Doc's Talk: Israel's southern border wide open and undefended

Wednesday, July 21, 2010

Israel's southern border wide open and undefended

DEBKAfile Exclusive Report

Turkey's foreign minister Ahmed Dagutoglu met secretly in Damascus with Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal Monday, July 19, as well as getting together with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and Lebanese Prime Minister Saad al Hariri to synchronize their operations against Israel, focusing for now on the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip. In Israel, meanwhile, the home-made Iron Dome defense system against short- and medium-range missiles was given a showy press after just-completed successful tests - notwithstanding the admission that it would take months before the new system was able to protect the Israeli communities and towns abutting Gaza.
The Iron Dome proved it could simultaneously intercept volleys of rockets coming in from different directions while computing their trajectories to determine which would hit populated areas.
However,Deputy Defense Minister Mattan Vilnai, who is responsible for homeland security, was enlisted Tuesday for a radio interview to cool the excitement of the 300,000 civilians targeted for Palestinian missile attacks from Gaza for eight years and the communities of northern Israeli who lived in the shadow of Hizballah's rockets up until the 2006 Lebanon war.

The Rafael-produced Iron Dome, while the most advanced of its kind in the world, promises no more than 80 percent effectiveness, Vilnai explained. Furthermore, it would not be permanently deployed at the northern or southern borders - but only as required. Salvation was therefore not yet in sight.

As a cure-all for Israeli border security, Iron Dome has at least four shortcomings, defined here by debkafile's military sources:

1. Its availability. Iron Dome batteries will not be available in the coming months, should a military showdown flare with Iran, Hizballah or Hamas. Most optimistically, it will take another 10 months for Rafael to manufacture the 16-18 batteries required by the two flashpoint border sectors, deploy them and train crews to operate them. Therefore, even if the $1.25 billion can be found for this numbers, Israel will not have the Iron Dome read for the next foreseeable rocket or missile attack.
2. No combat experience. Although a smash hit in tests, the system has never been tried in combat conditions. No army in the world will deploy or place orders for Iron Dome before its first test of fire against the diverse arsenals of Hizballah and Hamas.
For example, it has never shown its paces against simultaneous Hamas and Hizballah missile attacks from several directions from rapidly-moving launching locations with the attackers using electronic devices for jamming and deception. Four years ago, in the Lebanon War, Hizballah had begun to master electronic devices for tracking, eavesdropping and locking in on IDF targets. There is every reason to suppose that the Lebanese Shiite terrorists have enhanced this capability since then.
3. Distinguishing targets. Publicity handouts present Iron Dome as capable of distinguishing between incoming missiles heading for target civilian areas and those that will explode in unpopulated areas.
This description oversimplifies the challenges: Today's battlefield is not a clearly-marked arena between enemy missile launchers and anti-missile systems for intercepting them. For instance, if the Iron Dome were to track one volley of missiles aimed at its own base and another targeting the city of Ashkelon, how would it choose which volley to intercept?
This dilemma could be sorted out with a large enough number of batteries rising to an unrealistic figure.
4. Expensive. Iron Dome is costly - half a million dollars per battery including its launching mechanism, compared with a Hamas Qassam missile which costs $150 to manufacture.
On the working assumption that Hamas is able to fire an average 500 rockets a day and Hamas 300 missiles, Israel would need to lay out a staggering $40 billion per day to maintain this defensive system in working order, a totally disproportionate cost in military terms.
This spiraling dilemma is the consequence of the Netanyahu-Barak administration's innate lack of resolve.

It does not take a political genius to deduce that the Iron Dome hype was drummed up after the weekly cabinet meeting of Sunday, July 18, laid bare the prime minister and defense minister's ineptness in forging a policy to deal with the massive, uncontrolled influx of up to 1,000 job-seekers per month swarming across the unfenced Egyptian-Israel border - mostly from Eritrea and Sudan.

Around 500 a year in 2008, their numbers have expanded to 8,000 in the first seven months of 2010, with some 50,000 camping in Tel Aviv, 8,000 in Eilat (one-tenth of the population) and thousands in Ashdod and Arad. Police say the situation is out of control.

Five months ago, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu ordered frontier fence to be built but nothing was done. Tuesday, July 20, Home Security Minister Yitzhak Aharonovitch touring the long, desert border only to announce that a barrier would take three years to build and it was no substitute for a coherent policy of restrictions
The deputy defense minister's cold reality shower have shocked Israelis into grasping that their government is falling down on the two crucial tasks of controlling the river of illegal migrants and protection against enemy rockets.

No consoling peace hoopla is in sight. When Netanyahu met ailing Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak on Sunday, they went round in circles for the umpteenth time on ways to get direct talks with the Palestinians off the ground and the situation in the Gaza Strip, which Cairo is only too happy to shunt off to Israel. They did not get around to discussing the critical situation along the much-too-open Egyptian-Israeli border.
debkafile's military sources report that some weeks ago, the American and French military engineers building the steel wall along the Philadelphi route for sealing the Gaza Strip arms smuggling tunnels off from their Sinai routes dropped tools and gave up on the project.

The project was abandoned after Hamas used heavy-duty machinery to cut through the steel girders forming the wall.
This did not stop al Qaeda's No. 2 Ayman Zawahiri in a new video released on July 19 from slamming Arab rulers, notably Egypt, of building the steel wall.
Having given up on tactics for controlling the constant buildup of Hamas and Hizballah missile arsenals, Israel has also left itself without a current, effective defense for its southern population or Galilee and laid itself open to an unhampered influx of African migrants, among whom al Qaeda elements can easily mingle.

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