Kilroy was here

The gates of Jerusalem have many and varied associations, some ancient some new. A few weeks ago I had the opportunity to verify an anecdote/legend related to the Jaffa Gate. Just inside the gate behind a wall

topped by a railing are two graves dating back to the sixteenth century.

Most tour guides are too pressed for time to mention them, however the few guides that stop their groups near the graves tell a fascinating story.

In the mid sixteenth century the Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent dreamt he was being eaten by lions. On waking from the nightmare he consulted the equivalent of what we call an analyst (shrink). The Ottoman interpreter of dreams told him that Jerusalem was unprotected and unless he rebuilt its walls he would be devoured by lions. Suleiman famed as a lawmaker, skilled military tactician and builder commissioned the construction of a fitting wall to protect the Holy City. In 1538 the wall was completed and on inspection Suleiman was shocked to discover that Mt Zion and King David’s tomb were not enclosed by the new wall. He summoned the two architects responsible for the oversight and had them executed. Although they had left David outside the walls Suleiman nevertheless appreciated the hapless architects’ impressive work and decided to bury them inside the city near the Jaffa Gate.

Another version of the story claims that Suleiman hanged them to prevent them from ever again building anything as magnificent as the walls of Jerusalem.

If you like an urban legend take your pick, perhaps embellish it a bit.

On the other hand if you want to know what really happened take the whole dubious account “with a very large pinch of salt.”

Without a doubt Suleiman built the walls of Jerusalem but the dream of the lions eating him and the fate of the architects are fanciful figments of the Ottoman imagination. The two tombs by the gate bear no inscription so there is no way they can be identified.

Four hundred and sixty years later Kaiser Wilhelm II visited Jerusalem.

Depending on who the tour guide is visitors to Jerusalem are told one of two versions of how the Kaiser entered the city.

Wilhelm and his wife Augusta-Victoria arrived with a huge entourage. Their host the Sultan Ahmed Hamid hard put to accommodate the German court and its attendants arranged to have a magnificent pavilion erected for them opposite the Jaffa Gate. Since the Jaffa Gate is the only gate that doesn’t face directly outwards but faces the north at a 90˚ angle, the Sultan breached the wall next to the gate in order give his honoured guests direct and unimpeded access to the city. Some say the real reason for the breach in the wall was that an old tradition predicts that all the armies conquering Jerusalem will enter the city by way of the Jaffa Gate. So the Germans were diverted through the newly opened gap.

Many tour guides mention that Wilhelm entered Jerusalem on horseback and if he passed through the Jaffa Gate he would have to stoop or at least have to remove his helmet. Others insist that Wilhelm and Augusta Victoria were driven in a carriage that was too wide to pass through the Jaffa Gate.

Fortunately these contradictions can be resolved. There are eye witness accounts of the momentous occasion and at least one photographer recorded the event.

Theodore Herzl met the Kaiser twice during imperial visit to the Holy Land. They met the first time when Wilhelm was en route to Jerusalem. Three days later they met outside the pavilion just before the entourage entered the city. According to Herzl and his biographers Wilhelm was mounted on a white horse. It seems that the colour of the horse adds confusion to the narrative. In the photograph of the historic meeting between Herzl and the Kaiser the horse is dark brown or black. On closer examination it’s clear that the photograph is a fake. In the original photograph the excited photographer left Herzl out of the frame. Later on when he realised what he had done and not wanting to miss a photo-op he performed a primitive piece of late nineteenth century “Photoshop” with a photomontage of Herzl in the picture and the Kaiser cut and pasted on another horse.

As for the people who insist that Wilhelm and Augusta Victoria drove into Jerusalem in their carriage, reliable eye witnesses attest that he was on horseback.

Nineteen years later General Edmund Allenby accompanied by a small entourage of officers and diplomatic representatives entered Jerusalem as a conqueror through the Jaffa Gate. Out of respect for the holy status of the city Allenby and his men dismounted outside the gate and entered on foot.

The haughty Kaiser Wilhelm didn’t get off his high horse but the humble General Allenby saw fit to dismount.

He is also more controversially alleged to have said, "Today the crusades have ended.”

Maybe Allenby fulfilled the prophesy regarding Jerusalem’s conquerors. Maybe not, fifty years later the IDF burst through the Lions Gate when it conquered Jerusalem. If you are still clinging to Suleiman’s dream by somehow linking it to the Lions Gate, forget it, the lions sculpted on the gate’s masonry look like and probably are leopards.

This lengthy preamble serves to make a simple statement, namely that narratives in the Middle East are invariably convoluted and unreliable.

The truth is often hidden under layers of anecdotes and legends.

If Kaiser Wilhelm was loath to get off his high horse Palestinians and Israelis have adopted equally lofty attitudes in their wheeling and dealing efforts to attain a peace accord. The Palestinians insist Israel extend the building freeze in the West Bank while Israel is trying to make the Palestinians define Israel as a Jewish State. You might think a skilled intercessor would be able to phrase an elegant vaguely worded document that both freezes and thaws construction carried out by a state that is both Jewish and pluralistic.

While Clinton, Mitchell, Abbas and Netanyahu are agonizing the semantics of the much needed document I want to pose another riddle.

Actually the riddle was posed this week by PC Magazine, "Who's behind Stuxnet? The American? The Israelis?" In case you haven’t heard, Stuxnet is a computer worm that some specialists suspect is aimed at slowing Iran's race for a nuclear weapon. If you are looking for motive, means and opportunity you might accuse either the US or Israel, perhaps both of them. Motive and means exist and opportunity can be created. Since we all want to see Iran’s nuclear programme come to a grinding halt let’s thank the person, persons or country that is causing the Iranians so much consternation.

Our normally loquacious politicians are remarkably reticent about Stuxnet.

“Speech is silver but silence is golden.”

PC Magazine provided an interesting chart showing the worm’s discriminating distribution. Almost 60% of the hits were in Iran and 18% in Indonesia.

New York Times journalist John Markoff says the attack was silent but not subtle. “As in real warfare, even the most carefully aimed weapon in computer warfare leaves collateral damage. “The Stuxnet worm was no different.”

PC Magazine is more generous in its assessment of the worm. “The security research world is oohing and ahhing lately at what may turn out to be the most sophisticated malware attack ever:

Stuxnet appears to be more than just another malware attack, and more than just another targeted attack. Many believe that it is a government-sponsored attack against Iran's nuclear facilities.”

Markoff believes the malware was hastily and sloppily contrived. The fact that it was detected and not totally discriminating causing damage, albeit on a smaller scale, in other places seems to confirm this. Furthermore he cites, “An even more remarkable set of events surrounded the 2007 Israeli Air Force attack on what was suspected of being a Syrian nuclear reactor under construction.Accounts of the event initially indicated that sophisticated jamming technology had been used to blind the radar so Israeli aircraft went unnoticed. Last December, however, a report in an American technical publication, IEEE Spectrum, cited a European industry source as raising the possibility that the Israelis had used a built-in kill switch to shut down the radar.

A former member of the United States intelligence community said that the attack had been the work of Israel’s equivalent of America’s National Security Agency, known as Unit 8200.” Comparing it to the Stuxnet attack Markoff says, “But if the attack was based on a worm or a virus, there was never a smoking gun like Stuxnet.”

PC Magazine concludes more emphatically, “Who has a high level of computer security sophistication and an interest in attacking Iranian industrial control systems? Some speculate it's the US, but most of the speculation centers on the Israelis. It's all just speculation, but it's intriguing so it's tempting.”

In another article John Markoff gives Stuxnet a better grade,” These events add up to a mass of suspicions, not proof. Moreover, the difficulty experts have had in figuring out the origin of Stuxnet points to both the appeal and the danger of computer attacks in a new age of cyberwar.

For intelligence agencies they are an almost irresistible weapon, free of fingerprints. Israel has poured huge resources into Unit 8200, its secretive cyberwar operation, and the United States has built its capacity inside the National Security Agency and inside the military, which just opened a Cyber Command. “ Markoff who wrote the article jointly with David E Sanger, hints that there is one clue that seems to implicate Israel. “Deep inside the computer worm that some specialists suspect is aimed at slowing Iran's race for a nuclear weapon lies what could be a fleeting reference to the Book of Esther, the Old Testament tale in which the Jews pre-empt a Persian plot to destroy them.That use of the word “Myrtus” — which can be read as an allusion to Esther — to name a file inside the code is one of several murky clues that have emerged as computer experts try to trace the origin and purpose of the rogue Stuxnet program, which seeks out a specific kind of command module for industrial equipment. “

It sounds a little farfetched and has led some people to revive the old “Kilroy was here” graffiti of generations ago. One of them mentioned a report from the WWII era when German intelligence found the phrase on captured American equipment. This led Hitler to believe that Kilroy could be the name or codename of a high-level Allied spy. So maybe it’s simply a red herring.

While we are searching for clues I might as well quote from an interview with Udi Shani, Director General of Israel’s Ministry of Defence that appeared last month in Jane’s Defence Weekly. “Israel requires unprecedented investment in space platforms, cyber-warfare technology and missile defence to succeed in combating new strategic threats.” Shani referred again to the “cyber-world” which requires skills and expertise but has unbelievable potential.”

Have a good weekend.

Beni 30^th of September, 2010.

.

P800 and all that

Minister of Defence Ehud Barak has had a busy week.

On Wednesday and Thursday he was in the US after a midweek meeting with IDF Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi, dealing with ministry of defence routine business and trying to avoid the news media people who wanted him to comment on the accusations made against him by former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in a recently published autobiography. Earlier in the week he flew to Moscow to sign a military cooperation agreement with his Russian counterpart, Anatoly Serdyukov. The agreement, purportedly the first of its kind, calls for increased cooperation in combating terrorism and the proliferation of nuclear weapons. While it’s not clear what the practical implications of this agreement are, observers believe it could lead to the sale of Israeli military hardware to the Russian army.

Russia is particularly interested in acquiring Israeli unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). Last year Israel Aerospace Industries sold 12 UAVs to Russia. Before the Russo-Georgian conflict erupted another Israeli company, Elbit Systems sold a number of Hermes 450 UAVs to the Georgian armed forces. At the time George Friedman noted in Stratfor (a private global intelligence company providing analyses, surveys and even predictions) that,

” Israel had publicly announced to end weapons sales to Georgia the week before the Georgians attacked South Ossetia. Clearly the Israelis knew what was coming and wanted no part of it. Afterward, unlike the Americans, the Israelis did everything they could to placate the Russians, including having Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert travel to Moscow to offer reassurances. Whatever the Israelis were doing in Georgia, they did not want a confrontation with the Russians.”

The Russians learnt to value the use of UAV’s and in addition to buying a dozen of them they are interested in a joint venture to manufacture Israeli UAVs in Russia.

While Barak was in Moscow he reiterated the concern expressed earlier by Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu and President Shimon Peres regarding the sale of advanced Russian military technology to Syria and Iran.

The agreement with Syria was approved three years ago and has now been ratified by Minister of Defence Anatoly Serdyuko. Nevertheless, the sale of armaments is a murky business and the minister has ample time to reconsider, review and reassess the topic. Likewise Israel has put the plans to establish the UAV joint venture with Russia on hold. The report of the delay mentioned “concerns regarding the transfer of sensitive technology.” Maybe this is not quite quid pro quo but it might have some bearing on the Russian supply schedule.

The Australian mentioned another knee-jerk response, “Political officials quoted in Israel's media also suggested there could be a reassessment of whether Israel should consider selling arms to some of Russia's enemies, such as Georgia, which Israel has in recent times refused to do due to an understanding with Russia.”

The Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) is an independent academic institute that incorporates the Jaffee Institute for Strategic Studies at the Tel Aviv University. It studies key issues relating to Israel's national security and Middle East affairs. In a recent analysis of the Russian arms sales to Syria it stated, “Russia generally uses the supply of weapons to achieve influence in the international arena, especially as it has few other ways to gain influence. In most cases, refusal to supply, changes in timing, and so on serve as political messages.” Coming directly to the point the authors asked, “ If so, what is the reason for this turnaround in the Russian policy of supplying weapons to Syria?

In recent years, Syria has turned into a key regional player for Russia, whereby Russia is hoping to improve its international standing and become an influential actor in the Middle East. Syria has a similar consideration of exploiting its relations with Russia to promote its interests.”

The item that Russia has agreed to supply Syria, and rightly worries Israel, is the supersonic P-800 Yakhont cruise missile.

A recent issue of Defense Update, an Israeli defence technology and news resources bulletin attempted to answer the question, "How serious is the P800 Yakhont threat? Does it have a destabilising effect on the Middle East?"

Defense Update reasons that the Yakhont’s major advantage is its speed. It is a supersonic missile, with a speed of Mach 2.0-2.5. After launching the P800 climbs steeply to a high altitude where it can fly faster and traverse greater distances. At the last stage of its flight path it dives to a “sea skimming” height just 3-4 metres above the water before crossing the horizon to strike its target 15-25 kilometres away. Due to its great speed, only 20-25 seconds elapse between the time it is detected and the time it explodes on the target.

If the missile is supplied to Syria, it will almost certainly be the land version that serves as a coastal defence system. Ships in the largely obsolete Syrian navy don’t provide suitable platforms for the missile and the outmoded Syrian air force doesn’t have planes capable of carrying it.

If fired from a coastal launcher, the missile can reach the northern coast of Israel as far as the greater Tel Aviv area and also cover a sea-arc up to Cyprus. If stationed in Lebanon, it can cover Israel’s entire coastline as far as the Gaza Strip. Obviously the acquisition of the P800 adversely affects the Israeli navy’s freedom of movement and endangers merchant shipping lanes during wartime.

The timing of the Yakhont announcement suggests that Russia is dissatisfied with what it sees as its lack of appropriate inclusion in the peace process. Russia proposed holding a conference on the peace process in Moscow and serving as a mediator on the Palestinian and Syrian track. It also appears that Russia is worried by the American effort to revive the Syrian track without recourse to Russia’s help. It is possible that its willingness to supply these missiles is a way to entice Syria to favour Russia more. The missiles also indirectly challenge the United States (they are a possible threat to the Sixth Fleet), and thus a message is sent to the US as well. As for Israel, even though there is rather positive progress on the bilateral front, including the reported signing of a security cooperation agreement, the possibility that Russia has additional considerations that affect Israel, both in the overall regional context and the bilateral context, cannot be ruled out.

After the lengthy and depressing survey of the P800’s capabilities Defence Update added a few reassuring remarks regarding extant naval defence systems capable of countering Russia’s piece of sophisticated weaponry.

There are systems, used on U.S. Navy and many NATO vessels, the Royal Navy uses an anti-cruise missile defence system also employed by the French and Italian navies. Israel too has a new system, namely the Barak 8 ship air defence system. In addition Israel’s ‘Magic Wand’ system, employing the Stunner missile interceptor can counter the P800 effectively if employed in a surface/surface or ship/surface role.

While some navies could avoid a confrontation by steering clear of the P800’s range, the Israeli navy doesn’t have that option. Consequently the P800 threatens Israeli naval vessels moored at their main base in Haifa and also at its secondary naval base in Ashdod. Furthermore, when targeting Israeli naval patrols in international waters off the Lebanese coast, the P800 can be vertically launched from inland sites in Syria or Lebanon, fired behind the Lebanon mountain ridge, avoiding be spotted from the sea, thus minimizing early detection. “Therefore,” concludes Defence Update “Israel would do well to install its Barak-8 and Magic Wand systems as soon as possible.”

Just the same if and when the P-800 Yakhont cruise missiles are delivered to Syria it won’t be ready to employ them effectively. Syria currently does not have the means to effectively target the P800 beyond the horizon, lacking maritime patrol aircraft, unmanned aerial vehicles or attack aircraft capable of carrying such missiles. They do not have the capability to detect, track and designate targets at distant ranges.

Altogether, in the short term, the arrival of the P800 in the Mediterranean is a serious threat. Over time, as the Israel Navy gets its Barak-8 missiles and Magic Wand systems deployed, the threat could be contained, assuming that the Syrians will not deploy large numbers of these missiles on platforms and constellations that would maximize its capability to launch saturation attacks against Israeli vessels.

Aviation Week also commented on the P800:

“Although its performance looks good on paper, these types of missiles lack sophisticated targeting capability since they need accurate targeting data to be provided from a great distance (hundreds of kilometres away) to operate effectively. While this is more feasible for air-launched operating schemes, the likelihood of the missile acquiring the correct target from this range is questionable, particularly in a complex electronic warfare environment.

When engaging smaller targets, in open sea crowded with commercial shipping, such as the Eastern Med - this missile could be quite a serious threat to civilian vessels but is less likely to defeat protected, prepared and properly responding military vessels. “

Maybe we should be concerned about another potential threat.

An article in The Economist entitled “It’s a big deal,” informed its readers that, “The Obama administration is expected within days to notify Congress of plans to sell Saudi Arabia weaponry and logistics worth as much as $90 billion over the coming decade, in what would amount to America’s biggest-ever weapons sale. The orders reportedly include 84 F-15 long-range combat aircraft and scores of attack helicopters, along with naval vessels, advanced air defence systems, and contracts to refurbish the kingdom’s large existing stocks of American arms.”

If the $300 million Russian arms sale to Syria worries us we should be very alarmed by the $90 billion sale to Saudi Arabia.

Local observers claim that, “It’s no big deal” and The Economist, concurs. “Approval of the sale would also mark a significant change of tack by Israel, which has often swayed American politicians against bolstering Arab arsenals. Its supporters appear mollified, this time, by the prospect of seeing Iran, which Israel now regards as its most pressing threat, squeezed. Israel, which in any case has received $3 billion a year of free American arms for three decades, has reportedly received assurances that, as in the past, the new Saudi weaponry will come stripped of advanced features that might challenge Israel’s technical superiority.”

The Boston Globe advises “The best of many risky options: Arm Saudis to contain Iran”

“Boeing and other defense companies are touting the Saudi arms deal for its potential to create over 70,000 jobs in 44 states. But ultimately the security argument for the sale has to outweigh the economic argument. And it does — if only because other options for coping with Iran’s nuclear program look much more dangerous.”

Some Israeli analysts wonder what the Saudis are going to do with so many sophisticated toys. The Saudi Arabian armed forces will be hard put to accommodate the new weaponry. Nevertheless, it obviously annoys Iran, it’s good for the Saudi royal house’s testosterone level and as more than one US news media source has emphasised it means jobs for the boys. I’m sure there’s more that can be read into the matter than this brief comment.

I wonder what our taxi drivers have to say about it.

As we celebrate Sukkot this week (more universally known as the Feast of Tabernacles) hundreds of young Israelis ignored warnings issued by our security services and crossed the border at Taba to spend the holiday in Sinai. Not to go in the footsteps of their ancestors following Moses in the wilderness but to “hang out “on the beaches oblivious of the P800 threat.

Chag Sameach

Beni 22^nd of September, 2010.

. Seeker head repeated activation
and missile homing

Talik

"Major-General Yisrael Tal, who died last week, aged 86, was an Israeli soldier who designed what many considered to be the world's finest battle tank; when first introduced in 1979, the Merkava's unique shape made it one of the safest vehicles on the battlefield, its 105mm gun one of the most lethal."

A brief and fitting eulogy for an outstanding general composed not by a comrade in arms but a columnist in The Telegraph .

More remarkable is the mention General Tal received in the Lebanese Daily Star. Admittedly it was provided by Associated Press correspondent Diaa Hadid, an Israeli Arab who listed her abode as "occupied Jerusalem," however the obituary contained no malice. Hadid listed Talik's (Yisrael Tal's soubriquet) many achievements. "He is considered one of the best five armoured commanders in history, alongside US General George S. Patton, General Creighton Abrams, German Field Marshal Erwin Rommel and Israeli Major General Moshe Peled," she said quoting military sources.

Talik was both an innovative tank warfare strategist and a revolutionary tank designer.

He has been described as short in stature , somewhat Napoleonic and a strict disciplinarian. Those who knew him well say that despite his authoritarian posture Talik was a caring and likeable man.

He was barely out of high school when he joined the British Army's Jewish Brigade in World War II and saw action in the Western Desert and later in Italy. After the war he returned to Palestine where he joined the Hagana. During the War of Independence Yisrael Tal was a brigade commander, in the 1956 Sinai campaign he was an armoured division commander and in the Six Day War he led an armoured division along the northern axis in Sinai. He was commander of the southern front in the final stages of the 1973 Yom Kippur War.

In 1974 Yisrael Tal retired from the IDF after serving as its deputy chief of staff.

In 1970 while he was still in active service General Tal was appointed to head a committee commissioned to design a tank suited to IDF specifications.

At that time the ministry of defence was finding it difficult buying military hardware.

The new tank, named the Merkava, was equipped with a number of unique features which are still incorporated in the later Mark IV and V models.

They are best demonstrated in a YouTube clip which can be accessed by the following hyperlink:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjVg4Bdri8Y

The first Merkava was supplied to the IDF in 1979 and was first deployed in battle during the June 1982 invasion of Lebanon. At that time many IDF commanders believed it was invincible. With the passage of time this exaggerated confidence in the tank's capabilities was rudely deflated, nevertheless it is unsurpassed in its ease of handling, superior firepower and crew protection features.

2006 was a crucial year for the IDF and the Merkava production line. Cutbacks in defence expenditure adversely affected the acquisition of military hardware and impaired the IDF’s training programme. As a result the army was ill-prepared for the war that broke out that year. The situation was aggravated by a decision to phase-out the Merkava IV, a decision reversed after the war.

Improvements in tank armour plating have been matched by parallel advances in anti-tank weapons. Hezbollah armed with new anti-tank weapons destroyed two Merkava tanks and damaged a number of other tanks during the 2006 Lebanon War.

In the wake of the war, especially when the IDF became increasingly involved in unconventional and guerrilla warfare some analysts began to doubt Talik's claim that, "The tank is the decisive weapon of land warfare." They believed that the Merkava was too vulnerable to missiles and unsuitable for use in urban warfare. Other military experts disagreed with this arbitrary and inconclusive finding. They argued that reports of losses sustained in the Second Lebanon War were overstated.

Since then the Merkava was deployed successfully in Gaza during Operation Cast Lead.

Battlefield tactics have been revised since 2006. There has been more emphasis on aggressiveness, concentrated firepower and more coordination between air and ground attacks. Units have been trained to operate nonstop, with greater mobility using blitzkrieg manoeuvres. The Merkava was designed to be deployed primarily in conventional battle arrays. In recent years IDF. tactics have been modified in order to use its main battle tanks in urban environments where they effectively deal with asymmetric or guerilla war threats.

The Merkava's designers placed great emphasis on affording the tank's crew greater protection against anti-tank weapons. In fact it is probably the safest tank operating today.

However the tank's robust armour is not impervious to the armour penetrating capabilities of the latest generation of anti-tank weapons. In order to counter these weapons a unique active protection system dubbed the "Trophy" has been developed by Rafael Israel Armament Development Authority. The IDF plans to equip its tanks, armoured personnel carriers and hopefully its whole range of fighting vehicles with the "Trophy" active protection system. The Trophy's capabilities are demonstrated in a YouTube presentation accessed by clicking on the following hyperlink:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-Ri-kce6pA&feature=related

On Sunday, about the time Major-General Yisrael Tal was brought to rest President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt was preparing to host Secretary of State Clinton, Prime Minister Netanyahu and Chairman Mahmoud Abbas at Sharm el Sheikh. This brief encounter between the sides in a new quest for peace aroused little optimism. Everyone present was familiar with the passage in Ecclesiastes allocating appropriate times for everything including, "A time for war and a time for peace." If the pessimists are right this isn't the time for peace. Yediot Ahronot columnist Ron Ben Yishai doubts if the New Year we are celebrating will bring us war. Ben Yishai a seasoned military analyst doesn't use crystal bowls, astrology charts, Tarot cards or examine goats entrails to predict the future. Instead he relies on observation and an analysis of the political and military forces in this region.

" No dramatic changes are expected in our security situation next year. A war will not break out, and a major military confrontation will likely not take place. For the time being, all the main players in the region that may ignite a major flare-up have a strong interest in maintaining restraint and avoiding confrontation." Having said that, Ben Yishai hurries to stop anyone about to beat his sword into a ploughshare.

Warning that the Middle East being the Middle East there is always cause for concern he adds, "The constant tensions in the Lebanon and Gaza theatres may cause occasional flare-ups, despite the desire on both sides to avoid them. This was the case this past year, and this will likely be the case in the coming year. "

Furthermore he believes that the three main threats we faced this year will continue to concern us, namely: the Iranian nuclear threat, the rocket, missile, and mortar threat in the north and in Gaza, and the de-legitimisation campaign against us in the international arena.

The de-legitimisation campaign already limits Israel’s ability to contend with the threats it is facing, both tactically and strategically. It manacles the IDF in confrontations with Hezbollah and Hamas and it limits our military initiative.. Both these terrorist organisations operate deliberately from within densely populated civilian areas,

According to Ben Yishai these threats are interrelated and in the worst-case scenario may combine to produce a war where we will face hundreds of missiles and rockets from Iran, Lebanon, Syria and Gaza, while the IDF’s air and ground forces will be severely restricted by the " collateral damage" factor. Now more than ever before the UN Human Rights Council is ready to send another Richard Goldstone to investigate alleged Israeli war crimes.

In an lead article entitled “Ready, aim. Seek legal advice” that appeared in last Friday’s Yediot Ahronot’s weekend supplement columnist Ariella Ringel Hoffman also emphasised collateral damage factor.
In February this year, following the lessons learnt from Operation Cast Lead, Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories (COGAT) Maj. Gen. Eitan Dangot was instructed to set up a layout of humanitarian aid officers that will accompany the battalions in the field.

These officers are in contact with the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and with representatives of the aid organisations in the Gaza Strip. They are meant to coordinate between them and the forces in the field and to indicate the locations of sensitive facilities such as hospitals, schools, and UN aid centres.

As a result a field commander’s staff will have three additional adjutants a media advisor, or, in military language, an IDF Spokesperson Unit representative, a legal advisor, or, put otherwise, a representative of the Military Prosecution, and an advisor for humanitarian affairs, a representative of the COGAT.

Each of these advisors, separately and together, are meant to ensure that the fighting in the territories will look better and sound better, and, mainly, will prevent the next Golstone report.

The officers in the field were not exactly enthusiastic about the idea.

One of them told Ariella-Ringel Hoffman "The idea is a basically correct. In the future battlefield, media, legal, and humanitarian dilemmas can dictate how the force will behave even more than topographical demands. But to say it makes it easier for us? Not at all. Even worse. In my opinion, it won't even spare us the next media onslaught."

Hoffman concludes by asking, “Has the IDF read the map of the new battlefield correctly by understanding that victory does not lie solely in the hands of the soldiers, as skilled and determined as they may be, or that it is a futile effort at best and a fig leaf at worst? That war will forever be the same horrid, bleeding occurrence spawning commissions of inquiry time after time here and abroad? “

The Jerusalem Post also related to the futility of our PR efforts quoting Edwin Bennatan’s blog Point/Counterpoint referring to the “Irish Question” which in this instance is really the “Jewish Question.” There has always been something slightly sinister in Ireland's attitude towards Israel. As Michael Weiss wrote recently in the New Criterion, "The sons and daughters of Eire are not generally known for their fondness of Jewish statehood." Even the occasional expression of admiration for the Jewish state's achievements often seems restrained. Ireland was one of the last countries of Western Europe to establish diplomatic relations with Israel.

Yet, when I think of the Emerald Isle, I would like to be able to think mainly of the late Connor Cruise O'Brien, that grand old Irish politician, writer, historian, academic and great friend of Israel, who wrote that "a signal of anti-Jewish bigotry is when your interlocutor feverishly turns Jews into Nazis and Arabs into Jews."

I found another righteous Irishman – Kevin Myers who wrote a brilliant piece in the Irish Independent . He had this to say about an Irish artists boycott-

“One-hundred-and-fifty Irish 'artists' have announced they are boycotting Israel. What, 150? That's about 140 more than I thought we had. Poor Israel! Being boycotted by Irish daubers it's never even heard of. Yet strangely enough, these 'artists' don't condemn the totalitarian Islamo-Nazism of Hamas, or the emerging Fourth Reich of Iran. No, instead, they obsess over the misdeeds of a democratic state the size of Munster in a democracy-free, Arab landmass as big as the US.”

Read the complete article by way of this hyperlink:

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/kevin-myers/kevin-myers-cead-mile-failte-to-hell-mr-israeli-ambassador-2304976.html

Controversial British Journalist Julie Burchill blasted the Irish in an article she wrote for the Jerusalem Post -

“Until Ireland sorts itself out and stops projecting its own neuroses onto the tiny Jewish state, you guys will just have to struggle on as best you can without those all-important Irish intellectuals and artists.”

Major-General Yisrael Tal lived long enough to witness the completion of one of Israel’s most ambitious industrial military undertakings.

Eight years ago Israel Military Industries and Israel Aircraft Industries were contracted to upgrade Turkey’s main battle tanks and F-4E fighter jets.

Last month the upgraded tanks and planes participated in Turkey’s 'Victory Day' celebrations marking the 88th anniversary of the end of the 1919-22 War of Independence The upgrading of the 170 upgraded M-60A1 tanks was carried out by one of Israel’s leading industrial conglomerates - Israel Military Industries (IMI) under a $687.5 million turnkey project considered to be one of the world’s largest tank upgrade programmes. The design implemented in the Turkish programme utilised systems already proven in modern armoured vehicles in service with the Israel Defense Forces, such as Israel’s Merkava 4 main battle tank.

Ironically Turkey’s refurbished military hardware was proudly displayed at a time when the relations between Israel and Turkey are experiencing an unprecedented crisis.

I want to wish everyone fasting on Yom Kippur well over the fast.

Beni 16^th of September, 2010.

Morning clouds

The cloud bank above the horizon looked ominous. In another clime it would spell rain, but here and at this time of the year it was bound to dissipate without issue. However, the red glow below the clouds, the harbinger of approaching dawn left no room for speculation or doubt, the sun would rise!

Although I’d noticed the clouds and sunrise my mind was elsewhere yesterday morning when I walked past the field and headed for the path by the new citrus grove.

It was just before dawn and this morning like every morning the path I had taken for my constitutional walk followed the same familiar route. My thoughts however had veered off at a tangent. Our prime minister had just returned from Washington and everyone from all-seeing analysts to run-of-the-mill concerned citizens is asking the same question. Has Bibi changed?

On Sunday Channel 10 TV political correspondent Ravid Drucker exhumed old video footage showing Binyamin Netanyahu proclaiming there was no Palestinian partner for peace. These clips placed in juxtaposition to the prime minister facing Mahmoud Abbas in Washington this week declaring, " President Abbas you are my partner for peace," seem to indicate that maybe there is a change.

Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman hurried to dispel any illusions.

Speaking at a conference of his ultra-nationalist Yisrael Beiteinu party, Lieberman said a complete peace agreement that included an end to the conflict and Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state was unattainable, even with significant concessions and territorial compromise.
Peace was impossible, "not next year and not for the next generation", Lieberman said.

"In order to achieve a practical agreement we must think of new solutions to old problems, " said Netanyahu. "I am willing to reach a compromise with our neighbours, while protecting our security interests," … "In the past, Israel has proved itself willing to make concessions for peace. However, this time it is crucial to learn from our mistakes and think creatively."

Veteran peace activist and former foreign minister Yossi Beilin is probably the most unlikely person to concur with Avigdor Lieberman. Yet Dr. Beilin thinks a complete peace settlement now is beyond our reach. Despite all the positive proclamations he thinks Prime Minister Netanyahu is nowhere near attaining a peace agreement along the lines of the Clinton parameters or the Geneva Initiative.. Beilin doubts if Netanyahu is prepared to make the compromises required for a peace accord.” Likewise I’m not sure he's prepared for an interim agreement, but to me it seems more practical than futile talks about security, the environment, water and the Jewish character of the State of Israel. That's why I propose trying to reach an interim agreement now.

Der Spiegel correspondent Juliane von Mittelstaedt doesn’t think Netanyahu has changed, “It's the world around him that has changed. And since he is a pragmatic type, his right-leaning, religious-nationalistic government is the most peace-loving one since the 1995 assassination of Yitzhak Rabin. Notwithstanding the heated rhetoric of Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, Netanyahu's government shows restraint in its use of the military. It has reduced the number of checkpoints and roadblocks in the West Bank and, in doing so, breathed new life into the Palestinian economy.

Indeed, Netanyahu is the first Israeli prime minister who -- despite massive protests from the right -- has succeeded in openly pushing through a halt to settlement construction at a time when no parallel negotiations were being conducted with the Palestinians. It might very well be that Yitzhak Rabin, Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert spoke out more enthusiastically in support of peace, but the fact is that they never put a stop to settlement construction.”

Ms. von Mittelstaedt omitted to mention that in bringing about a relaxation of the checkpoints and roadblocks as well as implementing the construction freeze Netanyahu’s “peace-loving” government didn’t exactly act of its own volition, free will and on its own initiative. Still she constrains her enthusiasm a bit and correctly observes, “Nevertheless, Netanyahu is still Netanyahu, and no one can be sure what kind of Palestinian state he really envisions when he talks of a two-state solution. He wants peace and security for Israel -- he's not interested in anything more. Would he support the division of Jerusalem and the clearing of dozens of settlements? It seems hard to imagine.”

Christian Science Monitor correspondent Joshua Mitnick reporting from Ramallah tries to assess how Palestinians view this latest round of peace talks.

Mitnick refers to a recent poll conducted by the Palestinian Centre for Public Opinion, which claims that only one in three Palestinians support the current negotiations. He says, “Though the 17-year-old peace process has yielded trappings of self-rule amid Israel's military occupation, Palestinians have largely lost hope that summits such as last week's Washington summit can deliver on their ultimate goal of Palestinian statehood.

While a majority oppose the armed uprising Hamas has been calling for, pervasive apathy and distrust here highlight the more intangible barriers that Israeli and Palestinian leaders alike must overcome – in addition to final status issues such as Jerusalem, borders, and refugees.”

The Jerusalem Post’s deputy managing editor Caroline Glick is not happy with the new Netanyahu. She quotes a recent public opinion poll referred to by Raviv Drucker in his report for TV Channel 10. According to the opinion poll, conducted by Channel 10 and not by one of the professional polling bodies, two thirds of the respondents(Israelis) didn’t think Mahmoud Abbas was serious about making peace with Israel.

Glick admits that Drucker thinks the results may have been influenced by the Palestinian terror attack that occurred just before the opening of the Washington talks. However, she explains, “Drucker implied that the public is driven by its emotions. But what the results actually show is that the public is driven by reason.”

Gauging public opinion is not an exact science. Opinion polls at the best are one day events. The next day the fickle public will change its mind much as it changes its socks and underwear.

Taxi drivers are said to be reliable weathervanes regarding the national mood. For some reason none of the pollsters use them.

Caroline Glick concludes, “The most distressing aspect of Netanyahu’s enthusiastic participation in a process the Israeli public rationally opposes is that it is him doing it. With Netanyahu now joining the ranks of those who attack Israel’s defenders as enemies of peace and claim that defending the country is antithetical to peace, who is left to defend us? “

Middle East affaires analyst Adel Al Toraifi reviewing the failed efforts to reach a peace accord for the London based Saudi owned newspaper Asharq Alawsat made an unusually frank observation, “The Palestinians were wrong to miss the opportunity to establish the state promised by the Clinton plan, but the Palestinians’ biggest error was their failure for sixty years to build state institutions that could make the Palestinian state a reality today.”

Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad is well aware of this failing. He knows that under the British Mandate the Jewish population developed its own “state-in-the-making institutions.” On Monday Fayyad speaking at a press conference in Ramallah presented the second phase of his plan to create institutions for a Palestinian state within one year.
He said that his government was planning to create a reality on the ground that would be hard to ignore.
According to the new plan the Palestinian government would focus on imposing law and order, increasing accountability and combating corruption.
“In the second year of its plan, the government is seeking to stress national preparedness for the establishment of the State of Palestine,” Fayyad said.

A number of Israeli journalists, notable among them Akiva Eldar argue that the talks will lead nowhere unless both sides are prepared to “give and take” more than they have done so far. Netanyahu has a long way to go before he reaches the point where his predecessor Ehud Olmert made his final offer to Mahmoud Abbas. The Palestinian Authority president needs to move beyond that same point to bridge the gap between the sides. Eldar says, “ President Barack Obama must spend his remaining political capital so that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton can submit to Netanyahu and Abbas a document resembling the one her husband presented to Arafat and Ehud Barak a decade ago.”

Like many observers Eldar identifies a relatively new alignment. “It's clear already that the renewal of negotiations has intensified the conflict between Iran and centrist Arab leaders. The verbal blows that Tehran and its allies in Beirut and Gaza are trading with Cairo and Ramallah emphasise the link between the peace process and the Iranian front.”

Eldar believes this is Netanyahu’s chance to bring Iran into his equation: land for security. “Netanyahu constantly declares that it is Iran that poses an existential threat to Israel. If he is willing to concede part of the homeland at the risk of his father's reproach (historian Professor Benzion Netanyahu), why not go for broke? Why settle for security arrangements with a nascent demilitarised Palestinian state when you could wrest concessions to protect Israel from Iran?”

Columnist Aluf Benn (Haaretz) also mentions the Iranian equation, “In the end, the talks are less about Israel and a future Palestinian state, and more about hammering out an Arab-Israeli axis to counter Teheran that could, in a worst-case scenario, support Israeli military action against Iran. Netanyahu knows very well that, in the end, everyone -- both Israelis and Palestinians -- will lose if they can't reach a solution. At a time when American support is crumbling, Netanyahu ‘fears Israel's growing international isolation,’ “

Marwan Muasher a former Jordanian foreign minister who later served as Jordan’s first ambassador to Israel, is a firm advocate of a regional approach. However his proposal is more of a recycled version of the Arab Peace Initiative.

He outlined his thoughts in an article entitled “Only a regional approach can bring Middle East peace,” that appeared this week in the Financial Times.

Muasher claims, “A bilateral peace deal is no longer attractive to either side. Israel would find it difficult to stomach the painful concessions necessary to win peace with only some Palestinians –Gaza, run by Hamas isn’t involved – while the Palestinians need cover from the wider Arab world to sell tough choices to their own people.

Finally, and worst of all, a two-state solution will no longer work. Despite serious efforts to build a Palestinian state, this option effectively disappeared as Israeli settlers spread throughout the West Bank.

Given this trio of deficiencies, the bilateral approach alone should be abandoned. Instead, a comprehensive accord between Israel and all Arab countries should be pursued. This could build on the terms laid out in the Arab Peace Initiative, adopted during an Arab League meeting in Beirut in 2002. This offered Israel both normalised relations with the Arab world and security guarantees, in exchange for agreements over borders and the problem of refugees. A further strength of the plan was that it offered regional cover for both sides.

Such a move would change the entire approach to negotiations. Instead of relying on preassure to cajole Israelis and Palestinians to act, a regional initiative allows both sides to find a settlement that serves their national interests. It also obliges Arabs to be responsible for pressing Hamas and Hezbollah. The US could still be responsible for collecting the so-called “end-game” deposits. These hypothetical pledges from all parties could be deposited with Washington, and committed to only if others are willing to do the same. Saudi Arabia, Syria, the Palestinians, and Israel will need to concede contentious points to get what they ultimately want.

Citing his governing coalition, Benjamin Netanyahu, Israeli prime minister, is likely to resist a regional agreement. But the Israeli public will find it hard to turn down. It offers peace with the entire Arab world, resolves the issues of Hamas and Hezbollah, and rids Iran of any excuse to repeat its heated rhetoric against Israel. It can also solve the refugee matter while avoiding a major influx of Palestinians. In other words, it tackles all of the average Israeli’s concerns.

While it ought to be difficult for other parties to say no to a regional deal capable of solving these long-term issues, there is clearly still the potential for failure. But not acting carries greater risk. Although a two-state solution is increasingly unlikely, the alternative – a one-state solution, where the growing population of Palestinians demand to become full citizens of Israel – is much more widely problematic for both sides.

The conditions for bilateral settlement do not currently exist. Renewed talks between Israelis and Palestinians are unlikely to change this, no matter how much the Obama administration hopes they might. Delaying difficult decisions today in hope of better opportunities tomorrow will only make it harder to end the conflict. But a regional solution is both possible and desirable as a way forward. “

Columnist Thomas Friedman personally encouraged King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia to make an initiative before the 2002 Beirut summit and has been a vocal supporter since. Shortly before the Beirut Declaration was to be readopted by the Arab League in 2007, he wrote in The New York Times that: “What the moribund Israeli-Palestinian talks need most today is an emotional breakthrough. Another Arab declaration, just reaffirming the Abdullah initiative, won’t cut it. If King Abdullah wants to lead – and he has the integrity and credibility to do so – he needs to fly from Riyadh to Jerusalem and deliver the offer personally to the Israeli people.”

About the same time the Israeli Consul General in New York commented as follows:

"Look, the Saudi idea has a lot of positive elements in it, which is why we have never dismissed it at face value.... Quite the contrary, we said we will endorse and enter a dialogue with the Saudis or anyone else -- indeed in the entire Arab world -- if they are serious on the normalisation issue. The thing is, that life in the Middle East has taught us to be extremely sceptical and extremely wary of these kind of declarations until they are actually delivered in the Arabic language."

In May last year, Al-Quds al-Arabi, the London-based Arabic language daily, reported that in response to a request from President Barack Obama the Arab League is currently in the process of revising the initiative in an effort to encourage Israel to agree to it. The new revisions include a demilitarisation of the future Palestinian state as well as a forfeiture of the Palestinian right of return to Israel proper. According to the revisions, a portion of the refugees would be relocated to the future Palestinian state, and the rest would be naturalized in other Arab countries.

If there truly is a revised version of the Arab Peace Initiative this is the opportune time to present it.

In the meantime Israelis and Palestinians weary of hearing the same well-worn platitudes go about their daily business clinging to more tangible things.

The men in suits will meet and meet again to discuss plans that will probably dissipate like the morning clouds.

Beni 9^th of September, 2010.

Well wishers

Only days before peace talks were due to begin in Washington, the man you can always count on dropped another bombshell. , Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, renowned sage and spiritual leader of the ultra-orthodox Shas party said, “Let Abu Mazen [Mahmoud Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority] and all these evil people perish from this world. May God smite them with a plague, them and these Palestinians.” The remarks reported by Israeli army radio and quoted by the news media from Calcutta to Cranfills Gap, Texas were made as part of the rabbi’s blessing for Rosh Hashanah. If that's how he blesses I'd be wary of his curses. As usual the rabbi's political marionettes, the four Shas party ministers in the government, were quick to explain that Rabbi Yosef speaks allegorically using parables understood only by his close followers.

It’s useless trying to explain the incident as a one time gaffe, after all, the rabbi is a frequent offender damning political opponents, high court judges and almost anyone he doesn’t like. In a few weeks Rabbi Yosef will turn ninety, so playing the devil’s advocate I could plead senility, a feeble mind or some other vaguely defined ailment in his defence. However, notwithstanding his advanced years Rabbi Ovadia Yosef has a razor sharp mind and a prodigious memory.

Prime Minister Netanyahu hurried to distance himself from the sage’s withering New Year’s wish.

Not far behind him the U.S. State Department also excoriated the sermon’s offending content, “We regret and condemn the inflammatory statements by Rabbi Ovadia Yosef," said spokesman Philip J. Crowley. "These remarks are not only deeply offensive, but incitement such as this hurts the cause of peace."

The venerable rabbi, a respected religious scholar, is also known for vitriolic comments about Arabs, secular Jews, liberals, women and gays, among others.

Interior Minister Eli Yishai makes no political move without the approval of Rabbi Ovadia Yosef. A case in point is the matter of the illegal workers/migrants' children living in Israel. An estimated 1,200 children born in Israel to foreign workers living illegally in the country were due to be deported by order of the Ministry of the Interior. Public outrage at this heartless draconian measure forced Yishai to accept a cabinet compromise whereby most of the children would be allowed to stay in Israel and about 400 would be deported.

A dedicated, voluntary organisation assists helps and advises the foreign workers and their families. This body acts on their behalf protecting their rights and trying to prevent draconian rulings such as Minister Eli Yishai’s deportation policy.

The compromise ruling states that only children of parents who entered Israel legally may be eligible for permanent residency. They must be enrolled in school, speak Hebrew and have been either born in Israel or entered the country before they were 13 years old. Also, they must have lived in Israel for five consecutive years, which means that children younger than five are likely to be expelled, as well as those who had returned for a period to their country of origin. As the deportation date draws near, pressure on the government to reverse its decision is mounting. Recently President Peres made an impassioned appeal to allow the children to stay in Israel.

Former Shas party leader Aryeh Derri, ever a political realist, doubts if the campaign against the children is sustainable.

According to the Israeli central bureau for statistics last year there were 220,000 migrant workers in the country. Most of them came here from the Philippines, Thailand, a number of African states and some from China .About half of the foreign workers have overstayed the time authorised in their visas.

The interior minister is trying to reduce the number of foreign workers, but the increasing demand for both skilled and unskilled labour has often caused the ministry to relax its own restrictive policy. The result is a revolving door phenomenon. While illegal workers are rounded up and deported hundreds of new foreign workers are brought to Israel every year to replace them. They work mainly in cleaning, construction and agricultural work and also care for invalids and handicapped senior citizens.
The problem is compounded by an increasing number of Africans entering the country illegally, mainly from Eritrea, Darfur, Sudan and other places. They travel north to Egypt, are guided by Bedouins through Sinai and slip across our southern border.

The Bedouins in the Sinai peninsular have developed a lucrative smuggling business. Some specialise in smuggling goods and arms into Gaza while others smuggle Africans to a remote less frequently guarded section of the Israel-Egyptian border. If they are not detected by the Egyptian border patrol and arrested or shot they often manage to reach the Promised Land where the Israeli border patrol arrests them. If they are sent back across the border there's a good chance that the Egyptians will either arrest or shoot them, so for humanitarian reasons they are usually allowed to remain in Israel. Some find work in Eilat others venture further north where they find work and a place to live near other foreign workers.

In January this year the government decided to build a barrier along the section of our border with Egypt that is most susceptible to smuggling.

It’s estimated that approximately 1200 Africans cross that border every year.

Work on the barrier hasn’t started yet. As is often the case it is being held up by bureaucracy.

Now, why would these people want to risk their lives and pay the little money they have to reach an unknown and threatened country?

Perhaps any place is better than Darfur or Eritrea. Especially now when an alternative way out through Libya to Europe is cut off, Israel looks good. The pathfinders that went before them, the first Africans to reach Israel via Sinai wrote favourable accounts of the country in their letters home.

On closer inspection it seems that this sliver of land hugging the Mediterranean coast, a chewed-off remnant of an Ottoman backwater, isn't doing too badly. I came to this startling conclusion after reading Newsweek’s

survey of the best places to live. According to a quality of life index devised by the magazine's surveyors Israel ranked 22nd in the world. You are probably wondering why we should be proud of such a low placing. It's not top, but nevertheless it does place us in the top 25% of the nations surveyed, one place above Italy. Israel's annual per capita income is close to $30,000, just like Finland’s and New Zealand’s.

Our economic wellbeing will improve once the offshore natural gas fields prove to be workable. Prime Minister Netanyahu can’t wait till then. While he was visiting Greece last week he proposed to lay a pipeline to supply Greece from the yet-to-produce gas fields. The prime minister’s premature marketing efforts surprised everyone including the ministry of national infrastructure. While the prospects for the offshore gas fields look promising the oilfield near Rosh HaAyin and a huge oilfield situated below the off shore gas reserves have yet to be proven and workable.

Another speculative venture is the current attempt to restart the Israel-Palestinian peace talks. In theory the Israeli prime minister and the president of the Palestinian Authority could easily meet without all the pomp and circumstance provided in Washington by their host President Barack Obama.

Venues in Ramallah, Jerusalem or on the road between both cities can be reached within half an hour. However the sides have reached a level of mutual mistrust that requires a major jumpstart mechanism to get started.

Observers, political analysts and the rest of us are experiencing a sense of déjà vu, indeed we’ve heard it all before. Moreover this time we are more pessimistic than ever. Neither side appears to really want the talks. The Palestinian Entity divided between the West Bank and Gaza will find it hard to agree to any peace agreement that requires a compromise. Netanyahu’s fragmented government will have great difficulty in implementing even the most moderate and undemanding agreement with the Palestinians. Relating to the scepticism expressed by observers on the sidelines The Economist added a note of optimism, “Israel’s prime minister sounds upbeat, even if no one else does.”

Even the drive-by shootings were rightly attributed to attempts to spoil the talks, “Nothing new, either, in two ghastly shootings on the West Bank in the days before the talks. The first left four Israeli civilians dead, two of them the parents of six children and another pregnant woman. Hamas proudly took the ‘credit’ as a means of exposing, it said, the collusion between the Palestinian Authority and the occupying forces of Israel. The following day two more Israelis were wounded.”

Nicolas Pelham The Economist’s Palestinian affairs correspondent based in Jerusalem questions the political wisdom of the attacks. He points out that now Hamas faces an intensified two-pronged coordinated campaign against it in the West Bank conducted by the IDF and the Palestinian Authority’s security force..

If the talks are bound to fail as most observers believe, says Pelham, Hamas would have done well to let its cells in the West Bank remain dormant.

Despite Rabbi Yosef’s pointless, damning remarks and Hamas’ murderous attacks Netanyahu and Abbas have cleared the first hurdle. It remains to be seen if they have the stamina and the will to go the full course.

Have a good weekend

Beni 3^rd of September, 2010.