The Israel Situation » Hezbollah

Gilad is Finally Home, But the Controversy Rages On

Anthony Reich — Sun, 23 Oct 2011 13:52:01 +0000

Israel experienced its highest-ever TV ratings over a one day period last week on Tuesday, when captured IDF soldier Gilad Shalit finally returned home. The nation was glued to its TV sets as we watched events unfold over the day, finally culminating in a weak-looking Gilad returning to Israel and to the waiting arms of his family. He had spent 5 years and 4 months held in captivity by Hamas in the Gaza Strip.

Representatives from Hamas have made public statements about how well Gilad was treated. It is claimed that he was well fed during the years of his captivity, and allowed access to media including Israeli TV and radio broadcasts. Although they have also claimed that he was not subject to torture at their hands, Gilad’s father Noam has expressed doubt about this. He does, however, concur with the Hamas statements that Gilad was treated better in the latter years of his captivity. Noam’s comments allow us to believe that the first years were not easy, and may well have included torture. The facts on the day of the prisoner transfer, however, speak for themselves. It was difficult not to notice the stark difference in the conditions of the 477 Palestinian prisoners released by Israel, when compared to that of Gilad. The Palestinian prisoners looked well-fed and physically in good health as they sat on buses and smoked while waiting for the exchange deal to proceed. They had been granted access to members of their family and international organisations as required by the Geneva Convention. The same could not be said for Gilad, who walked with difficulty after being kept away from daylight for most of his years in captivity. Neither his family nor members of the International Committee of the Red Cross were allowed access to him for more than 5 years, despite repeated requests.

As Gilad tries to get to know his family and friends again at his home in Mitzpe Hila, the debate rages through the pages of the Israeli press and around the world about whether the prisoner exchange deal that secured his release was justified. With 477 Palestinian prisoners already released, and a further 550 slated for release in 2 months’ time as part of the deal, there are those in Israel who feel that the price paid for the return of just one prisoner was too high. This view is even further enhanced when considering the crimes committed by those who have been set free. The list of released prisoners includes murderers and terrorists who collectively succeeded in killing hundreds of innocent Israelis. The incidents in which these attacks took place range from the detonation of a bomb in pizza restaurant in downtown Jerusalem to an explosion at a hotel where thousands celebrated the Passover holiday, and more. It is perfectly understandable that the family members of the victims of these attacks are suffering anguish as a result of these killers being set free. There are those who believe that the release of these terrorists, many of whom have vowed to return to their old murderous ways, increases the security risk to Israeli civilians. There are many naysayers who are literally waiting for the next wave of terror attacks to hit Israel in order to justify their resistance to prisoner exchange deal. Yet others are opposed to the deal because they believe that it represents capitulation to terrorists, and encourages them to kidnap Israeli soldiers or civilians in the future in order to secure similar deals. This prisoner exchange agreement, they say, shows a weakness on the part of the Israeli government and her citizens.

Most of the points for and against the exchange deal are fairly well-known, and have enjoyed broad discussion in the Israeli and international press. There are, however, additional considerations that have come to my mind, and which are perhaps less widely discussed. The first point is that the concept of a prisoner exchange deal of this nature is not new. The truth is that Israel has been doing such deals for many years. The only thing that has differed from one deal to another, are the names and the numbers. Over the past 30 years, Israel has released some 7,000 Palestinian prisoners and released the remains of many more. In exchange Israel has received 19 Israelis and the remains of 8 others. Looking back over the years, I don’t believe that this has weakened Israel in any way, or shown that it is capitulating to terrorism. On the contrary, Israel has increased its defences against terrorists in a variety of different ways to strengthen its opposition to the vile actions taken against innocent civilians. At times, Israel has employed fairly extreme anti-terror defences, including a policy of targeted killings against those orchestrating terror activities or carrying them out. This surely demonstrates that Israel is not getting soft on terrorists. While agreeing to enter into prisoner swaps on the one hand, Israel has shown itself to be extremely tough on terror in many other ways.

Instead of interpreting exchange deals as showing weakness to terrorists, it is my belief that Israel is showing strength by adhering to basic principles and values which are fundamental in the Jewish religion. These same principles are the same ones that most reasonable people around the world would identify with. These are the principles of attaching value to the life of each and every citizen of Israel, particularly those who have fallen into captivity during the course of serving in the country’s army. This makes an important and powerful statement, not only to those serving in the army and their families, but also to our enemies. Often, a strong set of values and principles is more important than military strength. Armies around the world will tell you that it is tougher to fight against an enemy which has strong fundamental beliefs in its cause and in its values, than an enemy that does not. This has not gone unnoticed in the Arab press. A reporter writing in Abu Dhabi’s English language Gulf News wrote, “It is not a secret at all that the value of an Arab person in the stock-exchange of Arab regimes is sort of nil …. Have you ever seen an Arab regime trying to get its captives out of Israeli prisons? Forget about it. Most Arab regimes have no problem at all letting their nationals die in Israeli jails.” I believe that such actions do not serve to strengthen a society. It is my view that this attitude shows greater weakness than being prepared to stay to true to a country’s citizens, even if this means having to release terrorists.

Israel has a few weak spots in its history of valuing and securing the release of its citizens held by enemies. Three soldiers, Zachary Baumel, Tzvi Feldman and Yehuda Katz were captured by Syrian authorities in their tank in the Golan Heights in 1982. They have not been heard from since then, and are presumed dead. No evidence has been produced to support this view, however, and the three are listed as missing in action. A similar story is the one of missing Israeli airman Ron Arad, which captured the attention, imagination and sympathy of the world. Navigator Arad bailed out of his plane over Lebanon, and was captured by the enemy in 1986. He was known to have been alive as late as 1988, after having been “sold” by Hezbollah to the Iranians. Israeli attempts to free Arad came to nothing, and there is a strong suspicion that he died during the course of his captivity. For 25 years, his wife and family have been unable to move on with their lives as there is no official pronouncement of life or death. Officially, he is missing in action. These are stains on Israel’s record, and all Israelis know this.

Every nation at war is called upon to make tough decisions. Sometimes, these decisions involve the possibility of “sacrificing” soldiers or other individuals in the interests of a greater good, or the safety of a large number of others. In the case of Gilad Shalit, I think that any decision to sacrifice him in exchange for keeping 1,027 terrorists in prison would have been one of the toughest for anybody to make. In due course, we think we will know the price of not sacrificing him, but it is still difficult to say that any terror activities that may occur over the coming months and years would not have occurred if the 1,027 had remained in prison. It is my belief that there are enough “terrorists in waiting” out there to make the impact that the 1,027 may make, look insignificant.

On balance, given the alternatives between another Ron Arad situation or the current Gilad Shalit situation, the choice for me is an easy one. We are obliged to value the life that we know that we can rescue. In this respect, the government has made exactly the right decision. We are also obliged to ensure that those who are released, are not allowed to cause any further damage or bloodshed. I am sure that the IDF is on a close look-out for this. And even though many will interpret the release of the terrorists is to be an insult to the memories of those who were killed at their hands, it is really a clear statement of the value of life. Even if it is only one.

It is my wish that Gilad will enjoy a quick and full recovery to everyday life, and that he and his family will enjoy many years of health and happiness together. It is equally my wish that the memories of those who were brutally murdered by terrorists, will be for a blessing. Perhaps, above all, the fact that our society can hold this type of debate in an open and honest way, is a great demonstration of our democracy at work to build a just, caring and sensitive society. Am Yisrael Chai – The People of Israel live!

Gilad is Finally Home, But the Controversy Rages On is a post from: The Israel Situation

Palestinian Attempt to Hijack the UN Leads Nowhere

Anthony Reich — Sun, 25 Sep 2011 18:41:39 +0000

All eyes were focused last week on the opening of the 66th session of the UN General Assembly in New York. For weeks prior to this event, the Palestinians had dominated the international press with stories of taking a unilateral declaration of independence to the UN for a vote. Even though the events of last week turned many minds back to the fateful vote by the same organisation in 1947 which paved the way for the establishment of the State of Israel as the Jewish homeland, the two situations could not be more stark in their differences.

After the build-up that took place to last week’s meetings, it all ended with something of an anti-climax. There was no vote on the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state. There was not even a vote to admit the Palestinians as full members of the UN. Ultimately, the best that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas was able to do, was to submit his application to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon for full membership of the UN by the Palestinians. This application will need to be approved by the UN Security Council, and US President Barack Obama has already said that the USA will veto this vote if necessary. As a compromise, the Palestinians may be able to upgrade their current status of membership of the UN from an “entity” to a “non-member state” in UN speak. This requires only a vote by the general assembly without the need for approval by the Security Council, and is likely to be approved with some ease. The benefits of this upgrade for the Palestinians, however, seem marginal.

Despite the fact that all of the hype resulted in very little action, there were a few important results that came out of the events of last week. The first major outcome was the way in which President Barack Obama behaved when he was truly put on the spot. Obama has distanced himself from the peace process since assuming office nearly 3 years ago. He has yet to pay a visit to Israel or to the Palestinian Authority area, and has preferred to focus his time and energies on the many other issues currently confronting the USA. Despite his statements about the importance of resolving Middle East conflict, and his attempts to set timetables within which this issue should be resolved, he has yet to devote any significant chunk of his time to make this happen. When he was backed into a corner last week and forced to decide whether the Security Council should approve full membership for the Palestinians, he knew that exercising the USA’s veto is the only answer. This was accompanied by a speech which was one of the most pro-Israeli addresses made by a US president at the UN for many years, and which surprised supporters and detractors alike. In his speech, he told the story of the terror and hatred that Israelis have been forced to live with over many years, and he recognised Israel’s right to exist as the Jewish homeland. This was perhaps the most critical statement, as it is the point which currently presents the main stumbling block to renewing peace talks.

The address to the general assembly by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was equally an important event during the week. Despite his many faults, Netanyahu has consistently shown his ability to present Israel’s position on the international stage. Once again, he did this with great confidence and conviction. In particular, he addressed those people who feel that Israel should show greater flexibility in its negotiating position. There are those who believe that Israel should be playing to the “Palestinian moderates”, by making concessions to give them greater position and power amongst their Palestinian colleagues. In theory, these moderates will lead the peace agreement with Israel, and lead the Palestinians to a more moderate position. In refuting this position, Netanyahu reminded the general assembly of the many concessions that Israel has already made in the interests of pursuing peace. The most substantial of these concessions, a unilateral withdrawal from Gaza with all the implications of uprooting the lives of many thousands of people, has served to distance peace rather than bring it closer. After handing the keys of Gaza to PA President Abbas, he proceeded to lose control of it to the radicals of Hamas. Israel has been forced to endure constant rocket fire from the areas which were previously under Israeli control ever since. If this is a model for making concessions, it is not particularly successful and does create much of a precedent for future concessions.

Overall, the right conclusion was reached at the UN. This conclusion is that the UN cannot act as a replacement for the peace process. The UN cannot grant a state to people who are unwilling to come to the negotiating table, because they refuse to recognise the most fundamental rights of their neighbour. Until the Palestinians recognise the rights of Israel to exist, and to exist as a Jewish state, there can be no further discussion. Without this recognition, there will always be the suspicion (or maybe a confirmation) that the Palestinians seek a state of their own alongside Israel only in order to use this as a springboard to destroy the Jewish state completely. Hamas, along with their Hezbollah and Iranian friends, have not been shy to make this point clear in public. Perhaps this is Mahmoud Abbas’s little secret.

The difference between the UN vote of 1947 and the UN non-vote of 2011 is perhaps best reflected by the responses of the general public awaiting the outcomes. Jews were dancing in the streets of Jerusalem, across then-Palestine and around the world. In contrast, Palestinians lined up across the West Bank with stones which were thrown at Israeli security patrols, and burning posters of President Barack Obama and Israeli flags. Israeli military was on high alert in the south of the country after a concrete threat of a terror attack in the area.

While the UN has in the past been a very unhappy hunting ground for Israel and Jews around the world, these two occasions stand out as crucially arriving at the correct conclusion. Each, for its own different reason, will take its place in Jewish history as a critical moment in time.

Palestinian Attempt to Hijack the UN Leads Nowhere is a post from: The Israel Situation

Iran: From Theocracy to Democracy

Paul — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 20:22:15 +0000

How Israel can help and will inevitably benefit from Iran’s gradual internal evolution from an extremist Islamic theocracy into a secular democracy.

History has many ironies, a good example of this is the relationship between the State of Israel and Iran, particularly given that this relationship began with the latter being among the first in recognizing the then new Jewish state upon its birth in 1948. These days the relationship between the two countries is very turbulent. Considering that the theocracy in power in Iran believes that the Jewish state will “vanish” and its support of terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, the two states are very close to a state of war.

Benjamin Netanyahu hit the proverbial nail on the head when asked in an interview about the Arab Spring. Mr. Netanyahu quickly responded stating that the current pro-democratic revolutions did not start in Tunisia, but started on the streets of Tehran a year and a half ago, and have since been violently subverted by the dictatorial theocratic regime there. This interview is well worth watching as Netanyahu makes the case that the Islamic world is catching up on the information age and collectively removing older forms of government and systems that are failing as they are no longer relevant.

The Arab Spring itself has been an interesting development to witness unfold; but not half as interesting as the struggle of the young Iranian people for democracy. After being brutally denied self governance by the authoritarian Islamic theocracy, a big question to be pondered is if Israel could and would play a positive role in helping the headstrong determined Iranian youth transform Iran from a dictatorship into a secular democracy.

Through what has become known as citizen journalism, the world saw the horrific events as they unfolded on the streets of Tehran as thousands of distressed Iranians were violently and savagely beaten by the government Basij and Revolutionary Guard thugs. The prime example of this brutal violence was the shooting of Neda Agha Soltan. Her tragic last moments were captured on video uploaded to the internet within minutes. Now, having been seen by millions, she has become a symbol of oppression to young Iranians.

They are fighting for change, and that change predominately revolves around a change of the regime in Tehran, which has threatened Israel and is directly arming and financing a proxy force in Lebanon. Hezbollah, of course, sparked the deadly Second Lebanon War in 2006. Iran’s only real ally in the region, the al Assad dictatorship in Syria, is now soaked in the blood of the Syrian people who are also demanding change. The two states are becoming victims of inner strife as people are seeing past the hate the regimes foment for Israel which they do to try to divert the people’s discontent away from them.

The world is becoming a smaller place as a result of modern communication technology. What does this have to do with Israel? The pioneers of instant messaging were two Israelis who, as one of my own Israeli friends informed me, lived just an hour walk away from her house. It is such modern information technology that is enabling the world to see past the self-proclaimed representatives of such regimes like that of Ahmadinejad and see the real plight of the people.

It is widely speculated that the Stuxnet virus was created by the Israelis with the intent of delaying Iran’s nuclear ambitions. This has a positive effect as it gives the Iranians risking their lives in a campaigning for change more preciously needed time. If Iran were to go to war, it may give the ruling regime a chance to purge large numbers of the young Iranian activists (who make up a substantial part of the young, maturing, and discontent generation of the country) under the fog of war. Clearly the current Israeli strategy is a good one, as it is buying the democratic movement time to gradually take centre stage in the gradual metamorphosis of Iran from a fascistic theocracy into a secular democracy.

For Israel, this means a best case scenario where the mullahs will fall from their positions of power. Once the regime goes (along with the al-Assad regime in Syria), Hezbollah will no longer have steady supplies of military hardware and may be substantially weakened. On the other hand, the worse case scenario. This tactic may delay Iran’s nuclear ambitions but see the regime successful in suppressing the underlying pro-democratic upheaval. Even if that is the case, it still further weakens the regime as it will have to divert more resources into combating internal threats.

Either way, Israel (possibly inadvertently) is playing a substantial role in helping pave the way for the inevitable downfall of the regime in Tehran, which is only maintaining its hold on power through brute violence and subversion.

Image by Beverly & Pack.

Iran: From Theocracy to Democracy is a post from: The Israel Situation

Five Years and No Signs of Life

Anthony Reich — Sun, 26 Jun 2011 19:56:50 +0000

Yesterday marked the fifth anniversary since Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit was captured by Hamas operatives on the Israeli side of the Gaza border. Five unrelenting years have passed without any outside organisation having been allowed access to the young soldier at all. His parents have fought a tireless battle to keep their son’s name on the agenda of the politicians, and on the lips and in the conscience of all members of the public.

How can such a situation arise, that five years are allowed to pass without any meaningful progress in securing Gilad’s release? Even Terry Waite was not forced to endure this length of captivity, and was released before 5 years had passed. The psychological impact on Waite of those years behind bars was dramatic (see The Long Waite), so what can we possibly hope for Gilad, if and when he is released?

The intentions behind Hamas’s decision to capture and hold Gilad were always based on pure evil. It was their view that they would be able to secure the release of Hamas terrorists held in Israeli jails, to allow them to return to kill and maim Israeli civilians. This view has been strengthened by the never-ending negotiations that have been ongoing between Israel and Hamas for the release of Gilad. These talks, sometimes facilitated by German mediators and sometimes by Egyptians, have focused on the number of Hamas prisoners that will be released, the specific names on the list and whether they will be released to the West Bank, Gaza or elsewhere. The Israeli demand is a simple one – to release Gilad safely into the hands of his parents. When dealing with organisations like Hamas (or like Hezbollah in the case of the capture of Terry Waite), their evil seems to know no bounds. There is no way of knowing what they might truly be prepared to agree to in order to release Gilad, and to what extent these protracted negotiations are simply a game to keep their name in the international headlines. The last communication and sign of life from Gilad was more than two years ago. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has repeatedly been denied access to him, contravening all international accepted norms in this respect. The latest appeal by the ICRC last week showed major concern about his well-being on their part. This time, they did not demand a sign of life, but immediate access to him. As before, the request was refused.

As time goes by, things certainly get worse. This applies particularly to the possibilities of seeing Gilad alive again. The capture of Israeli Air Force navigator Ron Arad is proof of that. Arad was captured in 1986 after bailing out of his plane over Lebanon. He was variously reported to have been held in Lebanon, Syria and Iran, but has never been seen since. A secret Israeli military report claimed that he died of an illness in 1995. The problem is that those that originally captured him were reported to have had no idea where he was, or who held him by that time. The trail became remote and cold. Simply to follow the track of where he was, and under whose responsibility, became an impossible task. The same danger exists for Gilad. Some of those who were involved in his original capture have been killed in operations with Israeli forces. Is he still being held in Gaza, or has he been smuggled via the tunnels into Egypt and then to who-knows-where? The more time that passes makes the tracking of his whereabouts increasingly difficult, and the prospects of his safe release increasingly remote.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has appointed mediators on behalf of the government to focus on this one matter, to bring Gilad home via a negotiated deal. He has accepted the involvement of the German and Egyptian mediators to resolve the issue. This has all been to no avail, as the ultimate goal has yet to be achieved. His latest statement on the matter is no different than the previous ones he has made. This amounts to stating that complying with the Hamas request for a prisoner swap would endanger too many Israelis. This is reference to the fact that those who would be released in terms of Hamas’s demands are those terrorists who have killed Israelis, and would do so again. He is, of course, showing some respect to the families of those who have been killed by these evil beasts. The problem is that, by keeping them in jail, no lives can be returned. By releasing them from jail, there is a life that can be returned. This must surely be the main consideration.

I don’t accept the statements by the prime minister, that the deal cannot be done because too many people’s lives will be endangered by doing so. While I do agree that imprisoning key individuals has contributed to a reduction in the attacks that Israel has been forced to endure from both Gaza and the West Bank, I also feel that there are ways of managing a process of releasing these beasts in return for them releasing Gilad. We have previously released individuals like Sheik Ahmed Yassin in prisoner swaps, who then immediately returned to his evil ways of orchestrating terror attacks on Israelis. He ultimately paid for this with his life when an Israeli Air Force strike killed him. Any deal to release terrorist prisoners will require extremely good Israeli intelligence to track these individuals following their release. Any sign of activities on their part to hurt Israelis, should be met with immediate action to eliminate them. Not only will this remove them and their evil ways from the picture, it will also reduce the inclination on the part of Hamas to capture Israelis to force a prisoner swap. There will be no prisoners to swap.

It is my view that there are enough terrorists running around the streets of the West Bank and Gaza willing to do harm to Israelis, such that the release of the prisoners will not make such a big impact on the situation. For every one sitting in jail, there are probably ten on the streets. Now is the time for the prime minister to act decisively. His announcement last week to rescind rights to academic study for terrorist prisoners does not go nearly far enough. The ironic calls by Hamas that this step contravenes the human rights of these prisoners is simply a joke. Since when has Hamas been concerned with human rights?

Mr Prime Minister, I call on you to accept whatever deal is on the table to bring Gilad home without further delay. This will not increase the danger in which the State of Israel lives, nor the danger that soldiers will be captured in the future. These are ever-present dangers that we are forced to live with, and confront on a daily basis. It will, however, send an important message to the Shalit family and to families up and down Israel whose children serve in the IDF. This is the message that you and the Israeli government will be prepared to do everything, everything to return our children under such difficult circumstances. The strength of this message is far more important than the message that is sent to Hamas regarding the number of prisoners that you are releasing. This decision is also likely to shape the legacy of your time in office. After all, you will forever be remembered as the prime minister who brought Gilad home. Now is the time to act, and to act soon before it is, G-d forbid, too late.

Please say a prayer for Gilad’s safe return.

Five Years and No Signs of Life is a post from: The Israel Situation

Hezbollah Preparing For War

Eric — Fri, 24 Jun 2011 20:14:51 +0000

From YNet:

Lebanon’s Hezbollah is preparing for a possible war with Israel to relieve perceived Western pressure to topple Syrian President Bashar Assad, its guardian ally, sources close to the movement say.

The radical Shi’ite group is watching the unrest in neighboring Syria with alarm and is determined to prevent the West from exploiting popular protests to bring down Assad.

Hezbollah supported pro-democracy movements that toppled Western-backed leaders in Tunisia and Egypt, but officials say it will not stand idly by as international pressure mounts on Assad to yield to protesters.

This is a disturbing development. Just a few years ago Hezbollah launched a war against Israel that only led to death on both sides. The terrorist group is rumored to have re-armed to a level that far exceeds the 2006 war.

Hezbollah Preparing For War is a post from: The Israel Situation

Bibi’s Dresden Comparison

Paul — Fri, 27 May 2011 17:31:57 +0000

Starting during the time of the Second Lebanon War, former and current Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin ‘Bibi’ Netanyahu often made comparisons between Israel’s so called disproportionate responses to rocket attacks by terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah to Churchill’s firebombing of Dresden as a direct response to the attacks on London in late World War II.

Does he have a point? Does this argument hold water?

The V2 followed the V1 flying bomb which was fired indiscriminately at civilians in London in mid to late 1944. The V-2 was a ballistic missile and the progenitor of such missiles that would be later improved and modified as the prototypes of early Cold War era missiles the United States and the Soviet Union produced. In its short operating history, the V2 killed over 7,000 people when fired at London and Antwerp. However, the production of these weapons cost the lives of 12,000 forced laborers.

As Bibi points out, the Allies reaction to this was to firebomb Dresden where an estimated 25,000 people perished. This wasn’t the first of such incendiary bombings carried out by the Allied air forces who had previously in 1943 (before V1′s or V2′s entered service) destroyed Hamburg. The Hamburg attack leveled 250,000 houses and killed over 40,000 civilians.

In reality, Hamburg was one of the few cities in German that wasn’t Nazified and did not vote for Hitler in the first place. However, Hamburg was a strategic target on the grounds that it was a large industrialized port city that made a valuable contribution to the German war effort. The human cost was tragic as working class neighborhoods were purposely targeted and wiped out.

In the Second Lebanon War, the Israeli Air Force carpet bombed the Southern Beirut suburb of Dahieh, a Hezbollah stronghold. They did this after dropping leaflets warning civilians to leave for their own safety. While this wasn’t near Dresden standards (2,000 people died on both sides in the six weeks of the Second Lebanon War), casualties were indeed substantially limited and avoided. Israeli attacks were not nearly as frivolous as the indiscriminate Hezbollah rocketing of Northern Israel.

They were also not as frivolous as Iraq’s missile attacks on Tel Aviv and Haifa during the Persian Gulf War of 1991. A news clip of these attacks from 1991 shows the current Prime Minister, then Deputy Foreign Minister, giving a short comment on the attacks.

Iraq used Scud missiles against Israel in the Gulf war, an early Soviet variant of the V2 missile. Saddam vowed to wipe out Tel Aviv with such missiles throughout the course of the war. Israel never retaliated as it was feared an Israeli retaliation would play into Saddam’s hands.

According to Patrick Tyler, author of A World of Trouble: The White House and the Middle East – from the Cold War to the War on Terror, former Israeli Minister of Defense Moshe Arens and Prime Minister Shamir were called by President Bush. Bush offered supported the use of Israeli ballistic missiles on Iraqi air bases. This move would keep Israel out of the war zone but give it a measure of retaliatory satisfaction. Shamir declined the offer. Arens stated that the military effect of such an attack may go unnoticed by the Iraqis as they were already being heavily bombarded in the Desert Storm campaign.

This incident gives a lot of credence to Bibi’s Dresden comparison as not only did Israel not respond with a massive indiscriminate attack on Baghdad in kind, but it completely refrained from attacking and saved many civilian casualties.

While Bibi does make an interesting point, the fundamental argument is that there is no such thing as a clean war. The essential point he is trying to get across is that Israel isn’t the one who tries to make war any dirtier.

Bibi’s Dresden Comparison is a post from: The Israel Situation

Thousands of Protestors Cross Border from Syria and Lebanon

Anthony Reich — Sun, 15 May 2011 13:15:45 +0000

As part of their “Nakba Day” (Catastrophe Day) commemorations, thousands of Palestinian refugees from Lebanon and Syria gathered on the Israeli border in protest. Nakba Day is the day on which Palestinians mourn the creation of the State of Israel, and has been used in the past for violent protests against Israel and Israelis.

It is reported that protestors, who had gathered along the border, began to throw stones at the Israeli soldiers on the other side of the border fence. Despite efforts by Lebanese troops firing int he air and ordering the crowd to return to the venue of the rally, some protestors managed to breach the border fence and thousands of protestors then poured across the border into Israeli territory. Similar events took place on the Syrian border in spite of speakers representing various Palestinian factions calling through loudspeakers to stop youths throwing stones.

Israeli soldiers are reported to have opened fire on protestors on both the Lebanese and Syrian borders. Current reports indicate that 8 people have been killed, with about a dozen others injured. Events are still continuing as the IDF tries to bring the situation under control.

Thousands of Protestors Cross Border from Syria and Lebanon is a post from: The Israel Situation

Celebrations Over Bin Laden’s Death Are Overdone

Anthony Reich — Sun, 08 May 2011 19:42:33 +0000

The American people have spent the past few days celebrating the death of Osama Bin Laden, mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. After 10 years of searching for him, and numerous promises to hunt him down on the part of successive administrations, US special forces finally succeeded in tracking him down in Pakistan and killed him.

I can certainly understand why Americans celebrated the death of Bin Laden. He was responsible for the first real act of war on American soil since Pearl Harbour. He humiliated American security by having his operatives work from within the USA, and by having them use US equipment to create one of the greatest losses of lives on US soil. Not only that, but he managed to expose a construction weakness in the most cruel way, to destroy one of the beacons of American entrepreneurial spirit and freedom in the centre of New York City, the city that never sleeps. Americans were never going to rest until revenge was exacted on this audacious man, if only for the Americans to reassert their supremacy. One has to give credit to all those involved that they were prepared to stay the distance, and to continue to track down their target despite the passage of 10 long years. This sends a message of determination, not only to the American people, but also to those terrorists who felt that they may have escaped the consequences of such a heinous act of terror. As far as I can tell, Barack Obama has managed to seal the legacy of his presidency by this one act. He will always go down in history as the man who hunted down Bin Laden. His very personal control and presence in the incident room watching on his video screen as the events were unfolding, will also do no harm to his image or legacy.

Obama has made every effort to maximise the publicity that he can achieve from this success. There is so much bad news that world leaders are forced to endure, and this president is no exception, that they go out of their way to make good news last as long as possible. In playing up the achievement of finally hunting down Osama, however, the president runs the risk of misleading citizens of the United States and the world. There are a few harsh realities that we as law-abiding citizens should bear in mind, despite the fact that Bin Laden is no longer a force to be reckoned with.

The first and most important reality is that the assassination of Bin Laden makes no real difference to terror activities around the world. The fact that he is no longer around does not make the world a safer place. On the contrary, his death may have stirred up a hornets’ nest and may precipitate revenge violence against citizens of the free world. No matter whether the short-term outlook is better or worse, it is clear that the Al-Qaeda organisation and command-control infrastructure that has been put in place will continue to operate even without Osama at the helm. Bin Laden’s death may create a martyr-figure in the eyes of many of the Muslim world, such that they may be convinced to join the activities of the terrorists. The most frightening reality of all, is the fact that the Muslim world is full of would-be Bin Ladens. There are thousands out there who would be delighted to take over where Osama has left off, and they enjoy huge support and substantial funding. State-sponsored organisations such as Hamas and Hezbollah are ready and willing to work alongside Al-Qaeda and other organisations, with the intention of ridding the world of the “infidels”.

Bin Laden succeeded in taking the Muslim extremist fight against the free world from the war-torn streets of Middle Eastern backwaters, to downtown Manhattan and the Pentagon. Like his arch-rival Obama, Osama’s legacy is assured. He has made being a Muslim extremist “cool”, and he has created a role model for future generations of Muslims wishing to oppose all that America and the free world stand for. Not only did he succeed in attacking America by using their own aircraft to bring down the bastion of freedom in New York City, he has successfully used the Internet and social media to taunt and tease those seeking him out. For 10 years, he managed to evade the world’s best armies and intelligence agencies while continuing to direct further activities of terror and destruction.

As much as it was important to destroy this man in his role as the ultimate architect of terrorism, it is equally important not to allow the celebrations to continue too long. It is time to get back to work to destroy Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah and other terror organisations and cells. Unfortunately, Bin Laden was only the tip of this iceberg and the world really is not a safer place now that he has gone. If the indications prove to be correct, and Obama has succeeded in securing himself another presidential term on the back of the death of Bin Laden, he will need to move very quickly to reset the expectations of the American people. Failure to do this may risk his legacy in the future.

Celebrations Over Bin Laden’s Death Are Overdone is a post from: The Israel Situation

Middle East Protests Move to Syria

Eric — Mon, 21 Mar 2011 22:34:44 +0000

We have seen protests topple the leader of Tunisia. We have seen unrest in Egypt bring down long time president Mubarak. The movement has spread in Libya, where Western nations are now running military operations in support of protesters, and Bahrain, where the Saudi government has sent in reinforcements to stop the protesters. Today, five people were killed as the wave of uprisings entered Syria.

The Middle East Democracy movement was a long time coming, but it has moved in so quickly and so strongly that violence is erupting around the region. Unlike Israel, a long time Democracy that supports freedom of religion, speech, and political beliefs, its Arab neighbors are struggling with the idea. In Egypt, it is unclear who is going to emerge as the new leader after elections are held. In Libya, the “rebel groups” will certainly emerge victorious as they now have the support of the United States, French, Spanish, and Canadian military forces. Syria is a whole different story.

Like Egypt, Syria shares a border with Israel. Unlike Egypt, it has always been a violent border. Syria has close ties with Iran, Israel’s mortal enemy. Syria supports Hezbollah, a terrorist organization, in Southern Lebanon. Syria rules much of Southern Lebanon by proxy. Needless to say, this could be a sticky situation for Israel.

If protests are successful, Israel may see a benefit. The overthrow of enemy leadership is generally not a bad thing. However, we have to wonders who could rise to replace Prime Minster Assad.

Syria has been caught red handed trying to build a secret nuclear program. It is a hostile border. At least now we have the stability of the status quo. A new leader could be better or worse. I am sure the United States and Israel are watching very closely. Analysts are projecting possible defense scenarios. The uncertainty means Israel has to be ready for anything.

Read more at the Washington Post and Jerusalem Post.

What do you think will happen? Will Syria’s leaders fall? Will the majority Sunni population rise and take power? Will there be peace with Israel? Please share your thoughts in the comments.

Middle East Protests Move to Syria is a post from: The Israel Situation

Iranian Missile: Israel Has 12 Minutes

Eric — Wed, 05 Jan 2011 23:16:47 +0000

photo © 2009 Amir Farshad EbrahimiIsrael’s military chief, Gabi Ashkenazi, reported that in the event Iran were to launch a missile at Israel, the country would have ten to twelve minutes notice. The Shihab rocket can carry a conventional, chemical, biological, or nuclear payload.

This is a huge threat to the existence of the Jewish people. Roughly 40% of the world’s Jews live in Israel, and a nuclear attack would devastate the population.

According to Ashkenazi, in a document from Wikileaks, Israel’s military is preparing for a worst case scenario.

“I am preparing the Israeli army for a large scale war, since it is easier to scale down to a smaller operation than to do the opposite… The rocket threat against Israel is more serious than ever. That is why Israel is putting such emphasis on rocket defense.”

The cable also indicated that Hezbollah has amassed 40,000 to 50,000 rockets, many of which have a longer range than those used in the 2006 Lebanon war.

Israel is under a serious threat from multiple enemies, all proxies of Iran or other Islamic influenced terrorist groups. The speedy completion of Israel’s Iron Dome missile defense system is vital for the continued security from Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iranian attacks.

Iranian Missile: Israel Has 12 Minutes is a post from: The Israel Situation