Doc's Talk: The Daily Tip

Saturday, May 24, 2014

The Daily Tip

WSJ scoop: White House considering deploying "secret" team to negotiate with Iran, potentially freezing out U.S. allies

TIME: Confirmation of Syria chlorine weapons campaign set to "renew talk of U.S. military action in Syria," test Obama credibility

Netanyahu commitment to untangle Israel from parts of West Bank generates social media buzz

House defense authorization language would deepen U.S. participation in Israeli missile-defense system

The Wall Street Journal revealed on Friday that the United States is considering reopening a bilateral diplomatic channel with Iran - through which negotiations would be conducted by what the outlet described as a "secret" team - which the outlet noted would be a replay of clandestine negotiations held last year "without the knowledge of the U.S.'s closest Middle East allies including Israel and Saudi Arabia." The news was sourced to both American and European officials "involved in the diplomacy" surrounding Iran's atomic program. The news may deepen the quite open concerns of American allies in the Middle East regarding Washington's intentions, just a week after Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel had been dispatched to reassure Riyadh and Jerusalem that U.S. diplomats would not accept a deal that left the Iranians with the ability to construct nuclear weapons. Circumventing the current model of multilateral negotiations between the P5+1 global powers and Iran would among other things freeze out France and Britain, and observers are likely to note that French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius is widely assumed to have blocked an interim deal last November due to what Paris considered unacceptably pro-Iranian terms regarding the country's plutonium-producing Arak reactor. Meanwhile the Iranians continue to flatly refuse to discuss rolling back the country's ballistic missile program, with Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi this week reiterating the country's repeatedly emphasized stance. Obama administration officials had been explicit in telling lawmakers and the public that Iran would be forced to address its international obligations to halt ballistic missile development in the context of comprehensive negotiations, but have in recent days been telling reporters that they no longer have a "checklist" that Iran will be forced to meet, but rather a "package of the combination of elements.'

TIME Magazine's chief foreign affairs correspondent Michael Crowley on Friday assessed that the policy debate in Washington over how to approach the Syrian war may soon shift back to "talk of military action," as Obama administration officials "brac[ed] for confirmation - in weeks or even days - that chemical warfare is underway again" inside the war-torn country. The dynamic is being driven by a stream of evidence - beginning weeks ago with French reports of "indications" and extending through just-published videos - that the Bashar al-Assad regime has been engaged in a systematic campaign to deploy chlorine-based chemical weapons (CWs) against rebel-heavy areas throughout Syria. Crowley contextualized the emerging data points against what he described as "one of the most dramatic moments of Barack Obama’s presidency," when last September the president "delivered a prime-time national address to explain why he intended to order a military strike on Syria to punish the use of nerve gas against civilians in violation of the red line he had famously drawn for Assad." Impending strikes had been called off under the auspices of a Russian deal that obligated Syria to join the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) and turn over its vast stockpile of CWs for destruction. The regime has declared in recent weeks that it is unable to meet the latter obligation because of heavy fighting around what is thought to be roughly the remaining 5 percent of proscribed materials, while the use of chlorine in a battlefield context would violate its CWC obligations. Crowley suggested that "Assad's brazen return to warfare by poison gas puts Obama in a miserable spot," and that any confirmation of such use would "again test [Obama's] credibility, and renew talk of U.S. military action in Syria."

A wide-ranging interview of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu by Bloomberg View columnist Jeffrey Goldberg - in which the Israeli leader emphasized Jerusalem's determination to either bilaterally or unilaterally untangle the Jewish state from Palestinians living in the West Bank - triggered a wave of social media discussion Friday morning, with journalists and analysts focusing on among other things the sources and implications of potential unilateral moves. Sohrab Ahmari, an editorial page writer for the Wall Street Journal Europe, described the interview as a "must read." Jodi Rudoren, the Jerusalem bureau chief of The New York Times, picked out Netanyahu's declaration that there is a growing consensus inside Israel for such moves, while the Daily Beast's national security reporter Eli Lake tweeted the prime minister's remark that Israelis would refuse to "mortgage [their] future to the maturation of Palestinian politics." The phrase was a gesture by Netanyahu toward the Israeli stance that Palestinian intransigence - which Jerusalem insists is a function of a policy that has been conditioned by incitement to reject compromise with the Jewish state - had led to the failure of a recent U.S.-backed peace push. Two-thirds of Americans agree with that position, holding that a unity agreement between the rival Palestinian Fatah and Hamas factions had made negotiations impossible, opposite the Palestinian position that a consensus cabinet agreed to by Hamas would facilitate a comprehensive agreement. Some have blamed Israeli settlement construction for the impasse, a suggestion Netanyahu dismissed by among other things revealing to Goldberg that the Israelis had "made it very clear to the U.S. and to the Palestinians exactly how much [they] would build, including in Jerusalem... [and they] built exactly what we said we would build in every one of the tranches."

Language attached to the $600 billion National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) by a House Armed Services Committee (HASC) report may deepen American-Israeli cooperation in developing and producing missile defense technology - with the provision aiming to ensure "coproduction of parts and components [for the Iron Dome system]... in a manner that will maximize US industry participation in interceptor and battery deliveries for Israel's defense needs" - according to an extensive write-up on the relevant sections published on Thursday by Al Monitor's Congress Pulse. The outlet assessed that "the report language is but the latest move in a long-standing effort by Congress and US arms makers to ensure the United States gets access to the Iron Dome market and its Israel-made technology," and noted previous legislation setting the stage for U.S. firm Raytheon to partner with Israel's Rafael in producing the Tamir missiles used by Iron Dome batteries. It also cited a May 2012 report by Gabriel Scheinmann, then a visiting fellow at the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, calling on U.S. lawmakers to take steps that would "transform Iron Dome into a jointly owned and managed US-Israeli defense system." Joint production would be the latest addition to a broad array of dual military projects between the two allies. Analysts have emphasized that military-to-military ties allow the U.S. to leverage "unique Israeli capabilities in key 'niche' areas of military technology," with drone development often being cited as a key area alongside missile defense and cyber-cooperation. For its part Iron Dome has also been discussed in the context of defending U.S. allies such as South Korea and Singapore, while India earlier this month moved toward acquiring a range of Israeli anti-missile defenses.

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