Israeli Bill Required: Phony NGOs Should Identify Themselves As Foreign Funded - Morton Klein

by Morton Klein

A simple matter of “truth in advertising.”

Israeli Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked’s proposed transparency law, which requires phony non-governmental organizations “NGOs”, operating in Israel, to identify themselves as foreign-funded (when lobbying in Israel’s Knesset) is needed, reasonable and long overdue. 
Although the term “non-governmental organization” is supposed to refer to groups that are not affiliated with, supported by, or acting on behalf of any government, NGO Monitor reported that European governments provide $100 million of direct and indirect funding to the purported “human rights NGOs” operating in Israel.  These “human rights NGOs” (including B’tselem, Breaking the Silence (“BtS”), Yesh Din, Machsom Watch, and Physicians for Human Rights-Israel) use their largesse from hostile-to-Israel foreign governments to invent and purvey false stories demonizing the Jewish State and the IDF.  

For instance, after receiving “emergency funding” from four European nations in 2014 to document and support “international mechanisms” (an apparent euphemism for the one-sided, anti-Israel UN Human Rights Council), B’tselem falsely reported terrorist combatants as innocent Gazan civilians and misleadingly presented a targeted meeting of terrorist operatives as a “family bombed at home,” using an emotional account by an Islamic Jihad commander’s family member. 

In another example of these “NGOs” anti-Israel projects, the European-funded Physicians for Human Rights-Israel (“PHR-I”) co-sponsored a propaganda exhibit of Gaza children’s drawings (called “Childhood under Fire”) regarding the 2008 Gaza war, falsely depicting Israeli soldiers, tanks and planes intentionally shooting and lobbing rockets at Palestinian Arab civilians and their cars, school buses and homes.  PHR-I’s exhibit also falsely stated that 468 “boys and girls” were killed – a number that is three times as many as the exaggerated UN numbers – and ignores the extraordinary precautions that Israel took to avoid harming civilians, while Hamas used civilians as “human shields.”  PHR-I’s distorted exhibit also failed to publish Israeli children’s drawings of Hamas rockets that continue to deliberately target innocent Israeli civilians.  Interestingly, one drawing in the PHR-I exhibit showed a smiling (presumably Palestinian Arab) child happily standing next to a house with a large rocket pointing upwards, starting to lift off from the lawn (perhaps about to be lobbed at Israel – or elsewhere in Gaza if the Hamas rocket misfired; misfired Hamas rockets that landed on Gazan civilian targets have often been blamed on Israel). 

The purported “human rights NGOs” also work closely together with the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement to delegitimize and economically destroy Israel.  For instance, European-funded “Breaking the Silence” (BTS) signed a letter calling for South Africa to expel Israel’s ambassador and led “apartheid week” activities in South Africa.

Moreover, Hamas is promoting bringing Israelis up on war crimes charges throughout the world, using a Breaking the Silence “report” containing alleged BTS “testimonies” maligning the IDF.  Source.  (BTS’s “testimonies” – which allege that the IDF callously targets women and children - are posted “anonymously” without independent verification, and have repeatedly been thoroughly discredited – after doing immense damage.)

Minister Shaked’s proposed law is a simple matter of “truth in advertising.”  The law prevents NGOs that are really agents of their foreign-government funders from pretending that they are simply home-grown “human rights” groups.  But, hypocritically, the extremist left-wing – which recently ran around the World Zionist Congress demanding “transparency” – does not want its own real masters and agendas to be transparent. 

It is entirely appropriate for the proposed Knesset law to target NGOs supported by foreign governments and those foreign governments’ agents and political entities (as opposed to NGOs that obtain some small contributions from individuals).   Foreign governments and their agents have massive resources – and have their own foreign agendas.  Foreign governments’ infusions of millions of dollars and euros into hostile-to-Israel NGOs are extremely insidious, and thwart Israel’s sovereign right and ability to have her own citizens democratically determine her own policies and destiny. It’s a big issue that foreign governments are using deceptive methods to push their hostile-to-Israel agendas.  

In the United States, organizations that are supported by or working on behalf of foreign government interests are required to do far more than Minister Shaked’s bill requires.

For instance, when Qatar’s Sheikha (empress) gave $240,000 to U.S. public relations company Fenton Communications (J-Street founder and president Jeremy Ben-Ami’s previous employer) to run a U.S. propaganda campaign (the “Al Fakhoora Campaign”) falsely blaming Israel for the Mavi Marmara flotilla attack on Israel’s inspectors, Fenton Communications had to publicly file as a foreign agent under the U.S. Foreign Agents Registration Act (“FARA”), and include in its FARA filings a copy of its Qatari contract.  FARA registrants are also required to promptly file copies of the every piece of information that they are disseminating.

In his famous Farewell Address, President George Washington warned that a free people must constantly guard against “the insidious wiles of foreign influence,” and warned that foreign influence affords “alarming” opportunities “to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, [and] to influence or awe the public councils.”

As a free and sovereign people and nation, Israel must likewise guard against the insidious foreign government-supported groups that seek to demonize the Jewish State with falsehoods, and subvert the will of Israel’s citizens and democratically-elected government. 


Morton A. Klein is the President of the Zionist Organization of America.

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/261318/israeli-bill-required-phony-ngos-should-identify-morton-klein

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

Palestinian Leaders Promise a New Year of Violence and Death - Khaled Abu Toameh

by Khaled Abu Toameh

• Instead of wishing Palestinians a happy and prosperous New Year, both Fatah and Hamas are asking their people to prepare for increased violence and "resistance," including suicide bombings, against Israelis.
• Fatah's armed wing used the occasion to issue yet another threat: "We will continue in the path of the martyrs until the liberation of all of Palestine."
• Masked Palestinians in Bethlehem attacked several restaurants and halls where New Year's Eve parties were supposed to take place. The assailants, eyewitnesses reported, were affiliated with Abbas's Fatah faction, not Hamas.
• Hamas banned Gazans from celebrating New Year's Eve, saying such parties are "in violation of Islamic teachings." Hamas does not want young Palestinians enjoying their time in restaurants and cafes. Instead, Hamas wants them to join its forces, armed and dressed in military fatigues, preparing for jihad against Israel.
  

After failing to offer their people any hope for the future, Fatah and Hamas are now telling Palestinians that they should expect more violence and bloodshed during in 2016.

In separate messages to the Palestinians on New Year's Eve, the two rival Palestinian parties pledged to pursue, and even step up, "resistance" attacks against Israel. Needless to say, the messages did not make any reference to peace, coexistence or tolerance.

Instead of wishing Palestinians a happy and prosperous New Year, both Fatah and Hamas are asking their people in the Gaza Strip and West Bank to prepare for increased violence and "resistance" attacks against Israel. The two parties have nothing to offer the Palestinians besides more bloodshed and despair.

Hamas, which has been in power in the Gaza Strip for almost 10 years, is even reported to be preparing for a new wave of suicide bombings against Israelis. The last time Hamas launched suicide attacks in Israel was during the second intifada, 2000-2005, which wrought havoc and destruction to Palestinians.

Various reports have suggested that Hamas was now considering activating its West Bank "sleeper cells," in preparation for resuming suicide bombings against Israelis. Hamas, according to the reports, is also planning to target Israeli security and political figures.

Hussam Badran, a senior Hamas official in the Gaza Strip, painted a grim picture of what awaits Palestinians during 2016. In a message to Palestinians, Badran announced that the current wave of terrorism, which he referred to as the "Al-Quds Intifada," would escalate during the coming year. He also hinted that Hamas was indeed considering resuming suicide attacks against Israelis: "The year 2016 will witness a development and escalation of the intifada and all forms of resistance operations."

His message, like those of many Hamas officials, did not contain any reference to the harsh living conditions of Palestinians under the rule of Hamas in the Gaza Strip. When Badran and other Hamas officials talk about waging "all forms of resistance" against Israel, they are actually referring to plans to launch suicide bombings and other terror attacks against Israelis.

The Hamas New Year's messages do not offer Palestinians in the Gaza Strip any hope that their leaders are working towards ending their misery and state of despair. There is no promise to help solve the problem of unemployment or poverty in the Gaza Strip. Nor is there any promise to help solve the crisis with Egypt, one which has resulted in the closure of the Rafah border crossing between Gaza and Egypt for most of 2015.

As if that were not enough, Hamas last week banned Palestinians in the Gaza Strip from celebrating New Year's Eve. Hamas security officers warned owners of restaurants and hotels against holding New Year's Eve parties, saying that this practice is "alien to our traditions and values and in violation of Islamic teachings." Hamas also justified the ban by arguing that Palestinians in the Gaza Strip must show solidarity with their brothers in the West Bank, who have been waging a campaign of stabbing and vehicular attacks against Israelis since early October.

By banning New Year's Eve celebrations, Hamas is following the example of other Islamist terror groups such as the Islamic State, which have denounced such parties as "un-Islamic." These groups consider New Year's Eve celebrations as being part of the same Western culture they are seeking to replace with extremist Islam and Sharia law.

Hamas cannot tolerate scenes of Palestinians rejoicing and celebrating the arrival of a new year. It does not want to see young Palestinians enjoying their time in restaurants, cafes and hotels. Instead, Hamas wants young Palestinians to join its forces and prepare for jihad against Israel. Hamas prefers to see young Palestinians dressed up in military fatigues and carrying weapons. It wants the young men, instead of celebrating and rejoicing, to participate in digging more tunnels under Gaza's borders with Israel and Egypt.

Armed Hamas militiamen on parade with a mock rocket in Gaza. (Image source: i24 News video screenshot)

Similarly, President Mahmoud Abbas's ruling Fatah faction in the West Bank, which this week celebrated the 51st anniversary of its first armed attack against Israel, is hoping that 2016 will witness more violence. Several Fatah officials and groups marked the anniversary by vowing to step up "resistance" against Israelis and urging Palestinians to join the "struggle" against Israel.

Fatah's armed wing, the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, used the occasion to issue yet another threat to launch terror attacks against Israelis. "We remain committed to the option of an armed struggle," the group rote in a leaflet distributed in the West Bank. "We will continue in the path of the martyrs until the liberation of all of Palestine."

President Mahmoud Abbas, who is also head of Fatah, also had nothing to offer his people on New Year's Eve, other than more messages of hate and defiance towards Israel. In a message to his people, Abbas once again justified the current wave of violence by saying it was the "result of the continuation of occupation and settlements, and the desecration of our holy sites." He added: "Our people won't capitulate, surrender or accept humiliation."

As Abbas was addressing his people, masked Palestinians in Bethlehem attacked several restaurants and halls where New Year's Eve parties were supposed to take place. Eyewitnesses said that the masked men opened fire at the restaurants, halls and vehicles, to prevent Palestinians from celebrating. The assailants, eyewitnesses reported, were affiliated with Abbas's Fatah faction, not Hamas.

The leaders of Fatah and Hamas have once again shown they have nothing to offer the Palestinians other than violence, destruction and death. These leaders want their people to remain in a combatant mood in order to pursue the fight against Israel. As such, the year 2016 does not look very promising for Palestinians under the current leadership of Fatah and Hamas.

• Follow Khaled Abu Toameh on Twitter

Khaled Abu Toameh is an award-winning journalist based in Jerusalem.

Source:  http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/7166/palestinians-new-years

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

Obama's constitutional overreach... and Israel - Caroline Glick

by Caroline Glick

What should happen to a President who spies on America's lawmakers and her allies?

Originally published by the Jerusalem Post.

It is far from clear why senior Obama administration officials told The Wall Street Journal that under President Barack Obama, the National Security Agency has been aggressively spying not only on Israeli officials but on US citizens and lawmakers who communicate with Israeli officials. Perhaps they were trying to make Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu look like a fool.

After all, the article concludes that the NSA intercepts of these communications “revealed one surprise."

“Mr. Netanyahu and some of his allies voiced confidence they could win enough votes” in Congress to scuttle Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran.

Ha ha. What dummies.

If their goal was simply to show that the White House has more leverage over Democratic lawmakers than the Israeli government does, then the article overshot the mark.

Beyond expressing the administration’s contempt for Netanyahu, the Journal’s article showed that Netanyahu isn’t the only one the administration sneers at.

It sneers at the American public and at members of Congress as well. And in so doing, it sneers at and deliberately breaks US law and tramples the US Constitution.

Under US law, American intelligence gathering agencies, including the NSA, are only permitted to spy on US citizens in order to protect US national security.

Under the US Constitution, the administration is arguably prohibited from spying on US lawmakers.

And yet, according to the Journal report, to advance its diplomatic opening to Iran, the administration has knowingly and deliberately spied on both law-abiding US citizens who posed no risk to US national security and on US lawmakers engaged in their lawful, constitutional duties.

As the criminal activity was characterized by the report, to protect Obama’s nuclear talks with the Iranians, Netanyahu was marked as a top intelligence target for the NSA. The NSA monitored all of his communications and all communications of his senior officials – most notably Ambassador Ron Dermer.

The report explains that the NSA’s “targeting of Israeli leaders and officials also swept up the contents of some of their private conversations with US lawmakers and American-Jewish groups. That raised fears – an “Oh sh** moment, one senior US official said – that the executive branch would be accused of spying on Congress.”

That “Oh sh** moment” didn’t make the administration pull back, or order the NSA to follow the law and destroy all communications between Israeli officials and US lawmakers. Rather the administration decided to suffice with winks and nods to make sure that the NSA understood that it should make law breaking an official policy and continue to share deliberately the communications it had mistakenly shared with the White House.

As the Journal report put it, “White House officials believed the intercepted information could be valuable to counter Mr. Netanyahu’s campaign [to convince Congress to scuttle Obama’s nuclear capitulation to Tehran]. They also recognized that asking for it was politically risky. So, wary of a paper trail stemming from a request, the White House let the NSA decide what to share and what to withhold, officials said. “We didn’t say, ‘Do it,’ a senior US official said. ‘We didn’t say, “Don’t do it.”’” Cute. But probably illegal.

The picture painted by the Journal article is of an administration that made massive, continuous and deliberate use of intercepted conversations between lawmakers and private citizens with Israeli officials.

Consider the administration’s indignant fury when news broke on January 21 of last year that the Republican congressional leaders Sen. Mitch McConnell and House Speaker John Boehnor had invited Netanyahu to address the joint Houses about the dangers of the Iran nuclear deal.

Obama and his advisers insisted that they were blindsided by the news. Yet, on Wednesday, the Journal published a report that strongly indicated that through its spying on lawmakers, the White House learned of the plan to invite Netanyahu to speak before Congress before Netanyahu found out about it.

The Journal reported that Boehner and McConnell met on January 8 and decided to invite Netanyahu to address a joint session. Recognizing the sensitivity of the issue, they told only their closest advisers about their plan. On January 9, Boehner called Dermer and raised the issue for the first time.

Since we now know that the NSA was monitoring all of Dermer’s communications – including his communications with US lawmakers – it appears to follow that NSA intercepted Boehner’s call to Dermer.

According to the Journal, the White House’s demand for intelligence on Israel was so intense that the NSA was transferring transcripts of intercepted calls within six hours of their interception.

Two weeks after Netanyahu’s March 4 address before the joint Houses of Congress, the Journal reported that the US was concerned about Israeli spying on the nuclear talks with Iran.

The article began, “Soon after the US and other major powers entered negotiations last year... [with Iran], senior White House officials learned Israel was spying on the closed-door talks.”

It continued, “The espionage didn’t upset the White House as much as Israel’s sharing of inside information with US lawmakers and others.”

The article went on to describe the content of briefings Dermer gave US lawmakers in late 2013 detailing Israel’s concerns about the interim nuclear deal the US was then concluding with the Iranians. Although it was attributed to congressional sources who participated in the briefings, now that we know the administration was spying on US lawmakers communicating with Israeli officials, it is reasonable to suspect that the administration learned of the briefings from its illegal espionage against US lawmakers.

In Wednesday’s article, we learned that last summer, as Congress prepared to vote – or not to vote – on Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran, the administration intercepted communications carried out between Israeli officials and private citizens as well as Democratic lawmakers.

From these intercepted communications, the administration learned Israel’s pitch for Democratic lawmakers in its efforts to convince them to oppose the deal.

According to the article, among other things, Israeli officials asked the wavering lawmakers, “How can we get your vote? What is it going to take?” Given Israel’s failure to convince a significant number of Democratic senators to oppose the deal, the suspicion arises that the administration read the answers and used the ill-begotten information as a means of blocking Israel from securing Democratic opposition to Obama’s nuclear deal.

It ought to go without saying that the administration’s massive efforts to block information about the most radical US foreign policy initiative since World War II from US lawmakers speaks volumes about how Obama and his colleagues assessed the public’s position on Iran generally and Obama’s nuclear talks with the mullocracy specifically.

The nuclear deal with Iran endangers the US directly.

It empowers the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism financially, diplomatically and militarily. Iran declared war against the US 37 years ago and has been calling for the destruction of America and supporting terrorist attacks against the US and its allies ever since.

As to those allies, the nuclear deal with Iran specifically, and the Obama administration’s decision to embrace Iran as a potential ally more generally, place Israel in jeopardy. So, too, it endangers all of the US’s traditional Arab allies.

Yet rather than reconsider its strategic goal of courting Iran at the expense of its own national security and that of its closest allies, the Obama administration determined that its most urgent goal was to scuttle Israeli attempts to warn lawmakers and the US public about the dangers of the deal. Rather than redouble its commitment to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, the Obama administration launched an intensive espionage operation against Israel, its American- Jewish supporters and US lawmakers to diminish their ability to prevent the deal from being concluded or implemented.

The timing of the report is odd. Obama blocked Congress from even voting on his nuclear deal four months ago, and ever since he has been choking on his victory. With each passing day it becomes clearer that Netanyahu was right about the danger of the deal and Obama was wrong, and deliberately misleading.

Four months later, Iran still refuses to approve or implement the deal. The American hostages it holds continue to languish in its prisons. Its nuclear sites remain closed to international inspectors. Its ballistic missile program is moving forward and no one takes seriously the administration’s announcement this week that it will pursue sanctions at the UN Security Council against Iran for its recent ballistic missile tests.

For its part, Iran is so emboldened by the deal that last week it shot a missile across the Straits of Hormuz in close proximity to a US naval ship. The ayatollahs are convinced that Obama will suffer any and all indignities to keep up the fiction that he has a nuclear deal with them. They are certain that rather than acknowledge his mistake, Obama will ground Congress and Israel to the ground.

And yet now, as Iran daily humiliates Obama with its unbridled aggression, that senior administration officials chose to brag to Wall Street Journal reporters about how they spied on Israel in breach of Obama’s pledge not to spy on leaders of US allied nations. It is now, when Obama’s opening to Iran is a self-evident failure, that they chose to share how they broke US law by spying on US citizens and abused the president’s constitutional authority by spying on US lawmakers.

Hours after the Journal article was published, Rep. Devin Nunes, chairman of the House Select Committee on Intelligence, announced that his committee will review how the NSA handled its intercepts of congressional communications with Israeli officials.

Certainly, the Intelligence Committee should aggressively pursue the issue. For the fact is that the administration’s arguably unconstitutional moves to block Congress from exercising oversight over Obama’s foreign policy is not limited to his nuclear outreach to Iran.

Last month, Secretary of State John Kerry said the climate change deal the US and the world powers concluded in Paris was drafted in a way that would deny Congress oversight power over the deal. In other words, a common thread linking the administration’s policies from the Middle East to the ozone layer is its desire to disempower Congress.

Israelis reasonably concentrate their attention on how stories affect them. So most of the discussion in Israel following the Journal’s report on Wednesday revolved around what the story means for the prospects of better relations with the administration in its final year in power.

But in truth, the story wasn’t really about Israel. It was about an administration so contemptuous of US lawmakers and citizens that its senior officials have no compunction about admitting that they are breaking the law. They brazenly admit that they are undertaking unlawful spying operations against private citizens and lawmakers and in so doing conducting a massive abuse of presidential powers while trampling the spirit and arguably the letter of the US Constitution.

And they expect that no one will call them to task for it.

Caroline Glick

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/261324/obamas-constitutional-overreach-and-israel-caroline-glick

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

Two Weaknesses Could Undo the Islamist Movement - Daniel Pipes

by Daniel Pipes

Weaknesses within, especially squabbling and disapproval, could undo the Islamist movement.

The Islamist movement may appear stronger than ever, but a close look suggests two weaknesses that might doom it, and perhaps quickly.

Its strengths are obvious. The Taliban, Al-Shabaab, Boku Haram, and ISIS take Islamism – the ideology calling for Islamic law to be applied in its entirety and severity – to unbearable extremes, rampaging and brutalizing their way to power. Pakistan could fall into their hands. The ayatollahs of Iran enjoy a second wind thanks to the Vienna deal. Qatar has the highest per capita income in the world. Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is becoming Turkey's dictator. Islamist operatives swarm the Mediterranean toward Europe.



But weaknesses within, especially squabbling and disapproval, could undo the Islamist movement.

Infighting became vicious in 2013, when Islamists abruptly stopped their prior pattern of cooperation among themselves and instead began internecine fighting. Yes, the Islamist movement as a whole shares similar goals, but it also contains different intellectuals, groups, and parties with variant ethnic affiliations, tactics, and ideologies.

Its internal divisions have spread fast and far. These include Sunnis vs. Shiites, notably in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen; monarchists vs. republicans, notably in Saudi Arabia; non-violent vs. violent types, notably in Egypt; modernizers vs medieval revivalists, notably in Tunisia; and plain old personal differences, notably in Turkey. These divisions obstruct the movement by turning its guns inward.

The dynamic here is ancient: As Islamists approach power, they fight amongst themselves for dominance. Differences that hardly mattered when in the wilderness take on great importance as the stakes get higher. In Turkey, for example, the politician Erdoğan and the religious leader Fethullah Gülen cooperated until they dispatched their common enemy, the military, from politics, when they turned against each other.

Unpopularity, the second problem, may be the biggest peril for the movement. As populations experience Islamist rule first hand, they reject it. It's one thing to believe in the abstract about the benefits of Islamic law and quite another to suffer its deprivations, ranging from the Islamic State's totalitarian horrors to the comparatively benign emerging dictatorship in Turkey.

Signs of this discontent include the large majorities of Iranians who reject the Islamic Republic, the wave of exiles out of Somalia, and the massive Egyptian demonstrations of 2013 protesting a single year of the Muslim Brotherhood in power. As with fascist and communist rule, Islamist sovereignty often leads to people voting with their feet.


Should these two tendencies hold, the Islamist movement is heading for trouble. Some analysts already see the Islamist era having ended and the emergence of something new from its wreckage. For example, the Sudanese scholar Haidar Ibrahim Ali argues that a "post-Islamization" era has begun, when Islamism's "vitality and attractiveness have been exhausted even among the most ardent of its supporters and enthusiasts."

The enemies of Islamism have much work ahead. Muslims must both fight this movement and develop a compelling alternative to its goal of implementing Islamic law, explaining constructively what it means to be a Muslim in 2016. Non-Muslims can serve as their helpful auxiliaries, providing everything from applause to funds to guns.

Islamism's mounting problems offer grounds for confidence but not for smugness, as another reversal in course could take place at any time. But if current trends hold, the Islamist movement will have been limited, much as fascism and communism before it, damaging Western civilization, not destroying it.

Whatever the trend, defeating Islamism remains the challenge.


Mr. Pipes (DanielPipes.org, @DanielPipes) is president of the Middle East Forum. © 2016 by Daniel Pipes. All rights reserved.

Source: http://www.danielpipes.org/16399/islamism-two-weaknesses-could-undo-it

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

Obama throws nuke deal supporters in Congress under the bus - Rick Moran

by Rick Moran

Delaying sanctions "indefinitely" has angered high-ranking Democrats.

Congressional supporters of the Iran nuclear deal are livid with the Obama administration for delaying sanctions on Iran for their repeated missile tests.  High-ranking Democrats have chastised the administration for giving in to Iran's threats to walk away from the nuclear deal if any sanctions are imposed.

Washington Free Beacon:

Rep. Steny Hoyer (D., Md.), a leading supporter of the Iran deal, blasted the move, expressing disappointment with the administration’s efforts to appease Iran.
“I am disappointed that the Administration has delayed punitive action in response to Iran’s recent ballistic missile tests,” Hoyer said in a statement. “We are always in a sensitive moment in our dealings with Iran, and there is never a perfect time to undertake such actions. But Iran must know with certainty that violating U.N. Security Council resolutions, both inside and outside the scope of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), will be met with serious consequences.”
Sen. Chris Coons (D., Del.), another leading deal supporter who initially praised the new sanctions, also expressed dismay at the administration’s move to delay the effort.
“I believe in the power of vigorous enforcement that pushes back on Iran’s bad behavior,” Coonstold the Wall Street Journal. “If we don’t do that, we invite Iran to cheat.”
When asked to address the issue on Sunday, a senior Obama administration official told the Free Beacon that there are still “remaining issues” that need to be addressed before new sanctions are announced.
“As we’ve said, we’ve been looking for some time‎ at options for additional actions related to Iran’s ballistic missile program based on our continued concerns about its activities, including the October 10th launch,” the senior official explained, reiterating the White House’s commitment to sanctions.
“We are considering various aspects related to additional designations, as well as evolving diplomatic work that is consistent with our national security interests,” the official said. “As always, we keep Congress informed about issues related to Iran sanctions, and will continue to do so as we work through remaining issues.”
A State Department spokesman echoed this stance, telling the Free Beacon that it continues to explore ways to increase sanctions on Iran’s ballistic missile program.
Sanctions expert Mark Dubowitz, executive director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told the Free Beacon that the administration might reconsider new sanctions once it strikes a “side deal” with Iran.
“I would expect that the administration will return to these sanctions after cutting some kind of side deal with the Iranians offering even more unilateral concessions,” Dubowitz said.

Iran knows it has Obama over a barrel due to his overriding commitment to maintaining the nuclear deal at all costs.  They will continue to push Washington, knowing full well that the president sees the agreement as his main foreign policy "achievement" and won't risk upsetting Tehran, giving them an excuse to walk away from the deal.

That the sanctions have been delayed "indefinitely" probably means the already weak strictures against a few individuals and companies will be watered down even further, making them meaningless.  And the additional sanctions that Congress wants to enact will almost certainly be vetoed by the president.

This raises the question: is there anything that Iran will do that would force the president to get serious about sanctions?  From what we've seen so far, that doesn't appear likely.

Rick Moran

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/01/obama_throws_nuke_deal_supporters_in_congress_under_the_bus.html

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

How Deep are the Cracks in the Russian-Iranian Coalition in Syria? - Zvi Magen , Udi Dekel , Sarah Fainberg

by Zvi Magen , Udi Dekel , Sarah Fainberg

Regardless of various points of contention, and despite the efforts of the Western powers and Sunni Arab countries to puncture the Russian-led coalition, the pro-Assad partnership is still a long way from dissolution.

After months of an air-land military effort by the Russian-Iranian coalition in Syria, the integrated attack has been halted. The main goal of Iran’s intervention in the fighting in Syria is a strengthened Shiite Iran-Iraq-Syria-Hezbollah axis, built on the Alawite regime with its pro-Iranian orientation. For its part, Russia has other interests, and its preferred goal is a settlement that will give it a foothold and facilitate its influence in the Middle East, while putting an end to Western dominance in the region. Yet regardless of various points of contention, and despite the efforts of the Western powers and Sunni Arab countries to puncture the Russian-led coalition, the pro-Assad partnership is still a long way from dissolution. Iran has no option for an exit from the game in Syria, and will therefore prefer continued cooperation with Russia, even if it sometimes leaves a sour taste. Furthermore, by persisting in this cooperation, Iran avoids leaving Russia to build the foundations of a settlement in Syria by itself, at the expense of Iranian interests in Syria and elsewhere in the region.

Recent developments in the international arena and on the battlefield in Syria invite some perspective on the stability of the Russian-Iranian coalition formed in September 2015. It appears that after three months of military effort, Russia’s involvement in Syria has not produced the results Moscow anticipated. Russia made a strategic decision to intervene militarily in the civil war in Syria in order to defend the regime of Bashar al-Assad. This decision was based on Russia’s interests in the Middle East and elsewhere, headed by the desire to expand Russia’s regional influence, preserve a naval foothold on the Mediterranean shore, and to challenge the overriding standing of the United States in the Middle East. A “natural” coalition of Assad’s allies formed in Syria, comprising Russia, Iran, the Syrian army, Hezbollah, and Shiite militias operating as Iranian proxies. Despite the Russian statements that its military involvement in Syria was aimed primarily at combating the Islamic State, most of Russia’s attacks were designed to help the al-Assad regime, with airstrikes targeting rebel organizations and air support for Assad’s allies fighting on the ground. It now appears that after months of air-land military effort by the Russian-Iranian coalition, the integrated attack, which focused on gaining control of essential territory in northern Syria (the Aleppo area, the Aleppo-Homs artery, and the passages to the coastal sector) has been halted. As a result, friction and conflicts of interest have surfaced between the pro-Assad coalition members, and political disputes have added to the military difficulties. Russian President Vladimir Putin has attempted to exploit the military intervention to forge an international framework to devise a political roadmap for ending the civil war in Syria. The diplomatic measures, however, have also bogged down. Moreover, the agreement between the major powers, specifically between Russia and the United States, to launch a political process that will shape a future settlement in Syria including the regime’s future was not regarded favorably by Iran.

Russia-Iran: Between the Strategic Connection and Political and Military Disputes

Despite a history of strategic rivalry, Russia and Iran have found common ground since the founding of the Islamic Republic. Russia has aided Iran in various spheres, including the military and nuclear realms. This multi-faceted cooperation has continued, notwithstanding the Russian participation in recent years in the sanctions regime against Iran and its active role in the negotiations on the nuclear question. Russia profited from this policy – wielding international political influence on the one hand, and exploiting economic opportunities with Iran on the other. The need to bolster the tottering Assad regime in Syria highlighted the confluence of Iranian and Russian interests. This aid likewise became an essential tool in promoting Russia’s strategic goals – both combating radical (Salafi jihadist) Islam, which threatens Russia, and shaping a regional settlement to Russia’s liking. Nonetheless, the common ground did not obliterate the disputes between the two countries. The question of Assad’s personal future – Russia is flexible on this point while promoting a negotiated settlement with the international community on a political transition in Syria – is only one such bone of contention. Indeed, each side takes a different view of its main goals in Syria.

The main purpose of Iran’s intervention in the fighting in Syria is to design a future settlement that advances its needs. Specifically, a strengthened Shiite -  Iran-Iraq-Syria-Hezbollah axis requires the preservation of the Alawite regime and the guarantee of its pro-Iranian orientation. This is the key element in Iran’s current regional strategy, which aims at regional hegemony by forming a sphere of influence under its leadership while thwarting other actors – be  they regional (mainly Saudi Arabia and Turkey) or international (the West) – that strive to promote a different settlement.

For its part, Russia has other interests, and its intervention in Syria serves its global objectives. Its preferred goal is a settlement that will give it a foothold and facilitate its influence in the Middle East, while putting an end to Western dominance in the region. Preserving the al-Assad regime is not a required condition, provided that Moscow’s status in Syria is maintained, and thus Russia is fairly flexible in its negotiations with the West on this point. Russia also fears Iranian “defection” to the Western camp, following the nuclear agreement and given the coordination with the United States on the situation in Iraq, and even in Syria, against the Islamic State. Tehran is not happy with Russia’s strengthened foothold in Syria, which could eventually disrupt its plans on two levels. On the political level, Iran finds it hard to accept Russia’s preference to enlist the West and the Sunni states in the effort to stabilize Syria and design a political settlement there. Furthermore, in the political talks, Russia is completely ignoring Iran’s status. Russia has succeeded in leading the political process in two rounds of meetings in Vienna and in drafting a Security Council resolution to outline a roadmap for dialogue and transitional arrangements in Syria to end the war and achieve a solution within 18 months. However, in addition to the difficulty encountered by Russia in enlisting cooperation from the Syrian rebel factions, it appears that the West, led by the United States, is also unenthusiastic about facilitating Russia’s leading role, and is certainly reluctant to facilitate Putin’s political success, which presumes that military intervention in Syria would also bring political dividends. At the same time, however, Russia succeeded in taking the leading role in the political process only after it demonstrated its determination through the use of military force.

The second problematic level is military. Russia’s coalition partners include not only Iranian forces and the Syrian army loyal to Assad, but also Shiite militias and Hezbollah, which are under Iranian influence. Russia’s coolness toward the latter groups has prompted complaints from Iran about partial cooperation from Russia. For the integrated offensive effort, Iran sent 2,000 of its Revolutionary Guards ground troops – the al-Quds force – as reinforcements (in addition to the force that was previously fighting alongside Bashar), as well as volunteer Shiite militias and Hezbollah forces. The successful defense by the rebel forces and the number of losses among the al-Quds force commanders and soldiers, however, have aroused criticism in Iran itself about the resources devoted to Syria, and Iran has now withdrawn its reinforcements.

Israel’s Position in the Situation

A related element is Russian-Israeli cooperation, which detracts from the trust between Iran and Russia, and complicates the Iranian attempt, in coordination with Hezbollah, to establish an infrastructure in southern Syria for terrorist operations against Israel in the Golan Heights area. Some of the coordination between Israel and Russia in Syria seems to involve Israeli freedom of action in Syrian and Lebanese airspace (even though the area is covered by Russian surface-to-air missile batteries). Indeed, Israel has taken care to maintain its freedom of action in countering what it defines as a concrete threat against it. Thus far, in what should not be taken for granted, Israel has managed to sustain its aerial coordination with Russia. The recent action in Syria attributed to Israel, however – the killing of Samir Kuntar in the outskirts of Damascus – has aroused the fury of Hezbollah and Iran. From their perspective, this operation involved understandings between Israel and Russia that are taking precedence over Russia’s commitments to the pro-Assad coalition. If the appearance of stepped-up Russian-Israeli coordination indeed reflects strategic coordination, it will undoubtedly give rise to second thoughts in the Russian coalition about the validity of the partnership, while at the same time enhancing the Israeli interest to coordinate with Russia while avoiding possible areas of friction with the Russian forces operating in Syria.

Yet regardless of these points of contention, and despite the efforts of the Western powers and Sunni Arab countries to puncture the Russian-led coalition, the pro-Assad partnership is still a long way from dissolution. The upheavals in the Middle East have created new partnerships and coalitions limited in objectives and time. Just as NATO member Turkey can maintain relations with the Islamic State, while the United States proclaims that the war against the Islamic State is the principal American effort, Russia can lead a coalition in partnership with Iran and Hezbollah, while at the same time maintaining strategic understandings with Israel. Iran has no option for an exit from the game in Syria, and will therefore prefer continued cooperation with Russia, even if it sometimes leaves a sour taste. Furthermore, by persisting in this cooperation, Iran avoids leaving Russia to build the foundations of a settlement in Syria by itself, at the expense of Iranian interests in Syria and elsewhere in the region.

Zvi Magen , Udi Dekel , Sarah Fainberg

Source: http://www.inss.org.il/index.aspx?id=4538&articleid=11210

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

Iran-Saudi crisis spurs Hizballah strike on Israel - debkaFile

by DebkaFile

Israel's military chiefs appear to be acting on information received of an approaching Hizballah operation as its leader has threatened.

 
The heated verbal battle between Tehran and Riyadh over Saudi Arabia’s execution of a Shiite cleric escalated Sunday night, Jan 3, with the severance of diplomatic relations. On the broader front, the repercussions from the quarrel between the two leaders of the Muslim world’s Shia-Sunni split are widely seen in Middle East military and intelligence circles as spurring a fast-track Hizballah attack on Israel

Among the 47 people executed by Saudi Arabia Saturday on terrorism charges was Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr, Saudi Shiite leader and a prominent Shiite cleric in the region. Put to death with him were several Saudi Shiite and Sunni activists, which enraged Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to the point of threatening the Saudi royal family with “divine revenge.”

From Iran’s perspective, the Saudis committed the unpardonable act of executing Shiites together with Sunni Al Qaeda and ISIS terrorists. This made the House of Saud the first ruling power ever to treat Shiite and Sunni terrorists alike. This, more than anything, incensed Iran and its Lebanese proxy Hizballah, who are deep in a bloody war against the Sunni Islamic State and the Nusra Front terrorists in Syria. Iran’s Revolutionary Guards are additionally locked in a bitter conflict with ISIS in Iraq.

The Iranian war effort is backed by the US in Iraq and by Russia in Syria.

By the mass executions of both classes of terrorist at the same time, Riyadh issued four messages:

1. Washington and Moscow are wrong. The Iranians and the forces they back in the Persian Gulf, Syria and Iraq are just as much terrorists as ISIS and Al Qaeda.

2. The House of Saud is determined to fight both with equal resolve and severity

3. Riyadh has already taken Tehran on in Yemen, and indirectly in Syria, and is now ready to take the fight against Tehran all the way to the war on terror.

4. Taking off the diplomatic gloves, Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir Monday night severed relations with Iran and ordered all Iranian diplomats to leave the kingdom within 48 hours. The foreign ministry said that by condemning the Nimr execution, Iran was supporting terrorism.

Saudi diplomats were already gone after protesters in Tehran torched and ransacked the Saudi embassy Saturday.

Amid all the sound and fury, Tehran’s attention was drawn to comments made by Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu in the light of a major terrorist attack in Tel Aviv. He pointed out that, in addition to the Palestinians, Israel is threatened by two streams of radical Islam, the Shiites and the Sunnis.

He was clearly referring to Iran and its terrorist arm, Hizballah, on the one hand, and ISIS and Al Qaeda, on the other, inspired less by the Tel Aviv outrage than by the gathering clouds of terror darkening the region, which place the Saudi royal family and Israel on the same side, sharing a similar perception of the two foes facing both countries.

Policymakers in Jerusalem noted the odd statement by Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan to reporters on Saturday, January 1 on the way home from a visit to Riyadh. After years of reviling the Jewish state, he said, “Israel is in need of a country like Turkey in the region. We have to admit that we also need Israel.”

He sounded as though he was urging the resumption of the old political and military alliance binding the two countries years ago.  

debkafile’s Middle Eastern sources point out that, since his comment came directly after his talks with Saudi King Salman in Riyadh, it appeared to open a path toward the possible creation of a new Middle East bloc consisting of Turkey, Saudi Arabia, perhaps Egypt, and Israel, bound by the same enemies. This grouping could serve as a counterweight against the Sunni-Shiite bloc of Iran, Iraq, Syria and Hizballah, which has the backing of the US and Russia on one hand, and fights ISIS on the other.

Iran’s leaders may curse the House of Saud without restraint, but they are canny enough not to go from words to deeds, knowing they would be on their own if they attacked the oil kingdom and earn no backing from either Washington or Moscow.

However, it might be easier for Tehran to take advantage of Netanyahu's tough predicament in his war on terror, by sending Hizballah to strike Israel and, meanwhile, pre-empt the formation of a new anti-Tehran alliance. Speeding up Hassan Nasrallah’s promised revenge for the assassination of its master terrorist Samir Quntar would serve this purpose.

This possibility has prompted the IDF to keep artillery units pounding areas bordering on Israel during the past few days. The IDF says this action is necessary to stop Hizballah exploiting the stormy, snowy winter weather to attack Israel. Its military chiefs appear to be acting on information received of an approaching Hizballah operation as its leader has threatened.


DebkaFile

Source: http://www.debka.com/article/25132/Iran-Saudi-crisis-spurs-Hizballah-strike-on-Israel

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

I belong to one of Israel’s minorities - Johnathan Elkhoury

by Johnathan Elkhoury

Israel accepted the writer and his fellow SLA refugees. This is how it turned out. Apartheid state, anyone?

Israel has many minorities that over the years have become [integral] parts of Israeli society, such as the Druze people - around 122,000, Christians-around 123,000, Muslims - over 1,200,000, the Bahai people around 700, Bedouins around 250,000 and more.

I belong to one of the smallest minorities in Israel, the refugees from the SLA (South Lebanese Army).Those are former soldiers and their families (around 700 families) who were supported by Israel during the South Lebanon conflict, to fight against the PLO and Hezbollah in 1982 until 2000.

After the decision of the Israeli government to leave the south of Lebanon on May 23rd 2000, SLA people were given the choice to flee to Israel and get asylum. My father left Lebanon that day and my mother, my brother and I followed him on August 28 2001. At the beginning the Israeli government arranged motels, hotels and holiday villages for the families for a year and a half. During that year they sent the children to special schools so they could learn Hebrew and continue their studies in school and the grownups were sent to Ulpan for Hebrew studies. Also each family received a small amount of money every month.

After we grew up and finished school with full diplomas, had learnt to speak Hebrew fluently, as children of SLA’s we were given the choice to join the army. Some of us joined it or the national service, like my brother and I, as we wanted to feel like regular Israeli citizens and do our civil obligations. Every Israeli citizen at the age of 18, by law, has to join the army, men for three years and women for two years (optional for Israeli Arabs).

Israel is considered one of the safest places in the Middle East for minorities because of its acceptance of freedom of religion.

“Israel's minorities, including over one million citizens who are Arabs, always have full civil rights. Israel's government will never tolerate discrimination against women. Israel's Christian population will always be free to practice their faith. This is the only place in the Middle East where Christians are fully free to practice their faith. They don't have to fear; they don't have to flee. In a time where Christians are under siege in so many places, in so many lands in the Middle East, I'm proud that in Israel Christians are free to practice their faith and that there's a thriving Christian community in Israel." PM Netanyahu (25 March 2012).

Minorities in Israel get more help in high education facilities than other Israeli students. Here are some examples: In some colleges and universities Arab students get extra help and tutoring so they can pass the exams. Some institutions of higher education, like the University of Haifa accept Arab students although they don’t have all the formal acceptance papers and high acceptance scores.

Some say that Arabs are discriminated in Israel, although they get more help in getting into institutions of higher education. Israel is trying to help them succeed in order to garner more possibilities in searching for a decent job. Today you can see more and more Arabs in high positions, for example professors and directors of clinics in Hospitals and Arabs ministers (including women).

Israel doesn’t force you to abandon your identity and your beliefs or your language. You can choose where to live and what to wear. You can choose where to study and what to study and Israel tries to help you succeed. You have electricity 24/7, running water, and working transportation to and from every city, health care in some of the best hospitals in the world. You can travel wherever you like in Israel and in all states that Israel has diplomatic arrangement with. There is free education to every child till the age of 18 and a good living standard. You have the right to protest on every subject that bothers you and included is even the right to arrange pro-Palestinian protest demonstrations.

In my opinion I think that Israel is a good place to live in and I see my future here.

This article appeared on the Norwegian Perspektiv site.

From a recent post by the writer on Israeltoday: In the coming year, Israeli Arabs must either take a clear stand as citizens who love and support the State of Israel and care about its future, or continue to stick their collective heads in the sand and wait for a future that doesn’t look very bright.​


Johnathan Elkhoury

Source: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/18179#.Vopm7VKzddt

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

The Chinese Threat to the US Is Growing - Daniel John Sobieski

by Daniel John Sobieski

And it seems that Barack Obama couldn't care less about it.

If President Obama thinks climate change is our greatest national security threat, he'd be wise to ponder the change in the global climate of a volley of Chinese DF-21D "carrier-killer" missiles destroying an American carrier battle group on its way to counter, say,  a Chinese invasion of Taiwan.

This very real possibility was seen as the DF-21D, equipped with a terminal guidance system that gives it the ability to hit moving targets, was shown off in a military parade last September.  As Investor's Business Daily (IB) noted in January 2015:

The DF-21D, a road-mobile anti-ship ballistic missile, is designed to target and track aircraft carrier groups with the help of satellites, unmanned aircraft and over-the-horizon radar. Launched into space, the DF-21D re-enters the atmosphere and maneuvers at 10 times the speed of sound toward its target.

The public display of the DF-21D comes after the Chinese announcement that it is building its second aircraft to go along with a refurbished Soviet carrier, the Liaonng, commissioned by China in 2012 after extensive refitting of the 25-year-old vessel.  As IBD has reported, the Liaoning is only the first step in the building of a blue-water navy capable of competing with our diminishing one, with Admiral Samuel J. Locklear III, chief of the U.S. Pacific Command, warning that the U.S. is losing its Pacific dominance to China:

China's Communist Party-affiliated newspaper, Global Times, gloated over Locklear's warning, noting his remarks in a story beneath the headline "U.S. losing grip on Pacific: PACOM."
In the Times story, Jin Canrong, a deputy dean of the School of International Studies at Renmin University of China, said the American admiral's comments recognize China as a rising military power. Indeed, it is. China has launched its first stealth drone, known as Sharp Sword, and is developing indigenous aircraft carriers. Its "two-ocean strategy" is based on the goal of building a fleet of five or six carrier battle groups.
China's first battle group, led by its first carrier, the Liaoning, recently conducted a monthlong exercise that saw the refurbished Soviet-built flattop and her escorts sail south to the waters near Taiwan. During the exercise, a Chinese warship nearly collided with the guided missile cruiser USS Cowpens, which was shadowing the battle group.

Ignoring Chinese (and Russian) provocations is par for the golf course for the ever-vacationing President Obama.  A recent example was the probe of U.S. territorial waters near Alaska by a Chinese flotilla.  By sending five warships into Alaskan territorial waters while President Obama visited the 49th state to eat bear-killed salmon, rename Mt. McKinley, and warn of nonexistent climate change, China has made a statement that it intends this to be the Chinese century, a message our commander-in-chief has studiously ignored.

The Obama administration contends that there is nothing to see in the Chinese action, so move on, and it was not in fact a threatening move, but an innocent transit allowed under the Law of the Sea Treaty, one of those pacts that have put restraints on American sovereignty and security:

"This was a legal transit of U.S. territorial seas conducted in accordance with the Law of the Sea Convention," said Pentagon spokesman Cmdr. Bill Urban. ...
China's Defense Ministry confirmed that its navy ships had sailed to the Bering Sea for training after joint exercises with Russia in late August, but said the activity was routine and not aimed at any particular country.

Right.  We should not be concerned with Chinese warships coming within 12 nautical miles of the U.S. coast after conducting naval exercises with the Russians in the Northern Pacific as President Obama shrinks U.S. Navy levels to numbers lower than before World War I.

China's military and political ambitions can be seen in not only its unprecedented military buildup, but also in its territorial ambitions, which have laid claims not only to Taiwan, but also to Japan's Senkaku islands in the East China Sea and to virtually all of the South China Sea, including the disputed Spratly and Paracel Island chains.  As Yahoo News reported on Saturday:

China has unveiled changes to the structure of its military, adding three new units, described by President Xi Jinping as "a major policy decision to realize the Chinese dream of a strong army", state media reported.
The formation of the new units, which follows Beijing's announcement that it was building a second aircraft carrier, comes with China acting more aggressively in territorial disputes in the South China Sea and East China Sea, drawing the ire of its neighbors and the United States.

China is expanding and restructuring its military forces for what it considers an inevitable confrontation with the United States. An editorial in The Global Times, a newspaper seen as a mouthpiece for hard-line nationalists in Beijing warns of the consequences of resistance warns, "If the United States' bottom line is that China has to halt these activities, then a U.S. China war is inevitable in the South China Sea."

As Investor's Business Daily has noted:

Beijing has long declared the South China Sea to be its territorial waters and has laid claim to two disputed chains: the Paracel Islands, about 200 miles from the coast of Vietnam, and the Spratly Islands in the southeastern part of the South China Sea. China's territorial ambitions include the Senkakus in the East China Sea, part of what Chinese military doctrine refers to as the "first island chain" that surrounds China.

In the South China Sea, as of February, according to Reuters, China had finished construction on no less than six different island reefs from which to project its power in the South China Sea.  Included in its military effort is the construction of a 3,000 meters (9,842 feet) long runway on the artificially expanded Fiery Cross Reef as a base for Chinese fighter aircraft.

China's creation of artificial islands in the South China Sea is happening so fast that Beijing will be able to extend the range of its navy, air force, coastguard and fishing fleets before long, much to the alarm of rival claimants to the contested waters.
Reclamation work is well advanced on six reefs in the Spratly archipelago, according to recently published satellite photographs and Philippine officials. In addition, Manila said this month that Chinese dredgers had started reclaiming a seventh.

China is preparing for a military confrontation with the United States.  By that time, President Obama, who has left us with a woefully diminished military capability, will probably be out of office working on his golf handicap.  He has been ours.


Daniel John Sobieski is a freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor's Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine, and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/01/the_chinese_threat_to_the_us_is_growing.html

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

IDF fires shells into Lebanon following Hezbollah bomb blast - Gil Ronen, Cynthia Blank

by Gil Ronen, Cynthia Blank

Hezbollah bomb explodes near Israeli forces operating on Har Dov in northern Israel; none injured.

IDF artillery fires on Lebanon

Olivier Fitoussi/Flash 90

An explosive device detonated on Monday near IDF forces taking part in an exercise on Har Dov in northern Israel. According to reports, none were injured in the attack.

Lebanese terror group Hezbollah claimed responsibility for the attack and said its hoped-for target was a senior IDF officer.

IDF spokesperson Brig. Gen. Moti Almoz said the explosive device was "relatively large" and it blew up two heavy pieces of army equipment as it opened an axis road near Har Dov.

Army forces responded by activating a "smoke screen" and firing artillery rounds on Hezbollah targets in southern Lebanon. 

Israeli authorities have warned residents of northern Israel to remain in their homes.

According to Lebanese media reports, the IDF has been firing artillery rounds into southern Lebanon since Sunday and continued the fire on Monday, with a total of 20 shells.

Iran's PressTV claimed that Sunday was the fourth consecutive day in which the IDF has been shelling the Har Dov / Shebaa Farms area near the border with Syria, out of concern that Hezbollah forces might take advantage of the stormy weather and the poor visibility to launch a revenge strike, following the killing of terrorist Samir Kuntar.

Israeli news source Maariv Online cited residents of the Israeli Golan Heights who have also reported hearing the artillery fire on Sunday and over the weekend.

A military source told Maariv Online that the shelling was meant to keep shepherds away from the border, but the news outlet cited an anonymous local commander as saying that the real reason was concern that Hezbollah is using the foggy weather conditions to lay explosive charges along the border.

Kuntar was killed in a missile attack on the southern Syrian city of Jaramana, southeast of Damascus, on December 20, 2015.

Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah said after the strike that his organization reserves "the right to respond to this assassination at the time and place of our choosing."

“We have no doubt or question that Israel is the one which assassinated Samir Kuntar, its planes fired precise missiles on an apartment (he was in),” Nasrallah added.

Senior Hezbollah official Hashem Safieddine also said that Israel will be "held accountable" for Kuntar’s death.

"If the Israelis think by killing Samir Kuntar they have closed an account then they are very mistaken because they know and will come to know that they have instead opened several more," Safieddine added.


Gil Ronen, Cynthia Blank

Source: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/205925#.VorMq1Kzdds

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