"It is a mission which has become more complicated because Iran has equipped itself with new centrifuges which reduce the enrichment time. We cannot live with this process." (Emphasis added)
His eyes are open and his vision is clear.
That clarity of vision -- and intention to be strong -- has been demonstrated with the sorties Israel ran in Syria last week. Additional information has continued to be leaked on what happened there. It appears that there may have been three strikes and not just two. And that among the targets was a biological weapons (germ warfare) factory.
I heard this, and thought, Ah!!
At a conference in Germany, on the same day that Netanyahu made his statement, Defense Minister Barak declared, "What happened in Syria several days ago [is] proof that when we [say] something we mean it... we say that we don't think it should be allowed to bring advanced weapons systems into Lebanon."
In saying this he was acknowledging, however tacitly, Israel's role in the attack -- this was an acknowledgement that had not come earlier and is actually unusual.
At the same time, we see that the US, for all of its bravado and declarations, is doing nothing with regard to Syrian weapons -- notably WMD -- at risk of falling into the hands of terrorists. The most that can be said is that the Americans are forming a cheering gallery for Israeli actions. The words coming from the likes of Secretary of State Clinton are, at least, the right words. There is no hint whatsoever of implicit criticism of Israel. I.e., in this instance, Clinton is not Ban Ki-Moon.
See how little I've learned to be grateful for?
When (if?) we hit Iran, will the US government cheer us on then, as well?
Iran, it should be noted, backed off on statements about an Israeli hit on Syria being the same as a hit on Iran. Iranian leaders have declined Assad's request that they respond to the strikes inside Syria, their major client. "Take care of your business," Assad was reportedly told.
I want to backtrack here and return to the issue of accusations that Israel, in Judea and Samaria, is acting in defiance of the Fourth Geneva Convention and must withdraw immediately. There is yet one more significant piece to the puzzle, and that is, incredibly, the International Committee for the Red Cross (ICRC).
As commentator Moshe Dann explains (emphasis added):
"The International Committee of the Red Cross does good humanitarian work around the world, but it is not just a well-meaning NGO. With a political agenda against Israel and with its unique role, it has determined the way that the international community thinks about Judea, Samaria, Gaza, eastern Jerusalem (the West Bank) and the Golan Heights.
"For several decades the ICRC has promoted through the UN and other international bodies a conceptual straitjacket: “'he Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT).'
"Because the ICRC is the 'official guardian' of the Fourth Geneva Convention (1949) (GC IV), its interpretation is considered authoritative.
"Using its exclusive position, it turned GC IV – which was intended to ensure the protection of civilians threatened by war and other conflicts – into a political sledgehammer against Israel.
"The ICRC contrived the term OPT, promoted it in every forum and unilaterally designated what is at best a disputed area as (1) illegally occupied by Israel, (2) belonging to Palestinian Arabs and (3) an unnamed and undefined territory without a history.
"GC IV, however, is concerned with humanitarian issues, the rights of 'protected persons.' It is not mandated to designate new countries."
See the full article here:
The ICRC is the "official guardian" of the Fourth Geneva Convention precisely because it is supposed to be a humanitarian, not a political, agency, and that Convention addressed humanitarian issues. How often matters are not what they seem.
For further perspective on this issue, also see Eli Hertz's "Inappropriate Use of the Fourth Geneva Convention":
You'll see here that the Convention was drafted in response to Nazi occupation and aggression.
We are so fortunate here in Israel! America's new Secretary of State, John Kerry, who is ever so eager to re-start the "peace process negotiations," will be visiting here some time this month.
I read that he'll be assessing the situation in order to advise the president of whether it is prudent to invest much energy in this. If he's half-way smart, he'll tell his boss to focus on Iran instead.
Chief PLO negotiator Saeb Erekat has said they will not come back to the table unless we first release all PA prisoners and stop all settlement construction (including in eastern Jerusalem).