensibly “incentivize” America’s adversaries to adopt more “constructive” behavior. Similarly, the myth of a “Lebanonized” Hezbollah persists, as does the legend of it being a “non-state actor,” when all evidence shows that it continues to be what it always has been: a division of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

Tony Badran is a research fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Failing Memory, False Hope

by Martin Sherman

This Saturday night the Rabin Square will once again be the site of the ritual rally marking Yitzhak Rabin’ assassination. Notably, it will take place under the theme "Remembering together; Preserving the Hope" – a slogan that could hardly be more inappropriate and misleading.

For as PM Netanyahu pointed out in his speech in the Knesset on the 15th annual commemoration of Rabin's assassination, in which he cited portions from Rabin's final parliamentary address, much of his political credo has been forgotten - and givens [sic] today's reality, it would have induced little hope for any settlement with the Palestinians.

Unfortunately however, Netanyahu did not seize the moment with adequate force. Regrettably he let slip the chance to drive home several points of critical importance that would have contributed greatly to dispersing the deceptive fog of misconceptions the shroud what has become know, as "Rabin's Heritage."

There is indeed much in "public memory" regarding that "Heritage" that is in dire need of clarification - particularly in view of how it has been cynically distorted for partisan ends that diverge strongly from the positions Rabin himself stood for to his very last days. It is thus crucial that the public in Israel, and beyond, be reminded of the contents of this speech, for nothing else can more [sic] be more legitimately deemed "Rabin's Heritage."

This need is particularly acute as roughly half the today's population was not yet in its teens at the time and has no real personal recollection of realities that prevailed at the time - except of course what was provided by highly misleading media reportage. But no less than the substance of the speech, it is important to recall both the time at which, and the context in which, it was delivered.

The address was made on October 5th, 1995 exactly a month prior to Rabin's assassination. As such, it was his last major policy statement and final articulation of his vision of the "permanent solution" with the Palestinians. Those believing that he would have abandoned it for a less conciliatory course might feel that their case was considerably strengthened by the recent declaration from his daughter that "on the eve of his death…he was considering a u-turn" and "stopping the Oslo Accords because terrorism was rampant, and… Arafat was not delivering on his promise."

As for the context, the speech was delivered after Rabin was awarded the Nobel Peace prize and after he was hailed as a courageous champion of peace. Significantly, the address was made during the debate on the Oslo II Accords for which Rabin was seeking Knesset ratification. At the time, the vision he set out was considered an unprecedented dovish/"leftist" prescription for far-reaching Israeli concessions and a doctrine which produced such dismay and dissension, it divided the nation into two roughly equal camps.

Rejecting 2-state solution

In that address, Rabin, the recently announced Nobel Peace laureate, rejected the two-state formula. In his view of the permanent solution regarding the Palestinian entity, he stipulated that this should " …be an entity which is less than a stat [sic]… and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority."

Referring to the final frontiers of the country, he was unequivocal: "The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six-Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines."

As for what was to be included in Israel's permanent borders he prescribed that, at minimum, four elements must be ensured: A united Jerusalem under Israeli sovereignty as the nation's capital; the Jordan Valley as Israel's security border; the incorporation of existing settlements across the 1967 "Green Line" into the sovereign territory of Israel; and the establishment of new settlement bloc across the Green Line like those later destroyed in the Gaza disengagement.

No less noteworthy - especially given the current ballyhoo over the "building freeze" - was Rabin's position on issue of construction in the trans-Green Line settlements. Before the Israeli parliament and public he declared: "…we committed...ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth."

These were Rabin's last recorded commitments to the nation. However, today if anyone were to adhere verbatim to the very prescription articulated by Rabin at the end of his days - he would certainly not be lauded by the folks in the square as Rabin's successor, but, paradoxically, condemned for abandoning "Rabin's Heritage"…and dismissed as an unrealistic extremist

Crucial lessons emerge from this anomalous and ludicrous state of affairs, which the Israeli public will ignore at its peril. Firstly, even though the positions espoused by Rabin were considered excessively concessionary, inducing fierce repudiation by many, Israel has retreated from every position set out by him in his vision of a "permanent solution."

Yet despite this dramatic erosion of every single principle enshrined in Rabin's last legacy, Israel is still accused of intransigence - not only by its foes but by those who feign friendship. Still it is pressed for ever more far-reaching concessions - now not even to reach a permanent settlement, but merely so the Palestinians might deign to resume negotiations.

This situation clearly reflects catastrophic defeat for Israel's public-diplomacy and a scathing indictment of those responsible for conducting it.

But even more ominous is the imperceptible accumulation of dangers that this continuous capitulation entails for the nation. This is perhaps best conveyed by the by the parable of the "boiled frog" portrayed in Daniel Quinn's The Story of B:

"…if you place (a frog)… in a pot of tepid water…, it will float there quite placidly. As the water gradually heats up, the frog will sink into a tranquil stupor …and before long, with a smile on its face, it will unresistingly allow itself to be boiled to death."

Given the relentless retreat in Israeli positions that we have witnessed over the last decade and a half, how far can we be from boiling point?

Martin Sherman

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.