Doc's Talk: Iran, at high noon

Sunday, November 17, 2013

Iran, at high noon

Op-ed: Historians have been discussing America's decline for 50 years. They may not have been wrong – just premature

Published:

Israel Opinion

In the White House there is a small movie theater available to the president and his family. One of the films presidents often watch is the classic western "High Noon," starring Gary Cooper.
A criminal and his gang threaten the life of an entire town. A marshal tries to elicit help for war from the townspeople. They turn him down, fearing for their lives, and hope for a compromise with the gang leader. He decides to fight the bad guys on his own and kills them one by one, with a little help from his war-hating wife, played by Grace Kelly.

US President

Can Israel survive Obama? / Noah Beck

Op-ed: Isolated like never before, stark choices facing Israel's leadership are unimaginably difficult

Full op-ed

The film was produced in 1952, while America waged a tough war against Korea. Its moral was simple, and well connected to the American heritage: You don’t compromise with evil – you destroy evil. Even when the street thinks otherwise. An American hero never escapes.
Barack Obama is not Gary Cooper, and America of 2013 is not America of 1952. On Thursday, Obama was forced to convene an embarrassing press conference, in which he announced the failure to implement the health insurance plan, which was meant to be the highlight of his presidency. The failure turned Obama into a bleeding president. Without a miracle, he and his party will suffer a blow in the House of Representatives elections next November.
The internal weakening is leaking out. The decline in the United States' status in the world, and particularly in the Middle East, is already evident. Saudi Arabia is moving to French patronage, and sees Obama as an existential enemy, almost an Iranian agent; Egypt is looking for friends in Russia; in the talks with Iran, the French foreign minister is the fighting, influential factor, not the American secretary of state. The French were shocked when Obama reneged on his decision to attack Syria at the last minute. They are refusing to adopt his soft policy towards Iran.
The problem does not come down to one president, or one project. American politics is ill, the American economy can no longer fulfill the dreams it fulfilled in the past, and the American society is finding it difficult to adapt to the new reality. For 50 years, historians have been talking about America's decline – and being proven false. They may not have been wrong – just premature.
On this background, there is no reason to be alarmed when the Israeli prime minister launches an open conflict with the Obama administration over Iran. Indeed, our Bibi isn't Gary Cooper either, and it's a shame that he tends to excessively puff up the chest he doesn't have. But as long as the Israeli prime minister fights for what is perceived as an Israeli security interest, he should not suffer any damage in the United States.
Ariel Sharon delivered his "Munich speech" at the White House, a speech in which he implied, without any real foundation, that President Bush was abandoning Israel to its enemies, and Israel suffered no damage; there is no reason it should suffer damage just because its prime minister is fighting for a firmer policy in the talks with Iran. If Netanyahu believes that his speeches will lead to a military operation in Iran, he is living in illusions. Even if Israel has the ability – a doubtful matter in itself – it has no military option as long as the negotiations are taking place; as for the Americans, they have no interest in blowing up the negotiations, and a military operation is not something they want.

Now he can leave

An agreement should be reached: It's preferable to the ongoing development of nukes. Israel is not Saudi Arabia, whose rivalry with Iran covers everything – religious wars of Shiites versus Sunnis, the development of oil fields, competition over areas of influence in the Persian Gulf, the survival of the government in the two countries.
Israel has a different interest here, and no other: The nukes. So we can carefully welcome the signs for a slowdown in the project's progress as noted in the IAEA report Thursday. It may just be a trick, and it may not.
The important thing is the content of the agreements: The temporary agreement, which is meant to freeze some of the activity in exchange for easing some of the sanctions, and the final agreement are highly significant. Let us not delude ourselves: The Iranians will not bomb the centrifuges they purchased for billions, will not bury the reactors, will not dismantle the missiles. The huge Iranian investment in the project will not go up in flames. But the more the agreements keep Iran away from a nuclear military ability, the better.
The liberal press of the East Coast, newspapers like the New York Times and the Washington Post, blasted Netanyahu this week over the Iranian issue. It's unpleasant, but it's far from being terrible. The majority of the American public opinion appears unfazed: It either has no interest in the Iranian nukes at the moment, or shares Netanyahu's opinion. And Obama shouldn't be bothered either: He has much more annoying problems.
The problem is that Netanyahu is unable to focus on one conflict. Every declaration he and his ministers make about settlement construction sabotages his ability to convince foreign leaders to toughen up on Iran. Two weeks ago, when he released prisoners, he panicked at the Right's response and announced construction in the territories; this week, when he was more troubled by the talks with Iran, he staged a reprimanding conversation with the housing minister.
Giving Uri Ariel, the most radical politician in the Knesset, the Housing Ministry is like letting the wolf eat up Little Red Riding Hood, letting the fox guard the chicken coop. Ariel could have been quite a good health minister, perhaps a sports minister or the minister for the development of the Negev and the Galilee. But housing? The prime minister who appointed him has only himself to complain to.
The last scene in the film "High Noon" is unforgettable. A moment after the marshal, Will Kane (Gary Cooper), kills the last criminal, the townspeople emerge from their homes and approach him. No one says a word. Kane throws his marshal's star on the ground, takes his wife and boards the wagon which carries them to the horizon. There is no preaching. There are no words of farewell. He saved the town, despite its cowardice, despite its hypocrisy. Now he can leave.

The last words, and them only, are embraced by Obama with both his arms.

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