Doc's Talk: Iranians Need a Clear Ultimatum

Wednesday, January 28, 2009

Iranians Need a Clear Ultimatum

Nissan Ratzlav-Katz

Knesset Member Dr. Yuval Shteinitz (Likud), former head of the powerful Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, told the Sixth Jerusalem Conference on Tuesday that the only useful dialogue with the Islamic Republic of Iran on its nuclear program would be one that gives the regime a clear ultimatum. Former National Security Council Chairman Uzi Dayan agreed, and MK Dr. Aryeh Eldad (Ichud Leumi-National Union) laid out the prerequisites for an Israeli strike on Iran.
Israel National News

Steinitz said that Iran is likely to have nuclear weapons within one or two years. The issue, however, may be put on a back burner in the United States due to immediate economic concerns. Therefore, both Iran and America seemingly have an interest to drag their feet on the nuclear issue, Steinitz speculated. While sanctions and pressure have in fact slowed development of the Iranian nuclear program, the Likud MK observed, "time is running out." At this stage, he said, Iran's rulers calculate that riding out two years of sanctions to ultimately become a nuclear power may well be worthwhile.

Dr. Emily Landau, from Tel Aviv University's Institute for National Security Studies, also addressed the Iran issue at the Jerusalem Conference.

The Iranians must be persuaded that maintaining the status quo, under which they pursue nuclear weapons and successfully ignore diplomatic pressure, is no longer in their self-interest, according to Steinitz. The only way to do so, he said, is "a military ultimatum with a clear date."

Such a strategy has worked in the past, Steinitz noted, such as in the case of Libya and even Iran itself several years ago. In both cases, when the regime believed it would come under U.S. attack aimed at halting its WMD program, the regime backed down. At the start of the Iraq campaign, when it feared America was on a warpath that included Tehran, the mullahs of Iran put forth a nuclear compliance plan of their own. When they saw the military option was not realistic, they returned to belligerent obstructionism.

"The only way is to threaten very clearly," Steinitz said. The only type of negotiation he recommended is one carried out "with gun in hand."

Email readers, click here to view the three videos in this story of Dr. Yuval Steinitz, Dr. Emily Landau and Dr. Aryeh Eldad.

It is that type of dialogue that Steinitz believes U.S. President Barack Obama has in mind for engagement with the Iranians. In fact, Steinitz pointed out, an ultimatum of the sort he suggests may be far more credible coming from Obama than it would have been coming from George Bush during his term, because Obama enjoys a far more favorable international environment than Bush did at the end of his term.

Deligitimization, Not Dialogue

In his remarks at the conference, Uzi Dayan expressed agreement with MK Steinitz that the only justification for dialogue with Iran would be "in order to display the stick." Nonetheless, he said, "I prefer delegitimization to dialogue" with the Islamic Republic because there is a danger of sophisticated delaying tactics during negotiations, including a push for a nuclear-free zone to include Israel.

Israel National News

Dayan said he favored harsh sanctions on Iran to force them to give up their quest for nuclear weapons. Among the measures he mentioned were a boycott of Iranian oil, an embargo of the refined oil products they import, and the insistence on boarding and examining every Iran-bound vessel in allied waters or ports. Sanctions against totalitarian states can work, Dayan explained, only if they successfully destabilize the internal order and threaten the regime.

Any other form of regime change will not help, according to Dayan, because the new rulers will not want to appear less patriotic than the Islamic Republic was. In addition to sanctions, Dayan called for strengthening the relatively moderate regional Arab states that see Iran and its proxies as a threat to them as well. He warned against pinning great hopes on this aspect of a larger strategy, but also cautioned against dismissing it altogether.

As for a military strike on Iran, Dayan chided that the Americans seem to always say, "It's too early, it's too early, until one morning they wake up and it's too late." If such a strike could be carried out with wide international support, he said, that would be the best option. Furthermore, he added, if such a strike even only succeeds in buying some time, that too is a good enough reason to execute it.

In his concluding remarks, Dayan described the Iranian threat as greater than the threat Germany posed to world peace on the eve of World War II. Nonetheless, he does not see a U.S. administration prepared to take the actions he believes necessary. Therefore, Dayan said, Israel must prepare its own military option.

Hamas and Hizbullah are Iran's Forward Troops

MK Dr. Aryeh Eldad said that an absolute precondition for any Israeli military option against Iran is the neutralization of the Iranian forward units - Hamas in Gaza and Hizbullah in Lebanon. If Israel attacks Iran, he said, it is clear that Hizbullah and Hamas will hit the Israeli homefront with a rain of missiles from the south and the north.

It is only a matter of time and technical possibility before Hamas obtains Fajr missiles capable of hitting Tel Aviv, Eldad predicted. It is a mistake to assume that Egypt is actually interested in preventing Hamas from eventually acquiring more sophisticated weaponry than was revealed during Operation Cast Lead.

Steinitz on Gaza

Regarding the recent IDF operations in Gaza, MK Steinitz said that it was far from a strategic victory. Strategic victory, in his view, would have included completely destroying the Hamas-Iran regime in Gaza or, at least, deploying along the Philadelphi Route between Egypt and Gaza to prevent further arms smuggling.

Like Hizbullah, Hamas survived with most of their forces intact, Steinitz explained, which is in itself a victory for them. In fact, Hamas suffered less of a loss in Operation Cast Lead than Hizbullah did in the Second Lebanon War. In 2006, according to Steinitz, Hizbullah was estimated to have around 5,000 active gunmen, while in 2008 Israel estimated that Hamas had 20,000 armed men. Both terror organizations lost around 600 regular armed fighters in a war with Israel, he said, meaning that proportionally Hizbullah suffered worse than Hamas did. Yet, Hizbullah has rebuilt and tripled its arsenal and manpower, Steinitz observed, and Hamas could easily do the same. Egypt's recent lack of assistance to Hamas during he Gaza war may well be a temporary phenomenon, he said, based on short-term interests.

Putting his view simply and clearly, MK Eldad said, "The U.S. will accept a nuclear Iran." Though it may couch its acceptance in terms of "peace" and "nuclear energy," that acceptance will actually be the price the Americans will pay for a quiet exit from Iraq. In exchange for turning a blind eye to its nuclearization, Iran will agree to rein in the Shiite militias from their attacks on U.S. troops during the U.S. withdrawal, according to the National Union (Ichud HaLeumi) MK.

The other payoff to Iran, Eldad added, will be a Palestinian State within Israel's heartland. Thus, Israel will face a short existence under constant threat from a terror state operating with an Iranian "nuclear umbrella."

"The forecast is harsh; it is chilling, because I don't see a Prime Minister willing to take the necessary action," Eldad concluded.

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk