Doc's Talk: Iran 'committed to Israel's annihilation,' says top general

Monday, May 21, 2012

Iran 'committed to Israel's annihilation,' says top general

When Ahmadinejad purportedly said Israel "should be wiped off the map" there were many who argued that the Iranian leader was mistranslated. No such argument can be made regarding the latest comments by the chief of staff of the Iranian armed forces.

Eli Leon, Shlomo Cesana, Mati Tuchfeld, Yori Yalon, News Agencies and Israel Hayom Staff

Iran's top general Hassan Firouzabadi (left) poses with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. [Archive]

Photo credit: FARS

When Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad purportedly said that Israel "should be wiped off the map" there were, and still are, many who argue that the Iranian leader was misquoted or mistranslated. No such argument can be made however regarding the latest comments by the chief of staff of the Iranian armed forces.

According to the Iranian Fars news agency, while addressing a defense gathering in Tehran on Sunday, Chief of Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces Maj. Gen. Hassan Firouzabadi stressed that the Iranian nation remains committed to the "full annihilation of the Zionist regime of Israel to the end."

According to Fars, Firouzabadi "reiterated the Iranian nation and supreme leader's emphasis on the necessity of support for the oppressed Palestinian nation and its causes," and noted, "The Iranian nation is standing for its cause that is the full annihilation of Israel."

The top military official reminded those present that Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei considers "defending Palestine a full religious duty and believes that any kind of governance and rule by anyone other than the Palestinians as an instance of usurpation," Fars reported.

Firouzabadi went on to say, "Iran's leader, Ali Khamenei, will never recognize any authority in Palestine other than the Palestinians."

Meanwhile, the head of the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency, Yukiya Amano, landed in Tehran on Monday morning to begin a delicate mission that — if successful — could finally lift the veil on Iran's nuclear program ahead of crucial talks with six world powers in Baghdad on Wednesday. The purpose of Amano's trip is to get Iran to agree to terms that would allow the nuclear watchdog to resume inspections in Iran and investigate whether Tehran has secretly worked to develop nuclear arms.

Israel remained skeptical an agreement would be reached between Tehran and the P5+1 (United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany), warning that it did not sense readiness on Iran's part to abandon its nuclear ambitions.

One senior Israeli diplomat said Israel "hopes the West doesn't acquiesce to Iran in exchange for a piece of paper."

"Prime Minister [Benjamin Netanyahu] is skeptical about the dialogue with Iran and hopes negotiators realize it wants to sacrifice a pawn in order to save the king in the chess game it is playing," the diplomat said.

While expressing some optimism as he prepared to board his flight Sunday from Vienna to Tehran, Amano said he could not predict whether a deal would be reached to allow his agency to renew its stalled probe.

"Nothing is certain in life, in diplomacy," he told reporters at Vienna's airport. "But there has been good progress. I really think this is the right time to reach agreement."

Amano's lead partner in the Tehran talks will be Saeed Jalili, Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, who will also lead his country's delegation to Baghdad.

Some Western diplomats have also expressed doubts that Iran would honor any deal suddenly granting the IAEA access to sites, people and documents, pointing out that Tehran has stonewalled the agency's efforts since 2007. The diplomats say Tehran is seeking to score points ahead of the Baghdad talks this week, by referring to a deal with the IAEA as a goodwill gesture and demanding that the impending Iranian oil embargo be called off.

Ahead of the Baghdad talks, diplomats told The Associated Press that the six powers agree that they won't give in to such demands. World powers "are unified in our approach to Iran," U.S. President Barack Obama said at the G-8 meeting last week.

Another Western diplomat told Reuters, "We'll see if the Iranians will allow IAEA inspectors to visit Parchin [the military facility where the West believes Iran has conducted nuclear explosion–related tests]. It doesn't matter what appears in the agreement, I would still be skeptical."

However, not everyone believes the West is taking a hard enough line with Iran.

"On Iran, President Obama has dangled plenty of carrots. It’s time to pull out some sticks," wrote Jamie Fly, former adviser to the George. W. Bush administration, and Matthew Kroenig, a former Pentagon defense planner, in a recent Washington Post article.

"Despite the optimism that came out of the negotiations last month in Istanbul, there is little reason to believe that Iran is serious about doing anything other than using the coming weeks to enrich more uranium and make progress toward a nuclear weapon," wrote Fly and Kroenig.

According to some reports, the six superpowers will attempt to get Iran to transfer all uranium enriched to levels of 20 percent out of the country by offering to help Iran build its own nuclear program for civilian purposes — including supplying nuclear fuel for a civilian research plant near Tehran, as well as technical safety consultants. If such an agreement is signed, the West will continue to make gestures toward Iran but will not cancel significant economic sanctions until a final deal is reached.

"Not every deal will be satisfactory for us," said Vice Prime Minister Moshe Ya'alon (Likud) on Sunday. Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman (Yisrael Beitenu) said Israel was awaiting the outcome of the talks in Baghdad and reiterated that Israel does not believe Iran is ready to relinquish its nuclear program.

"For Iran the talks are a matter of deception and buying time," Lieberman said. "I don't think the international community has any illusions regarding the Iranian [nuclear] program."

In her first meeting with President Shimon Peres as opposition leader, Shelly Yachimovich (Labor) said Sunday that the United States and the superpowers must be allowed to lead the front against Iran.

Iran, for its part, was conveying conflicting messages about Amano's visit. One senior Iranian parliamentarian called it "a testament to the sensitive nature of the diplomacy surrounding Iran's nuclear program [that] could positively influence the talks with the six powers."

On the other hand, in an interview with CNN, Iran's finance minister warned that global oil prices would rise and could reach up to $160 per barrel once the EU embargo takes effect in early July.

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