BREAKING NEWS! BREAKING NEWS! BREAKING NEWS!
Israel Navy intercepts Gaza-bound aid vessels; no injuries reported: Haaretz
Naval forces board two Gaza-bound ships after they failed to heed orders to turn around or dock in Egypt or Israel; ships being led to port of Ashdod.
The Israel Navy on Friday afternoon intercepted two boats that approached the coast of the Gaza Strip with the intent to violate Israel’s naval blockade of the territory.
After the boats failed to heed calls to turn around or dock in Egypt or Israel, Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Benny Gantz ordered naval forces to board the ships. Nobody was injured during the boarding of the ships, a military source said.
“The Israel Navy soldiers operated as planned, and took every precaution necessary to ensure the safety of the activists onboard the vessels as well as themselves,” an IDF statement said.
The boats were carrying supplies and 27 international pro-Palestinian activists.
Activists in Gaza and Ramallah said they lost radio contact with the ships shortly after 1 p.m.
The IDF said that the navy had contacted the Gaza-bound ships and informed them that Gaza is under a maritime security blockade. The IDF told the ships they could turn around or dock in the Egypt or at Ashdod, where the goods they were carrying would be transferred to Gaza after being inspected.
The ships did not heed that call and continued towards Gaza.
IDF forces did not expect to face violent resistance from the activists on the ships.
Israel’s navy has intercepted similar protest ships in the past, towing them to Ashdod and detaining participants. Israel says its naval blockade of Gaza is necessary to prevent weapons from reaching militant groups like Hamas, the Iran-backed group that rules the territory. Critics call the blockade collective punishment of Gaza’s residents.
Israel’s government has said the activists can send supplies into Gaza overland.
In May 2010, nine Turkish pro-Palestinian activists were killed when they resisted an Israeli operation to halt a similar flotilla. Each side blamed the other for the violence.
The incident sparked an international outcry and forced Israel to ease its land blockade on Gaza, which was imposed in 2006 and tightened, with Egyptian cooperation, after Hamas seized control of the territory the following year.
Militants in Gaza have fired thousands of rockets into Israel in the past decade, and now have much of southern Israel in range.
Speaking after prayers at a Gaza City mosque, Ismail Haniyeh, the Hamas prime minister, addressed the passengers aboard the boats, saying, “Your message has been delivered whether you make it or not.”
“The siege is unjust and must end,” Haniyeh said.
On Thursday, the Obama administration warned U.S. citizens on the boats that they may face legal action for violating Israeli and American law. The activists include Americans and citizens of eight other countries.
State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said the U.S. was renewing its warning to Americans “not to involve themselves in this activity.”
The U.S., like Israel and the European Union, considers Hamas a terrorist organization.
EDITOR: Israel vs The Universe!
The speed of events is certainly intensifying, to a point it is almost dizzying. The UN bid by Abbas has started a series of Israeli reactions which are really off the scale, as well as carefully designed to inflame and increase tension in the region, in a buildup to the grande attack on Iran, the Israeli project now sold to the USA and UK, these famous protectors of humanity and democracy.
Ever since 2005, Israel has stoked the anti-Iranian issue, increasing the fire under the west’s bum, and building up to total conflict, which is the only condition Israel feels comfortable with. The readiness of most states in the UN to award Palestine a full status is sending Israel off the horizon, into the blue yonder of nuclear war in the Middle East. This is preferable to facing the simple facts of the Palestine issue, and going along with reality, for a change. This Israel cannot do – not just Mr. Netanyahu, or Mr. Barak, but all the other leaders of Israeli parties and factions.
But what is amazing about this turn of events is not just the Israeli madness, overreaction and aggression, but the fact that they have managed to persuade the main western powers to fight their wars for them, and even thank Israel for being allowed to do so… That the USA and UK are now gearing up to attack a non-nuclear nation, in the interest of a nation with over 300 nuclear weapons, which they are protecting from international agencies and the arm of the law. They will be bombing a country which has not attacked others, in order to protect one which does nothing else but attack other countries and nations. This must be the height of international morality.
They will do so not just for the Israelis, of course, but also in the interest of derailing the Arab Spring, or what is left of it. They are doing just fine – with Egypt under a military Junta, with Libya in the hands of undemocratic militias, and with Syria about to collapse – not bad for one summer… they will be showing who is boss, to avoid confusion in the future.
And after all that, Americans will again wonder, why does no one but Israel love them? They really haven’t got the slightest.
UK military steps up plans for Iran attack amid fresh nuclear fears: Guardian
British officials consider contingency options to back up a possible US action as fears mount over Tehran’s capability
Nick Hopkins
Iranian nuclear technicians in protective wear. Photograph: Mehdi Ghasemi/AP
Britain’s armed forces are stepping up their contingency planning for potential military action against Iran amid mounting concern about Tehran’s nuclear enrichment programme, the Guardian has learned.
The Ministry of Defence believes the US may decide to fast-forward plans for targeted missile strikes at some key Iranian facilities. British officials say that if Washington presses ahead it will seek, and receive, UK military help for any mission, despite some deep reservations within the coalition government.
In anticipation of a potential attack, British military planners are examining where best to deploy Royal Navy ships and submarines equipped with Tomahawk cruise missiles over the coming months as part of what would be an air and sea campaign.
They also believe the US would ask permission to launch attacks from Diego Garcia, the British Indian ocean territory, which the Americans have used previously for conflicts in the Middle East.
The Guardian has spoken to a number of Whitehall and defence officials over recent weeks who said Iran was once again becoming the focus of diplomatic concern after the revolution in Libya.
They made clear that Barack Obama, has no wish to embark on a new and provocative military venture before next November’s presidential election.
But they warned the calculations could change because of mounting anxiety over intelligence gathered by western agencies, and the more belligerent posture that Iran appears to have been taking.
Hawks in the US are likely to seize on next week’s report from the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is expected to provide fresh evidence of a possible nuclear weapons programme in Iran.
The Guardian has been told that the IAEA’s bulletin could be “a game changer” which will provide unprecedented details of the research and experiments being undertaken by the regime.
One senior Whitehall official said Iran had proved “surprisingly resilient” in the face of sanctions, and sophisticated attempts by the west to cripple its nuclear enrichment programme had been less successful than first thought.
He said Iran appeared to be “newly aggressive, and we are not quite sure why”, citing three recent assassination plots on foreign soil that the intelligence agencies say were coordinated by elements in Tehran.
In addition to that, officials now believe Iran has restored all the capability it lost in a sophisticated cyber-attack last year.The Stuxnet computer worm, thought to have been engineered by the Americans and Israelis, sabotaged many of the centrifuges the Iranians were using to enrich uranium.
Up to half of Iran’s centrifuges were disabled by Stuxnet or were thought too unreliable to work, but diplomats believe this capability has now been recovered, and the IAEA believes it may even be increasing.
Ministers have also been told that the Iranians have been moving some more efficient centrifuges into the heavily-fortified military base dug beneath a mountain near the city of Qom.
The concern is that the centrifuges, which can be used to enrich uranium for use in weapons, are now so well protected within the site that missile strikes may not be able to reach them. The senior Whitehall source said the Iranians appeared to be shielding “material and capability” inside the base.
Another Whitehall official, with knowledge of Britain’s military planning, said that within the next 12 months Iran may have hidden all the material it needs to continue a covert weapons programme inside fortified bunkers. He said this had necessitated the UK’s planning being taken to a new level.
“Beyond [12 months], we couldn’t be sure our missiles could reach them,” the source said. “So the window is closing, and the UK needs to do some sensible forward planning. The US could do this on their own but they won’t.
“So we need to anticipate being asked to contribute. We had thought this would wait until after the US election next year, but now we are not so sure.
“President Obama has a big decision to make in the coming months because he won’t want to do anything just before an election.”
Another source added there was “no acceleration towards military action by the US, but that could change”. Next spring could be a key decision-making period, the source said. The MoD has a specific team considering the military options against Iran.
The Guardian has been told that planners expect any campaign to be predominantly waged from the air, with some naval involvement, using missiles such as the Tomahawks, which have a range of 800 miles (1,287 km). There are no plans for a ground invasion, but “a small number of special forces” may be needed on the ground, too.
The RAF could also provide air-to-air refuelling and some surveillance capability, should they be required. British officials say any assistance would be cosmetic: the US could act on its own but would prefer not to.
An MoD spokesman said: “The British government believes that a dual track strategy of pressure and engagement is the best approach to address the threat from Iran’s nuclear programme and avoid regional conflict. We want a negotiated solution – but all options should be kept on the table.”
The MoD says there are no hard and fast blueprints for conflict but insiders concede that preparations there and at the Foreign Office have been under way for some time.
One official said: “I think that it is fair to say that the MoD is constantly making plans for all manner of international situations. Some areas are of more concern than others. “It is not beyond the realms of possibility that people at the MoD are thinking about what we might do should something happen on Iran. It is quite likely that there will be people in the building who have thought about what we would do if commanders came to us and asked us if we could support the US. The context for that is straightforward contingency planning.”
Washington has been warned by Israel against leaving any military action until it is too late.
Western intelligence agencies say Israel will demand that the US act if it believes its own military cannot launch successful attacks to stall Iran’s nuclear programme. A source said the “Israelis want to believe that they can take this stuff out”, and will continue to agitate for military action if Iran continues to play hide and seek.
It is estimated that Iran, which has consistently said it is interested only in developing a civilian nuclear energy programme, already has enough enriched uranium for between two and four nuclear weapons.
Experts believe it could be another two years before Tehran has a ballistic missile delivery system.
British officials admit to being perplexed by what they regard as Iran’s new aggressiveness, saying that they have been shown convincing evidence that Iran was behind the murder of a Saudi diplomat in Karachi in May, as well as the audacious plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington, which was uncovered last month.
“There is a clear dotted line from Tehran to the plot in Washington,” said one.
Earlier this year, the IAEA reported that it had evidence Tehran had conducted work on a highly sophisticated nuclear triggering technology that could only be used for setting off a nuclear device.
It also said it was “increasingly concerned about the possible existence in Iran of past or current undisclosed nuclear-related activities involving military-related organisations, including activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile.”
Last year, the UN security council imposed a fourth round of sanctions on Iran to try to deter Tehran from pursuing any nuclear ambitions.
At the weekend, the New York Times reported that the US was looking to build up its military presence in the region, with one eye on Iran.
According to the paper, the US is considering sending more naval warships to the area, and is seeking to expand military ties with the six countries in the Gulf Co-operation Council: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Oman.
Israel led by a right-wing, myopic government: Haaretz Editorial
If Israel had a sober and responsible, peace-seeking leadership, it would welcome the PA’s membership in UNESCO and even its upgraded status in the United Nations.
A week after Avigdor Lieberman declared Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas an “obstacle to peace,” it turns out the foreign minister is not alone in the campaign to eliminate the Palestinian interlocutor. Shortly after Israel signed the deal to free soldier Gilad Shalit and revealed the PA leadership to be an empty vessel, the forum of eight senior ministers decided on Tuesday to embark on a campaign to punish the PA leadership.
The government took advantage of the PA’s acceptance as a full member of UNESCO – the United Nations cultural organization – as well as its efforts to become a member of other UN agencies, to declare a retaliatory action that will further undermine Abbas’ position. The forum decided to move ahead with the construction of 2,000 housing units in the settlements and in East Jerusalem, and to withhold more than NIS 300 million in taxes that Israel has collected for the PA, money intended to pay the salaries of PA employees ahead of the Muslim feast of Id al-Adha. The forum also decided to begin the process of revoking senior PA officials’ VIP documentation.
The UN envoy to the region, Robert Serry, told Haaretz this week that the perpetuation of the status quo will lead to the dismantling of the PA and to “throwing the keys back to Israel.” This gloomy prediction, which has the army very concerned, doesn’t worry the government. On the contrary, the eight senior ministers’ decision shows that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is following the path of Lieberman, who is calling for the severing of ties with the PA.
The political elimination of Abbas and his partners will lift international pressure on Netanyahu to freeze construction in the settlements, and will release him from the need to begin negotiations based on the 1967 borders. The takeover of the West Bank by terror groups – and the process of turning it into a clone of the Gaza Strip – will allow the government to occupy the territories again and do whatever it wants there. Such a development will amplify the influence of Iran and radical Muslim organizations, and will magnify the threat to Israel’s security.
If Israel had a sober and responsible, peace-seeking leadership, it would welcome the PA’s membership in UNESCO and even its upgraded status in the United Nations. Unfortunately, and distressingly, Israel is being led by a right-wing, myopic government.
An attack on Iran would be disastrous: Guardian
Britain must resist US pressure for military action. Even if Iran had nuclear weapons, engagement is the only course to take
Richard Norton-Taylor
Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, visits a nuclear enrichment facility south of Tehran. Photograph: HO/Reuters/Corbis
“Would a British prime minister ever refuse a plea from a US president to join America in a controversial military operation?” This was the response, rhetorical and unanswerable as far as they were concerned, by Whitehall mandarins whenever they were asked why Tony Blair agreed to invade Iraq. It was not a matter of whether the invasion was wrong or right; it was that the occupier of 10 Downing Street would simply not turn down such a request from the White House.
For the US, Britain could offer not only political and “moral” support but a juicy physical asset – Diego Garcia, the base conveniently placed for American bombers, on the British Indian Ocean Territory.
This is what so worries Whitehall, and Britain’s top brass in particular – a growing fear that Barack Obama will find it difficult to oppose increasing pressure for military action against Iran’s nuclear facilities within the next 12 months. British military commanders may be gung-ho, perennially optimistic and eager to please their political masters. They are also pragmatic, fully aware of the potential failure as well as the catastrophic consequences of such military action. And it would be hard for anyone to defend the legality of such pre-emptive strikes.
Amid such death and destruction what would be the end game, and the battles on the way? US and British military commanders have for years warned of the disasters that would follow missile strikes on Iran.
Iran’s forces may not be up to much but, with the help of Hamas and Hezbollah, they could wreak havoc. British and US troops in Afghanistan would be exposed to even greater danger than they are now – their bases in the Gulf, notably in Qatar and Bahrain, would be easy targets. The Strait of Hormuz, the entrance to the Gulf, the canal through which more than 50% of the world’s oil is shipped, would be closed. What would arise from the ashes?
Some may say that is a price worth paying to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. The suggestion is that there is a “window” now that would enable Israel on its own to strike Iran’s nuclear sites. Next year, the “window” would be left open to the US (and the UK) before Iran’s nuclear weapons reached the point of no return.
Such reasoning, if this is what it can be called, is that of the dangerous fool. How crushed and devastated would Iran have to be before it could no longer restart a nuclear programme, even one just involving fissile material as a weapon for terrorists?
Israel is fast developing its arsenal, giving it a nuclear “triad” – weapons that could be delivered by land and air, and by submarines.
That’s fine and understandable because Israel is not Iran – unstable, unpredictable, under a president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who wants to create havoc across the Middle East. So runs the argument.
Why attack, or even threaten to attack, a country whose leaders are increasingly worried, more worried, about the state of the economy and internal dissent than any perceived threat from Israel? Iran is a far more sophisticated and divided society than the picture generally painted in the west.
An attack on Iran would halt and reverse moves to reform. The Arab spring would become an Arab winter with disastrous consequences for US and European interests as well as Arab societies, including Saudi Arabia. The alternatives are many – to continue to apply economic sanctions, a policy of carrot and stick, but with much more emphasis on the carrot. Embraces are far more difficult to withstand than attacks.
Engagement with Iran is essential even if it continues to appear determined to possess nuclear weapons, or the ability to produce them – “the art, but not the article”. It is status, after all, rather than military practicality, that led Blair to keep the Trident nuclear missile system for Britain, according to his autobiography.
If the pressure continues to mount, we can only hope there are enough influential voices left in Whitehall to tell the prime minister, and in Washington to tell the president: “No!”
Israel freezes UNESCO funding after Palestinian membership: Guardian
Netanyahu decides to hold $2 million Israel transfers to UN cultural body yearly; Israel decided Tuesday to expedite settlement building in West Bank in response to PA’s UNESCO membership.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu decided Thursday to freeze funding to UNESCO after it had granted the Palestinians membership on Monday.
Israel transfers some $2 million to the UN cultural body yearly. A source in the Prime Minister’s Office said that Netanyahu instructed to transfer those funds to initiatives working toward regional cooperation.
Netanyahu’s decision came after a recommendation by Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz.
“These moves, such as accepting the Palestinians into UNESCO, will not advance peace but will only drive it farther away,” Netanyahu said. “The only way to reach peace is through direct negotiations without preconditions.”
On Tuesday, Netanyahu and his forum of eight senior ministers decided to expedite settlement construction in the West Bank as a part of wider sanctions Israel decided to impose on the Palestinian Authority after UNESCO granted it membership on Monday.
EDITOR: The rise of anti-semitism in Israel…
For those looking for anti-semitism under every bed, why not look closer to home? The increase in daily violence and racist expressions of hatred is hardly surprising in such a sick society, but awful nonetheless.
Ultra-Orthodox spitting attacks on Old City clergymen becoming daily: Haaretz
Clergymen in the Armenian Church in Jerusalem say they are victims of harassment, from senior cardinals to priesthood students; when they do complain, the police don’t usually find the perpetrators.
Ultra-Orthodox young men curse and spit at Christian clergymen in the streets of Jerusalem’s Old City as a matter of routine. In most cases the clergymen ignore the attacks, but sometimes they strike back. Last week the Jerusalem Magistrate’s Court quashed the indictment against an Armenian priesthood student who had punched the man who spat at him.
Johannes Martarsian was walking in the Old City in May 2008 when an young ultra-Orthodox Jew spat at him. Maratersian punched the spitter in the face, making him bleed, and was charged for assault. But Judge Dov Pollock, who unexpectedly annulled the indictment, wrote in his verdict that “putting the defendant on trial for a single blow at a man who spat at his face, after suffering the degradation of being spat on for years while walking around in his church robes is a fundamental contravention of the principles of justice and decency.”
“Needless to say, spitting toward the defendant when he was wearing the robe is a criminal offense,” the judge said.
When Narek Garabedian came to Israel to study in the Armenian Seminary in Jerusalem half a year ago, he did not expect the insults, curses and spitting he would be subjected to daily by ultra-Orthodox Jews in the streets of the Old City.
“When I see an ultra-Orthodox man coming toward me in the street, I always ask myself if he will spit at me,” says Narek, a Canadian Armenian, this week. About a month ago, on his way to buy groceries in the Old City, two ultra-Orthodox men spat at him. The spittle did not fall at his feet but on his person. Narek, a former football player, decided this time not to turn the other cheek.
“I was very angry. I pushed them both to the wall and asked, ‘why are you doing this?’ They were frightened and said ‘we’re sorry, we’re sorry,’ so I let them go. But it isn’t always like that. Sometimes the spitter attacks you back,” he says.
Other clergymen in the Armenian Church in Jerusalem say they are all victims of harassment, from the senior cardinals to the priesthood students. Mostly they ignore these incidents. When they do complain, the police don’t usually find the perpetrators.
Martarsian left Israel about a year ago. He was sent back home by the church, as were two other Armenian priesthood students who were charged after attacking an ultra-Orthodox man who spat at them.
The Greek Patriarchy’s clergymen have been cursed and spat on by ultra-Orthodox men in the street for many years. “They walk past me and spit,” says Father Gabriel Bador, 78, a senior priest in the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate. “Mostly I ignore it, but it’s difficult.
Sometimes I stop and ask the spitter ‘why are you doing this? What have I done to you?’ Once I even shouted at a few of them who spat at my feet together. They ran away,” he says.
“It happens a lot,” says Archbishop Aristarchos, the chief secretary of the patriarchate. “You walk down the street and suddenly they spit at you for no reason. I admit sometimes it makes me furious, but we have been taught to restrain ourselves, so I do so.”
Father Goosan Aljanian, Chief Dragoman of the Armenian Patriarchate in Jerusalem, says it is often difficult for temperamental young priesthood students to swallow the offense.
bout a month ago two students marching to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre beat up an ultra-Orthodox man who spat at them. They were sent away from the Old City for two weeks.
“I tell my students that if they are spat at, to go to the police rather than strike back” says Goosan. “But these are young kids who sometimes lose their cool.”
A few weeks ago four ultra-Orthodox men spat at clergymen in the funeral procession of Father Alberto of the Armenian Church. “They came in a pack, out of nowhere,” said Father Goosan. “I know there are fanatical Haredi groups that don’t represent the general public but it’s still enraging. It all begins with education. It’s the responsibility of these men’s yeshiva heads to teach them not to behave this way,” he says.
Father Goosan and other Patriarchy members are trying to walk as little as possible in the Old City streets. “Once we walked from the [Armenian] church to the Jaffa Gate and on that short section four different people spat at us,” he says.
Gaza flotilla activists planning series of aid ships over coming months: Haaretz
In light of the previous flotilla’s failure earlier this year, organizers have been operating quietly in an effort to avoid bureaucratic delays and Israeli efforts to stop the operation, says Huwaida Arraf.
The two-ship flotilla heading for the Gaza Strip is the first in a series of small flotillas scheduled to arrive over the next few months, according to one of the organizers.
Huwaida Arraf of the Free Gaza movement, speaking yesterday from Ramallah, where she is staying temporarily, said that in light of the previous flotilla’s failure earlier this year, organizers have been operating quietly in an effort to avoid bureaucratic delays and Israeli efforts to stop the operation.
“We want to send the world and public opinion the message that Gaza is still under siege,” Arraf said. “The next boats will be launched in an organized manner, wave after wave, under the name Flotilla Waves of Freedom.”
Two boats carrying 27 activists and journalists (12 from Ireland and the rest from the United States, Canada, Morocco and other countries ) left Turkey Wednesday and reached international waters yesterday. Most of their cargo consists of medical supplies.
Majd Kyal, a political activists from Haifa and the only Palestinian on the flotilla, said yesterday in a conversation with Radio Alshams that both ships are small and are bringing to the world a clear message about the need to lift the blockade on Gaza. He said that the passengers cannot give an accurate estimated time of arrival due to weather conditions and other issues.
“For now we’re in international waters. Our intention is to go straight from international waters to the Gaza beaches,” Kyal said. He emphasized that the organizers are aware of the possibility of being stopped by the Israel Navy and are not looking for a confrontation.
Ehab Lotayef, one of the Canadian organizers, said yesterday that the ship is “halfway to Gaza” and should arrive at its destination “within the next two days.” Speaking with Haaretz via satellite phone onboard the ship named Tahrir, Lotayef said the activists are still contemplating their strategy in the event they are contacted by the Israel Defense Forces.
“We might speed up a bit, we might slow down a little, but there will be no violence from our side,” he said.
“I don’t have illusions that our mission will end all the problems tomorrow, but we are using any tool to call attention to the suffering of people in Gaza. We came to deliver a clear message: The blockade of Gaza is illegal and inhumane. It should end,” Lotayef added.
MAD ISRAELIS: FROM THE HORSE’S MOUTH
EDITOR: They plan to strike, and to hell with the consequences!
Just read this to realise what madness passes in Israel as normality. These are the people bent on igniting the Middle East into a nuclear conflict at all costs.
IDF ready to strike Iran: YNet
Op-ed: Israel’s message to world – either you stop Iran’s nuclear program, or we will
Ron Ben Israel
The fact that Israel is holding training sessions seen as practical preparations for striking Iran’s nuclear sites is no secret. Anyone following the intensive drills held by the Air Force in the Mediterranean and in distant regions, ranging from Romania to Sardinia, realizes that Netanyahu’s and Barak’s declarations that Israel will not tolerate nuclear arms in Iranian hands is backed up by practical capabilities developed by the Air Force and by our military industries.
Based on the raging public discourse in recent days, we can estimate that a military option is available.
No less importantly, the international community and the Iranians fully realize that Israel’s top politicians are seriously considering such strike in order to curb or at least delay the Iranian race to the bomb. This is assuming there is no non-military, efficient option to secure this aim. Meanwhile, the former IDF chief of staff, Mossad director and Shin Bet head, as well as the current ones, and some of our top ministers are also not rejecting the possibility of a strike out of hand.
However, the above is contingent upon absolute certainty that Iran has already started to produce the bomb and that all other ways to prevent Tehran from doing so have been exhausted. In such case, and only in such case, Israel would have no choice but to thwart the existential threat we face as result of nuclear arms in Iranian hands, even at the price of the casualties and damage to be sustained by Israel as result of Iran’s response (and that of its allies – Syria, Hezbollah and the Palestinian groups in Gaza.)
However, the above scenario is still relatively far off, as according to all estimates the Iranians are not expected to complete their preparations to produce nuclear weapons before 2015.
Until that time, harsh global sanctions could force the Iranian leadership to accept a deal with the West that would delay the military nuclear program. Other possible scenarios include an Iranian revolution that would disrupt the Ayatollahs’ plans, or an American and allied decision to curb Iran’s nuclear program by force in order to avert Mideastern instability. Under such circumstances, Israel would be able to join a coalition that strikes Iran without being isolated internationally. According to strike objectors in Israel, we must not attack on our own.
American objection
However, Netanyahu and Barak believe that we must not wait until it’s too late. At this time already, according to the British Guardian, the Iranians are vigorously building deep underground bunkers and long cement tunnels. These shelters are gradually becoming home to new uranium enrichment facilities, nuclear labs, and ballistic missiles.
Barak and Netanyahu argue that the Iranian response would not be as terrible as predicted and that Iran would settle for a measured response to a strike – either because Hezbollah and Hamas won’t rush to comply with Tehran’s wishes or because the Ayatollahs would fear a wide-scale confrontation that would inflict greater damage and destruction, including on Iranian oil fields.
At this time, there is apparently no decision on a strike yet. The reason for this is not only the resistance of ministers and senior IDF and intelligence officials, but also America’s objection. Washington fears that Iran’s response to an Israeli strike would harm US allies in the Persian Gulf and destabilize them. Oil production and transport could also be disrupted. Another possibility would see Iran’s terror emissaries targeting US citizens and troops in the Middle East and beyond. Hence, the Bush Administration, as does Obama, objected to an independent Israeli operation in Iran.
The Americans are also concerned that Israel is about to embark on an operation without coordination with Washington. “Nobody would believe that you operated without coordinating it with the US, and hence, as we too would sustain damages, we demand at least an advance warning,” said a senior American official who recently visited Israel.
The new American Defense Secretary, Leon Panetta, apparently felt that something is brewing in Netanyahu’s and Barak’s kitchen vis-à-vis Iran and came to Israel a few weeks ago in order to avert a move that contradicts US interests. He also spoke publicly and said that decisions on the Iranian front must be taken in cooperation and coordination between Jerusalem and Washington.
While Army Chief Benny Gantz is believed to endorse the view that an Israeli strike should be taken in coordination – and if possible in conjunction – with the US, some political leaders hold different views. They believe that Israel should not coordinate such strike with the Americans so that the Arabs and Muslims won’t blame Washington for cooperating with Israel in striking a Muslim state. These politicians believe that the Americans would secretly thank us if we make do with a brief warning shortly before a strike is carried out. On this front too, no decision has been taken yet in Israel.
The lively public debate on the issue grants more credibility to the Israeli strike threat. It illustrates to the world that Israeli officials are well aware of the difficulties inherent in an Iran strike and of the heavy price that the Ayatollahs’ response would exact from Israel, regional countries and the international community. However, the heavy price and even the objection to a strike among top security officials do not deter our top decision-makers, Netanyahu and Barak.
Iran fears more sanctions
The objection to a strike is in itself also an important signal to Washington, Moscow and Beijing – either you stop the Iranian race to the bomb through truly painful sanctions on Iran but with minimum damage for us and for you, or we shall be forced to act, and then all of us shall pay a heavy price.
This signal is important because the West intends to soon utilize a series of drastic pressure levers against Iran. The first one is full publication of the grave findings gathered by the International Atomic Energy Agency. The report has been available for a while now but has been shelved for political reasons.
Iran is aware of its existence and fears it because it paves the wave for greater pressure: A Security Council decision to impose yet another package of sanctions that would deliver a grave blow to the Iranian economy. This would entail boycotting Iran’s central bank and imposing an embargo on the importation and exportation of oil products.
The effect of such sanctions could directly threaten the regime’s survival, hence prompting Iran – with China’s and Russia’s help – to undertake an immense diplomatic effort to prevent the IAEA report’s publication. Should it be published, Iran wants Russia and China to use their veto power to avert dramatic sanctions.
The public debate that erupted in Israel, just like the publication of the Air Force drill in Italy, remind the US, Russia and China that should effective sanctions not be imposed, the world may have to deal with the graver implications of an Israeli strike.
Another strategic Israeli target is to make it clear to Iran’s leadership, and mostly to supreme leader Ali Khamenei, how substantial the threat of attack is. It is unlikely that Iran would abandon its nuclear program for fear of an Israeli strike, yet this fear will prompt Iranian efforts to hide the sites and missiles related to the military program and fortify them. These efforts require time and resources and therefore would almost certainly slow down the pace of Iran’s nuclear work and bomb’s development.
On Tuesday, the British Guardian also reported that the Royal Air Force is preparing to strike in Iran within a year. The reason given is that should the Brits fail to strike soon, they would not be able to do so at all – the Iranians would be hiding their facilities deep underground, protecting them against the largest bunker-buster bombs in Britain’s arsenal. This reasoning sounds familiar, doesn’t it? We can assume this is also related to Defense Minister Barak’s recent trip to London and the secret trip to Israel by Britain’s army chief. As the old saying goes, “Great minds think alike.”
Say ‘yes’ to Iran strike: YNet
Op-ed: Nobody will be taking care of growing nuclear threat from Iran on Israel’s behalf
Amos Shavit
“Until we are able to use real bombs against the Israeli enemy, we must bomb Tel Aviv with all the weapons already available to us.” Does this sound familiar? These words were not uttered by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the midget from Tehran, but rather, by the hangman from Baghdad, Saddam Hussein. He uttered them in a lecture to students in August of 1980. You must admit that you don’t miss him.
Our then-Prime Minister Menachem Begin closely listened to these explicit threats and refused to treat them as empty hand gestures. The former Irgun commander clenched his fist and decided to act. Begin was well aware that in the Middle East, a gun that appears on stage in the first act will be fired in the third act.
Less than a year later, on June 7, 1981, Air Force jets were already flying above the Iraqi desert. Shimon Peres, who somehow got word of the planned operation, asked Begin not to give it the green light, believing that the prime minister is seeking to cement another term in office.
Yet the truth was that the decision taken by Begin was very difficult. Nobody promised him the operation will succeed, and nobody could guarantee the kind of implications that such strike would have. However, he knew one thing: Israel must make every effort, using all means at its disposal, to stop its enemies from acquiring nuclear weapons.
Take Iran threats seriously
In recent years we have seen the same scenario repeating, this time east of the Tigris River. Again, an unshaved joker has emerged and is seeking to play with nuclear weapons, and again we must take his threats seriously.
Should we embark on an operation without hesitation? Of course not. We must think a thousand times, ask tough questions and weigh all issues – just like Begin did – yet at the end of the day we must aim to give this green light, because nobody else will be doing the job for us.
Indeed, we may see a flare-up around here following such move, and it is indeed a dangerous maneuver. As one who raises children here and thinks about everything based on their point of view, I’m scared to death. However, we proved in the past already that we know how to extinguish fires. Ultimately, nuclear arms in Iranian hands jeopardize my children to a much greater extent.
The Bedouin vs Israel’s bulldozers: Indpendent
As Jewish settlers move into the desert to make it ‘bloom’, an ancient way of life is under threat. In Alsra, Catrina Stewart speaks to Arab families on the fault line
CATRINA STEWART
At the top of an unmarked track leading into the small village of Alsra, in the Negev desert, somebody has placed a triangular road sign barring the entry of bulldozers. They will come, nevertheless, for every family in this village has been served with a demolition order by the Israeli authorities.
The indigenous Bedouin Arabs have eked out an existence in the desert for generations, but despite being citizens of Israel, their communities do not exist officially. Alsra, and others like it, does not appear on any official map; does not connect to any roads, and does not receive basic services from the state, such as electricity or sewage treatment.
By contrast, Jewish families have been encouraged to settle in this part of the country to make the desert “bloom” and small, gated farming communities – fully serviced with water and electricity – have sprung up close to the Bedouin villages.
For the Bedouin, however, worse is to come. Under a sweeping new proposal, dubbed the Prawer report, Israel is seeking to corral 30,000 Bedouin living in the Negev’s “unrecognised” villages – some little more than tented encampments – into destitute Bedouin townships, a move that human rights groups say will not only dispossess a people of their ancestral lands but also shatter a disappearing way of life.
Those townships are some of the poorest, most overcrowded and crime-ridden communities in Israel, a far cry from the farms where the Bedouin can tend their livestock.
“It is our second naqba,” says Khalil Alamour, a teacher from Alsra. Naqba is the Arabic for catastrophe and refers to the events of 1948, when hundreds of thousands of Arabs fled their homes or were driven out during fighting as the State of Israel was formed, many of them doomed to become refugees. “There will be no more Bedouin.”
Although nobody knows for sure which communities will be affected, the residents of Alsra, that existed long before the creation of the Jewish state, believe it is almost certain to go.
Sitting on the shaded veranda of an attractive brick home, Mr Alamour says that this land has remained in his family’s hands for generations. He produces original ownership deeds, stamped by British Mandate officials in 1921. His family paid taxes on the land until the 1950s, when Israel ceased to collect it.
But like every other house in this village, it was built without a permit, permits that are impossible to obtain in light of a 1965 planning law that ignores the existence of the Bedouin villages. The Israeli government says that it wants a solution to the unchecked spread of Bedouin communities in the Negev, with many officials viewing the Bedouin as squatters on state land.
Meeting Bedouin leaders this week, the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, said they were facing an “historic opportunity”.
“The plan will allow the Bedouin, for the first time, to realise their assets and turn them from dead capital into living capital – to receive ownership of the land, which will allow for home construction according to law and for the development of enterprises and employment,” he said.
But despite a £200m sweetener that accompanies the plan, the Bedouin are incensed that such an important decision has been made without consulting them. “The Bedouin are not against a plan… but the issue is to consult with them and see what their needs are,” says Mansour Nsasra, an Israeli Bedouin researching his PhD at Exeter University.
Moving them to townships, he says, “is not a solution”.
The Prawer plan envisages a five-year implementation, where Bedouin will be compensated for up to 50 per cent of their land claims. But swathes of Bedouin internally displaced in the 1950s will be ineligible, while those who hope to receive compensation must not only agree to evacuate their lands but also meet complicated criteria, meaning that the eventual payout will be much less, according to Israel’s Association for Civil Rights.
Some 160,000 Bedouin live in the Negev, a people whose plight is generally forgotten in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Today, they live on 5 per cent of the Negev, roughly half of them in designated towns; the remainder in 45 villages, 35 of which are still unrecognised and receive no services from the state.Every Bedouin has closely followed the fate of Al Araqib, an hour’s drive away from Alsyra, which has been destroyed 29 times by Israeli soldiers in the past year. The villagers return every time to rebuild, only for the soldiers to knock it down again to make way for the planting of a new forest. Many fear that what is happening in Al Araqib is a “dry run” for the expulsion of Bedouin who resist in other communities. Mr Alamour faces far more than just losing his home if the government’s proposals come to fruition. “My only ambition is to maintain my lifestyle, my traditions and values,” the teacher says. “This is what I will lose if they transfer my family to the townships.”
In the 1970s, Israel built seven designated towns for the Bedouin in the Negev, persuading thousands of Arabs to move through a mixture of force and inducements. Rahat is the largest of these, home to 53,000 people. It is also one of the poorest cities in Israel, with a soaring birthrate, 37 per cent unemployment and 50 per cent of its residents living below the poverty line by the most conservative estimates.
In his office, Rahat’s mayor is feeling particularly gloomy. He looks at the map behind his desk of the densely populated city and asks nobody in particular where a new influx of Bedouin can go. “It will create a new intifada in the Naqab [Negev]. It is impossible to transfer 30,000 people,” Faiz Abu Sahiban says. “We tell them: ‘Stay where you are and ask for your rights’.”
Outside the municipality, several Bedouin youths are haring around a parking lot in a souped-up Toyota, a reminder of the lack of opportunity and jobs facing many of the city’s residents today. The city has suffered from chronic underinvestment. Rahat receives an annual budget of 153 million shekels (£26.4m) from the Israeli government, less than half of the 380m shekels (£65.7m) that goes to Kiryat Gat, a nearby Jewish town roughly equivalent in size, according to the municipality. If Rahat agrees to take in 3,000 Bedouin living in villages on its immediate outskirts, the Israeli government will give it 100,000 shekels (£17,300) for each one, Mr Abu Sahiban says. “It is a bribe for the city. They refuse to develop [Rahat] until we accept the offer.”
Speaking to local residents, there is a sense of hopelessness in this city and the Bedouin are unconvinced that the government has their best interests at heart. The uprooting of the Bedouin in the 1970s was a “huge failure”, says Naif al-Tlalka, 65, a resident of Rahat who moved to the city in 1981 when his family was forced from their homes for a second time after being driven off their land in the western Negev in the 1950s.
“We used to laugh at the people who lived in these conditions. We used to say they lived in boxes,” he says with a wry smile, as he fondly watches his many grandchildren playing in the yard.
“How I wish I could go back to a time before, where I could hear the sound of the wind, the birds and the animals and smell the clean air.”
Desert dwellers
* The Bedouin are traditionally desert dwellers, who until the past 50 years or so lived nomadic or semi-nomadic lives in some of the harshest environments known to man.
* They are scattered across the Middle East, from Saudi Arabia to Syria to Israel, and have been described as the “true wanderers” of the desert.
* In times past, the Bedouin lived in tents, the camel their workhorse, as they roamed the desert, moving from pasture to pasture, unhindered by the lack of artificial national boundaries that have hemmed in the Bedouin the last century or so.
* Famed for their desert hospitality, they would feed and water a visitor for three days and extend protection to them for a further three days.
* To varying degrees, the Bedouin have seen their traditional nomadic and pastoral traditions disappear, as creeping urbanisation, drought and government policy have guided them towards a more settled and conventional life.
* When Wilfred Thesiger, the explorer, wrote about the Bedouin in the Arabian Empty Quarter in the 1940s and 1950s, he believed that he was recording a dying way of life.
Indeed, the warring and raiding by the different tribes that he so memorably described is now a thing of the distant past and the camel has long been replaced by the motor car. While many Bedouin still live in tents across the Middle East, many others have settled in permanent, mostly agricultural communities, their homes made of brick or mortar.
* In the Negev desert, the Bedouin are typically engaged in farming goats and sheep. Pre-1948, 90,000 Bedouin lived in Palestine. Only 11,000 remained after the new state was formed, the remainder having either fled or been driven out during fighting.