Spaghetti Western adage

I love Spaghetti Westerns. What they lack in dialogue they make up for in action. Albeit, the 1966 classic "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly," is remembered for both action and dialogue, especially that unforgettable piece of advice, "When you have to shoot, shoot, don't talk."

Confronted with the belligerent Iranian regime said to be just a "turn of the screw" away from attaining nuclear capability, Israel's leaders have responded with considerable verbal belligerence. Some people say they should heed that old Spaghetti Western adage. I don’t know if Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is perturbed by our tough talk. However, Alain Rodier, director of research at the French Centre for Research on Intelligence, isn't impressed by our sabre-rattling. "Israel’s military threat against Iran is empty rhetoric; we’ve heard it several times before. Israeli leaders had planned to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities in November 2010 but they were deterred by the US. That doesn’t mean that we should not take seriously all these Israeli warnings. But we need to remain cautious with that kind of talk as both countries are engaged in a psychological war. An Iranian attack would be seen as a declaration of war and Israel would not hesitate to retaliate with overwhelming force. This is a typical 'balance of terror' situation where neither of the two countries would dare to strike first."

The Economist explained why there's a renewed rash of war-talk. " With China and Russia already saying that they will oppose any attempt to impose more punitive sanctions on Iran, there has also been fresh talk of resorting to military action, particularly from Israel." The author goes on to assess the outcome of translating words into action, "By throwing in every military thing at its disposal, Israel might slow by a few years Iran’s progress towards acquiring the bomb. But there would be no guarantee of that, and it would be a near-certainty that Iran would react with missile attacks of its own, and by its well-armed proxy forces: Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza." The paper goes on to explain the timing aspect." Why would Israel attack now when, for some of the reasons above, it has previously stayed its hand? There are several possible answers. The first is that Iran is rapidly moving centrifuges to its once-secret site at Fordow, buried deep inside a mountain and possibly invulnerable to attack by conventional weapons. Second, Syria’s internal chaos may take Iran’s most important regional ally out of the game. Third, the departure of American forces from Iraq removes both a focus for Iranian retaliation and a constraint on America. Fourth, if Messrs Netanyahu and Barak reckon that they need America’s military might to complete what they start, there may be no better combination to ensure that than a politically weak president whose Republican opponents have made unquestioning support for Israel a wedge issue a year before a presidential election."

Recently Secretary of Defence Panetta and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey sounded very much like Barak and Netanyahu. Elliot Abrams was surprised by Panetta's new rhetoric.

In an article published in the Council on Foreign Relations he pointed out that just two weeks ago the secretary of defence listed the risks involved in a military strike." I, like many others, "said Abrams, "wondered why it was wise for our secretary of defense to say this on the record and thereby reassure Tehran." It seems the secretary of defence has changed his mind.

In an interview given to CBS he said referring to Iran, "If they proceed and we get intelligence that they are proceeding with developing a nuclear weapon, then we will take whatever steps necessary to stop it."

“That's very strong language with very little wiggle room." Commented Abrams. "Perhaps Mr. Panetta or others in the administration came to realize the foolishness, indeed the danger, of having the Iranian regime believe it can pursue its goals unhindered by the United States. Perhaps they came to realize that any chance of a negotiated resolution with Iran was undermined if the ayatollahs came to believe there was no real military option ‘on the table.’ Perhaps this has been the administration’s bottom line all along, and an Iranian nuclear weapon is truly 'unacceptable' to the president. Whatever the explanation, this is the way our secretary of defense should be speaking in public about Iran."

A few months ago British journalist, author and Middle East affairs commentator, Patrick Seale considered the likelihood of an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear installations. “Most intelligence experts agree that Iran has not yet made a decision to build nuclear weapons.” He said, “A more likely Israeli motive is its concern that the five permanent members of the Security Council plus Germany -- the so-called P5+1 -- may accept an Iranian offer of renewed talks. Israel’s greatest fear is that the P5+1 will reach a compromise with Iran which would allow it to continue enriching uranium for civilian purposes. This might then lead in due course to the world agreeing to co-exist with a nuclear Iran. If that were to happen, Israel’s monopoly of nuclear weapons -- a key asset in maintaining its regional military supremacy – would be lost.”

William Luers, Thomas Pickering and Jim Walsh surveying the Republican party presidential contenders competitive sabre rattling warned in an article they wrote for Politico, “This competition among presidential hopefuls over who can make the most convincing threat against Iran increases the possibility — even the likelihood — that Washington will be left with no option but to initiate another war of choice — with all the unanticipated consequences for us and our unstable world.” Luers and Pickering, former US ambassadors suggested a diplomatic solution to the Iran dilemma, “A strong president can find a path to get close enough to begin to deal with that threatening and frightening enemy. Success at this better and more difficult option would rule out both war and an Iranian nuclear weapon.”

In an interview with the German newspaper Leipziger Volkszeitung's, Chancellor Angela Merkel said that diplomatic solutions to Iran's nuclear issue "have not been exhausted" and there is, thus, no justification for the US to speak of war.

Diplomatic solutions have been tried repeatedly. Whenever it seemed that the Iranians were prepared to talk it turned out to be a ruse devised to gain time.

Israel holds little hope for the success of diplomatic initiatives to convince Iran to forgo its nuclear aspirations. Likewise, sanctions without the full participation of Russia and China won't stop the Iranian nuclear programme.
Stephan M. Walt wrote about " The silent war with Iran" in a piece he published in Foreign Policy.

“It appears that we have gone beyond just talking about military action to actually engaging in it, albeit at a low level. In addition to waging cyberwar via Stuxnet, the United States and/or Israel appear to be engaged in covert efforts to blow up Iranian facilities and murder Iranian scientists. Earlier this week, the CIA lost a reconnaissance drone over Iranian territory (whether Iran shot it down or not is disputed). And just as I'd feared, this situation has led smart and normally sober people like Abdrew Sullivan and Roger Cohen to endorse this shadowy campaign, on the grounds that it is preferable to all-out war. “

About 100 Israeli ambassadors were called home over the Christmas holiday. They assembled in Jerusalem for a closed seminar on matters related to their work. Earlier this week Mossad director Tamir Pardo spoke with them about the Iran dilemma. Some of the ambassadors were persuaded by journalists to reveal details of Pardo’s briefing.The intelligence chief said that Israel was using various means to foil Iran's nuclear programme and would continue to do so, but if Iran actually obtained nuclear weapons, it would not mean the destruction of the State of Israel. When pressed to clarify the term “existential threat “ he said Iran definitely poses a threat to Israel, but intimated that he doesn't think a nuclear Iran is an existential threat to Israel. Predictably Matthew Kroenig's article in Foreign Policy Magazine – "Time to Attack Iran - Why a strike is the least bad option," provoked a lot of criticism. Kroenig a former special adviser on Iran policy to the Obama administration argued that, "The opponents of military action fail to appreciate the true danger that a nuclear-armed Iran would pose to U.S. interests in the Middle East and beyond. And their grim forecasts assume that the cure would be worse than the disease -- that is, that the consequences of a U.S. assault on Iran would be as bad as or worse than those of Iran achieving its nuclear ambitions. But that is a faulty assumption. The truth is that a military strike intended to destroy Iran’s nuclear program, if managed carefully, could spare the region and the world a very real threat and dramatically improve the long-term national security of the United States.
In March 2009 the Center for International Studies (CSIS) published a feasibility study on a possible Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear development facilities. The report written by Abdullah Toukan and Anthony H. Cordesman stated that a military strike is possible. They reasoned that the optimum attack route would be along the Syrian-Turkish border then over a small portion of Iraq then into Iran, and back along the same route. "However," the authors concluded," the number of aircraft required, refueling along the way and getting to the targets without being detected or intercepted would be extremely difficult, would involve a high degree of risk without any assurance of success." A few months after the CSIS report Steve Simon presented a more optimistic outlook in a memorandum he wrote for the Council on Foreign Relations "Israel is capable of carrying out these attacks unilaterally. Its F-16 and F-15 aircraft, equipped with conformal fuel tanks and refueled with 707-based and KC-130 tankers toward the beginning and end of their flight profiles, have the range to reach the target set, deliver their payloads in the face of Iranian air defenses, and return to their bases. The munitions necessary to penetrate the targets are currently in Israel’s inventory in sufficient numbers; they include Bomb Live Unit (BLU)-109 and BLU 113 bombs that carry two thousand and five thousand pounds, respectively, of high-energy explosives. These GPS-guided weapons are extremely accurate and can be lofted from attacking aircraft fifteen kilometers from their target, thereby reducing the attackers’ need to fly through air defenses.

Israel also has a laser-guided version of these bombs that is more accurate than the GPS variant and could deploy a special-operations laser designation unit to illuminate aim points as it is reported to have done in the attack on the al-Kibar facility in Syria.

These munitions could be expected to damage the targets severely. Natanz is the only one of the three likely targets that is largely underground, sheltered by up to twenty-three meters of soil and concrete. BLU-type bombs, used in a “burrowing” mode, however, could penetrate deeply enough to fragment the inner surface of the ceiling structures above the highly fragile centrifuge arrays and even precipitate the collapse of the entire structure. Burrowing requires that attacking aircraft deliver their second and third bombs into the cavity created by the first. GPS-guided munitions are accurate enough to do this in a little less than half of the time. The probability of successful burrowing increases with the number of shots. The use of three bombs per aim point would confer better than a 70 percent probability of success. (Laser-guided munitions are more capable of a successful burrow on the first try.) The uranium conversion facility in Isfahan and reactor at Arak are not buried and could be heavily damaged, or completely destroyed, relatively easily. This would be possible even if Iran managed to down a third of the Israeli strike package, a feat that would far exceed historical ratios of bomber losses by any country in any previous war.” Israeli journalist Yaakov Katz who writes on military affairs for Ynet and Jane’s Defence Weekly says Israel is concerned that recently purchased laser-guided bombs may carry defective fuses. The Israeli MoD is seeking clarifications from the United States to ensure that the bunker buster bombs in its arsenal are not carrying defective fuses that could cause their premature detonation. Assuming that the defective fuse problem will be resolved we greet the new year wondering when will the balloon go up.

Blogger Julian Borger added a possibility hitherto not considered. Maybe it would be better if we didn’t have to consider it. – “Israeli diplomats now talk about a range of possible "red lines", such as the reconfiguring of Iranian centrifuges to make HEU, the installation of a large number of cascades of new-generation centrifuges or the advanced testing of non-nuclear, high-explosive components of a nuclear warhead. In other words, the Israeli red lines have been moved back. They suggest that the Jewish state would only strike if Iran tried to break out of international nuclear safeguards to build a warhead. But that step may well never be taken. Most observers of the Iranian programme believe that it is aimed at building the capacity to break out quickly if the need arose, rather than actually building a bomb. That could be the uneasy limbo Israel has to learn to live with, no matter how many bunker-busters it has in its armoury.”

Rereading these lines I realise they lack Christmas cheer. It really is depressing stuff. To counterbalance it I’ll conclude with a snippet about water. Israel is two-thirds arid and to avoid further depleting its fresh water sources it has become a world leader in desalination and wastewater recycling. A new desalination plant at Ashdod will join four other desalination facilities that will provide by the end of 2013, 85% of the country's household water. In the coming years we will be able to return more water to aquifers and even sell water to our neighbours.

Happy New Year

Beni 29^th of December, 2011.

Daffodils in December

Driving conditions were difficult on the Mt. Gilboa scenic route on Saturday.

The previous day a brief newspaper column advising, "Where to go and what to see” told about the daffodils and the cyclamens now flowering on the upper slopes of Mt. Gilboa. Predictably, droves of wildflowers enthusiasts set out to see for themselves. About halfway along the route traffic had come to a standstill. A few enterprising people left their cars and began directing vehicles, unravelling the Gordian knot at the centre of the traffic jam.

Before long we were on the move again and found the place where from time immemorial daffodils have flowered. On one wide slope we saw enough daffodils to inspire a latter-day Wordsworth.

Further to the east we saw clusters of cyclamens among the rocks. A few weeks from now anemones and poppies will start to flower. Later still, in early spring, the Gilboa Iris appears on the mountain’s eastern slopes.

The popular scenic route was once part of the patrol road guarding the border with the Jordanian held West Bank on the southern side of the mountain.

After the Six Day War it gradually became more accessible. A short distance to the south the new security fence has replaced it altogether.

Four hundred metres below the scenic route the valley road designated route 71 by the Israel public works authority, connects Beit Shean to Afula.

For much of its course route 71 was built over the Roman Caesarea-Scythopolis highway, a “via publica,” part of a network of 2,500 miles of roads that covered the Roman provinces on both sides of the River Jordan.

This section of road between Scythopolis ( Beit Shean) and Legio ( Megiddo) was built by the soldiers of the tenth Roman legion in the year 69. It is the earliest known Roman road in Israel.

Three years earlier the Great Revolt broke out and road building attained high priority to enable the rapid movement of Roman troops, siege machines and supplies.

Let’s take a two thousand year time warp to the road between Ashdod and Jerusalem. When Tanya Rosenblit a woman known only to her family and friends boarded an inter-city bus bound for Jerusalem on Friday she had no idea she would become the centre of a controversy.

The public bus she boarded normally carries a lot of ultra-Orthodox passengers and travels to an ultra-Orthodox neighbourhood in Jerusalem.

As a matter of custom imposed by the Orthodox passengers, women sit in the back of the bus. Tanya was the first passenger that morning on the bus and she took a seat behind the driver. As the bus took on more passengers along its route, an ultra-Orthodox man demanded that she should sit in the back of the bus as is the custom on that route. She refused and kept her seat even when the driver suggested she move to the back. Eventually he called the police. A policeman arrived assessed the situation and asked her if she would voluntarily move as requested. Cognisant of a ruling made by the Israeli Supreme Court earlier this year stating that involuntary separation between the sexes on public buses was against the law. Rosenblit refused to budge and after a thirty minute delay, the bus continued its journey to Jerusalem with the defiant "suffragette” sitting up front.

Later Ms. Rosenblit posted her account of the showdown on Facebook and the rest is history. Someone likened her to Rosa Parks, the news media people were standing in line to interview her. Even Prime Minister Netanyahu found time to meet her and praise her action. Just two weeks ago Secretary of State Clinton criticised segregation of the sexes on Israeli buses.

At this juncture it’s important to stress that most of the segregation is voluntary and takes place mainly in ultra-Orthodox neighbourhoods, but it is spreading.

It would be conveniently simple to divide Israel’s Jewish population into two sectors, one secular and the other religiously observant. Such a division is inaccurate and misleading.

In reality each sector has many variants. Some secular Jews adhere to traditional Jewish customs and practices. Not all religiously observant Jews can be classified as ultra-Orthodox. There are many shades and varieties of Orthodox Judaism. Many Orthodox Jews oppose segregation of women or anything, either custom or practice that is coercive in any way.

The problem is compounded by an unrelated matter involving a maverick Orthodox group that seeks to impose its political goals by force. Attempts to dismantle illegal Jewish outposts in Judah and Samaria (the West Bank) have been countered by a small vigilante group often termed “hilltop youth.” Their reprisals involve a “price tag” usually directed against the Palestinian population. Cutting down olive trees, burning cars, defacing and burning mosques are among the price tag methods they employ. However, recently there have been attacks on IDF soldiers and a forced entry into an IDF camp where the commander was attacked.

Following this wave of price tag reprisals a third of the IDF units stationed in the West Bank is deployed protecting Palestinian communities.

Till now the people who perpetrated these attacks have been dealt with leniently. Now they have crossed a red line and hopefully these hooligans will pay the penalty for their actions.

The secular majority of Israel’s population and the "modern" Orthodox sector are well integrated. However the extreme fringes, the ultra-Orthodox communities occasionally clash over contentious matters. Old bones uncovered on building sites, during road construction and archaeological excavations, have often triggered demonstrations. Municipalities cancel concerts with female artists or insist that they be fully clothed. These municipalities remove advertising of even modestly-clad women from streets and buses.

A commotion over Haredi (ultra-Orthodox) soldiers boycotting ceremonies where female soldiers sing evoked a firm disciplinary response from the IDF high command.

A recent population projection estimates that by 2059 the majority of Israelis will be ultra-Orthodox Jews (providing there will be a two state solution to the Conflict). Anyway by then we will find it consoling to know that most of Europe will probably be Muslim.

This week we are celebrating Hanukah and among the many children’s entertainment activities the Petah Tikva municipality saw fit to implement segregation in some of the performances of the Hanukah show it sponsors at the municipal performing arts centre. Boys and girls will be seated separately. The Haredi minority is growing rapidly. Ultra-Orthodox couples interpret the biblical injunction requiring us to be" fruitful and multiply," literally. A case in point is my cousin Alan and his wife. They underwent a religious "metamorphosis” about the time they arrived in Israel. They live in Kiriat Safer an Orthodox town hallway between Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. The town synonymous with Modiin, the place where the Hasmonean revolt started, is populated by Orthodox families. Alan and his wife have fourteen children and hosts of grandchildren. Alan's mother, my aunt, is hard put to remember all their names.

The date we celebrate Hanukah sometimes coincides with Christmas. This gives me an opportunity to add a few iconoclastic remarks.

Two years ago I wrote, "The Hanukah theme 'A great miracle happened there/here,' as we know refers to that miraculous cruse of oil which was normally enough to light a temple lamp for one day managed to last for eight days.

The story is a later Interpolation first mentioned in the Talmud. It seems the authors of the Books of Maccabees forgot to mention it. Contemporary and later writers found no reason to praise the miraculous cruse of oil."

The earliest mention of Hanukah as the festival of dedication is found in the New Testament, ^"And it was in Jerusalem at the feast of the dedication, and it was winter." John 10:22 .

"Hundreds of years after the rededication of the Temple, a brief mention in the Babylonian Talmud added a whole new dimension to Hanukah. Now it's too late to correct the narrative even if we were to seriously consider this 'mission impossible,' .we would have to forfeit all those fattening gastronomic delights and the 'Feast of Lights' would be a dimmer, poorer festival.

The heroes of Hanukah- the Maccabees, founders of the Hasmonean dynasty were short lived heroic figures. Their sons were a pack of cutthroat intriguers, who murdered their brothers and mothers in their relentless quest for power. Nevertheless, we continue to sing their praises and join sports and social clubs called Maccabeans.

Christmas trappings appear particularly incongruous with the Holy Land climate and landscape. Furthermore, the Christmas narrative has a few problems. In Nazareth there are two churches of the annunciation, each claiming to be the site where the "annunciation" took place

The nativity has its problems too. Let's skip the "immaculate conception" and consider the birth of Jesus. As opposed to the broader acceptance that his birthplace was Bethlehem, some say he was born in Nazareth. To further complicate matters there are two towns called Bethlehem. The Bethlehem of the Church of the Nativity is in Judea a few miles south of Jerusalem. The other Bethlehem is only a few miles from Nazareth. Being born there seems more logical and archeological excavations conducted there add weight to this claim. On the other hand the southern Bethlehem doesn’t appear to have been inhabited in or around the time Jesus was born. To further complicate matters Herod died too early to fit into the appropriate time-slot mentioned in the gospels. My advice is don’t put too fine a point on historical accuracy and allow facts to confuse you. So when the time comes to sing:

“O come, all ye faithful,
Joyful and triumphant!
O come ye, O come ye to Bethlehem;”

Be of good voice and forget the other Bethlehem.

British journalist Suzanne Moore has a column in the Guardian. Recently she recounted a bad experience she had in Israel. The title of the piece

“ The worst Christmas ever was when I took the kids to Bethlehem.” Their holiday started well in Eilat where her children were having a good time. The tale of the trip to Bethlehem and their stay in a very “no-frills” hotel in East Jerusalem was all her own doing. Moore wrote nothing bad about Israel. She merely expressed her disillusionment with Bethlehem and the whole experience.

I copied one of the comments posted to her article:

“As the early Christians co-opted the European pagan winter feasts to use up perishable stored food in order to assist conversion, and biblical scholars estimate Jesus birthday to be around September despite no contemporary record of his existence; why on earth would you take your kids to Bethlehem in December?”

Just the same I wish you a Happy Hanukah or a Merry Christmas, whichever is applicable.

Beni 22^nd of December, 2011.

Inventing ourselves

At breakfast yesterday, sometime between eating the salad and the tuna sandwich, I conducted a random survey. You probably recall that our breakfast table parliament is one of many similar informal forums found all over the country. We are a gathering of self-appointed know-alls ready to criticise everything and everybody.

Addressing two fellow "parliamentarians" who happen to have American born wives, I asked them how they viewed the lead-up to the 2012 Republican presidential primaries. It appears their affinity to the US didn't extend to that country's party politics. Both expressed apathy, almost complete disinterest. One of them grudgingly commented that Newt Gingrich favours Israel.

Bear in mind that we wake up every morning to a day punctuated by frequent newscasts. We don't have nice Canadians to the north and flamboyant Mexicans to the south. Instead we have Hezbollah, Hamas and other terrorist mutations as well as Ahmenijad over the horizon all trying to blow us to "kingdom come." Furthermore, our own political system is daunting enough, so forgive us for the oversight, our inability to grasp the niceties of the GOP.

Just the same Newt Gingrich certainly got our attention this week. In an interview on the Jewish TV channel Gingrich, a leading Republican presidential contender, dismissed the Palestinians as “an invented people”

Former House of Representatives speaker and self-described historian disqualified the Palestinians’ claim to nationhood status. Going one step further he described the peace process as “delusional.”

David Remnick, editor of New Yorker said there are “lots and lots of nationalities that are ‘invented’ – not least of which Americans and Israelis,” but Gingrich “knew what he was doing: signalling a cultural and political disdain for the Palestinians as a people."

Gingrich’s spokesman has his hands full explaining away some of his boss’ headline making statements. Spokesman/press secretary R.C. Hammond said Newt Gingrich was merely referring to the “decades-long history that has surrounded this issue,” and he had long supported the concept of Palestinian statehood.

Maybe this is a departure from a long-standing presidential consensus. “It is an example of Newt Gingrich talking outside of the tradition of even recent Republican presidents who he admired,” said Aaron David Miller “It is way out of the bipartisan consensus built up over 30 years among presidents and presidential candidates.”

Many Israelis view the contenders for the race to the Oval Room through a narrow angle lens. They are not too concerned about the US economy, Medicare or the national deficit, they simply ask, “Is he good for us?” However, the people in Israel who study and teach US party politics don't put too much stock in Newt Gingrich’s chances of going the full course, winning nomination and going on to trounce President Obama.

In a telephone interview with Haaretz reporter Chemi Shalev, David Remnick said, “Now, after being written off as an unpleasant relic of the mid-nineties, he can plausibly imagine himself behind a desk in the Oval Office. Can you? Go on. Imagine it.”…. “If Gingrich does win the nomination, the Republican party will have a real problem.” Further to that Remnick said, “The Republican Party establishment cannot stand Newt Gingrich. They didn’t even like Gingrich when he was Speaker of the House. They find him grandiose, self-regarding, incredibly arrogant and prone to making mistakes on a colossal and self-destructive level. They fear him,” He added "Barak Obama and his team at the White House are salivating at the chance of running against Newt Gingrich.” Remnick detected a link between Gingrich’s verbal bombshell and Joan Peters’ book “From Time Immemorial. The Origins of the Arab-Jewish Conflict Over Palestine.”

Remnick claims, ”Newt Gingrich and the Republicans in general are hoping to woo at least the more conservative sector of Jewish Americans—those who feel that Obama has been too hard on Benjamin Netanyahu. And, because Gingrich has a little learning and a darkly sophisticated memory for intellectual battle, he catered to his cause by employing the word “invented.” In this context, the word summons a 1984 bestseller that was once totemic on the Jewish right (and still is, for some): “From Time Immemorial: by Joan Peters.”

In retrospect Ms. Peters work has lost a lot of its former luster. She was not a historian, yet she put forward a purportedly scholarly construction based on the notion, as Golda Meir famously put it, that there is “no such thing as a Palestinian people." Remnick put it succinctly ” The book, which is an ideological tract disguised as history, made the demographic argument that most people who call themselves Palestinians have short roots in the territory and are Arabs who came from elsewhere. It suggests that the territory that is now Israel was all but ‘uninhabited’ before the Zionist movement began. It was a book that implicitly made the argument that Palestine was a tabula rasa waiting for its Jewish revival; or, as the old slogan had it: ‘a land without a people for a people without a land.’……..” Peters fails to use Arab sources and her work is full of distortions. Hers is a book with clear polemical purpose: to deny Palestinian Arabs an identity and any territorial claim; it makes the case that the Arabs in question should instead live in Jordan.”

In discussing the reactions of commentators to the book, liberal intellectual and New York Times op-ed contributor Anthony Lewis compared the reaction of American commentators to the reaction of Israeli ones: "Israelis have not gushed over the book as some Americans have. Perhaps that is because they know the reality of the Palestinians' existence, as great Zionists of the past knew. Perhaps it is because most understand the danger of trying to deny a people identity.” Professor Yehoshua Porath who specialises in the history of Palestinian nationalism says, “Neither historiography nor the Zionist cause itself gains anything from mythologizing history."

Daniel Pipes, founder and director of the Middle East Forum , said in an article he wrote for Commentary, "Despite its drawbacks. From Time Immemorial contains a wealth of information, which is well worth the effort to uncover." Pipes agrees with author Joan Peters, "Thus, the 'Palestinian problem' lacks firm grounding. Many of those who now consider themselves Palestinian refugees were either immigrants themselves before 1948 or the children of immigrants. This historical fact reduces their claim to the land of Israel; it also reinforces the point that the real problem in the Middle East has little to do with Palestinian-Arab rights."

Zalman Shoval, Israel's former ambassador to Washington, commenting on Gingrich's remarks and whether they were "factually true" or not, said they were politically irrelevant. "Whether Palestinians existed before or not is neither here nor there. Palestinian Arabs for the last 50 or 60 years have defined themselves as a separate national unity. Their aspiration to a national unity and self-governance is the fact we should be dealing with."

In the meantime the prospects for any kind of Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations appear more distant then a fading star.

Have a good weekend.

Beni 15^th of December, 2011.

The worm has turned.

While supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood's Freedom and Justice party celebrated the results of the first round of Egyptian parliamentary elections, Israeli observers amended their damage assessments. There's no doubt that the Islamic parties did better than expected. Admittedly, these results are from the first round of the Egyptian parliamentary elections only, but incomplete as they are, they do nevertheless, indicate a trend.

At this stage it's not clear whether the combined Islamist parties will try to form a coalition government, or if the Freedom and Justice party will seek a partner from among the liberal parties to counter the more radical Salafist Nour Party.

Since the parliament's final party makeup won't be known till January we can safely leave the Egyptians simmering on a back burner. As a last minute safety precaution a Yediot Ahronot staff journalist called Mounir Mahmoud, an Egyptian counterpart to ask his expert opinion. "Israel has no cause for concern – the peace treaty won't be revoked," said Mahmoud.

Calmed and reassured we can now switch to "Iran Mode."

Politicians love platforms and rarely miss an opportunity to exploit public and private occasions to make a statement with an open or imbedded message.

Prime Minister Netanyahu is no exception to that rule of thumb. Speaking at the annual Ben Gurion memorial ceremony held at Sde Boker he made a veiled reference to the Iranian threat. Invoking David Ben Gurion's leadership attributes Netanyahu drew a parallel to the present need, "to take tough, fateful decisions in the face of long odds and conventional wisdom."
Minister of Defence Ehud Barak repeats a similar message. However, not everyone in the cabinet favours the preemptive attack option. Ministers Benny Begin and Dan Meridor strongly oppose it. Former directors of the Mossad and military intelligence have also ruled out attacking Iranian installations. Ex-Mossad director Meir Dagan has repeatedly warned against the consequences of embarking on a reckless attack.

In an article published in The New Republic William Galston wrote about the annual forum of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy held recently. He said, “There is a gulf between Israel and the United States that could have momentous consequences in 2012. When American officials declare that all options are on the table, most Israelis do not believe them. They have concluded, rather, that when the crunch comes (and everyone thinks it will), the United States will shy away from military force and reconfigure its policy to live with a nuclear-armed Iran. This is an outcome that no Israeli government can tolerate. For Israel, the Palestinian issue is an identity question: What kind of country will Israel be and what kind of life will Israelis lead? But the Iranian issue is an existential question: Will Israel and Israelis survive?”

In a similar vein Professor Zaki Shalom, research fellow at the Institute for National Security Studies and the Ben-Gurion Research Institute at Ben-Gurion University, made some interesting observations about Israeli-American strategic coordination regarding an Israeli operation against Iran.

“It seems increasingly clear that the American administration has no real intention of using an overt military option to eliminate the Iranian nuclear program. The practical meaning is that the US prefers to accept a nuclear Iran rather than risk military action against it,” claims Professor Shalom.

I don’t know if he attended the Saban Forum. Anyway his remarks appear to be a response to Leon Panetta's speech.

“This reality may present Israel with a dilemma in the coming months, whether to accept the possibility of Iran attaining nuclear capability or try to foil this possibility by means of its own independent military action. should Israel try to clarify either explicitly or implicitly the possibility of receiving any sort of green light from the US for a military operation against Iran, it is almost certain that the answer will be an absolute "no," undertaking an operation with far-reaching strategic implications contrary to the explicit position of Israel’s main, perhaps only, ally. Under present circumstances it is hard to see how Israel could benefit from this. Israel may assume that should its military action against Iran fail and it finds itself caught up in a widespread regional conflict and facing a massive Iranian response that could severely threaten Israel, the administration would not abandon it as a punitive measure for having dared to act against American wishes for the following key reasons: a) the special relationship that over the years has been formed between the two nations; b) unequivocal declarations by very senior administration officials about the US commitment to Israel’s security; c) the fear on the part of the US that the lack of American support would force Israel to make use of “the strategic deterrent force” that Israel, so America assumes, possesses; d) the awareness that public opinion and Congress would apply massive pressure on the administration not to abandon Israel in its most difficult hour; e) the concern that many voters, including Jews and supporters of Israel, would turn their back on the President in the upcoming election.

The Israeli government must assume that in any case, the American administration would issue statements against any Israeli military operation in Iran. The real nature of the American response, however, would to a large extent be affected by the measure of the Israeli operation’s success. Should it be a “clean” strike, i.e., manage to disrupt the Iranian nuclear project severely, not entail heavy losses to either side, and not elicit an exceptional Iranian counter-action, then the US would likely pay lip service to the need to condemn Israel for having embarked on a military action before all political moves against Iran had been tried and found wanting. In practice, the United States would almost certainly be pleased that its job had been done by others. However, should the operation fail, Israel would suffer not only American and international condemnation, but also conceivably punitive steps.”

Veteran publicist- journalist and politician Uri Avneri expressed scepticism concerning the likelihood of an Israel strike against Iran. Not surprisingly Avneri chose the Saudi Arab News to comment on the Iran dilemma. “It is an old Israeli tactic to act as if we are going crazy. We shall not listen to the U.S. any more. We shall just bomb and bomb and bomb. Well, let’s be serious for a moment, Israel will not attack Iran. Period"

The Mishkoltz Rebbe, Shalom Berger says we can rest assured there is no need to attack Iran. He’s sure we can rely on Divine Intervention. “God will get rid of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.” That’s nice to know, however it won’t harm to have a backup plan.

Journalist Ilana Dayan's television interview with retired Mossad director Meir Dagan revealed how deeply concerned he is about the consequences of the preemptive attack option. However, when he was asked to comment on the series of "mishaps" that have occurred to personnel and installations at Iran’s nuclear and missile sites, Dagan refused to comment. When the interviewer persisted with the same question, rephrasing it and asking if all these incidents were sabotage or force majeure, Dagan smiled and mumbled something about attributing them to Divine Intervention.

Cyber warfare was obliquely included in Ilana Dayan’s list of mishaps.

For more than a year now there have been a number of reports about the damage caused by the Stuxnet worm. This particular malware and a precursor called the Conficker worm which first appeared in 2008 have caused damage and delays to Iran’s nuclear programme. John Bumgarner, chief technology officer for the US Cyber Consequences Unit, a non-profit group that studies the impact of cyber threat, claims, "Conficker was a door kicker. It built out an elaborate smoke screen around the whole world to mask the real operation, which was to deliver Stuxnet."

The Stuxnet worm appears to have been responsible for the malfunctioning of the centrifuges at Iran’s Natanz nuclear facility. Yossi Melman, who covers intelligence topics for Haaretz suspects an Israeli involvement in the development of the Stuxnet worm . Meir Dagan and other people in the intelligence community estimate that Iran won’t have a nuclear weapon before 2015—at least three years later than earlier estimates. “The worm has turned.”

Consequently it’s difficult to understand why Netanyahu and Barak appear to be rushing ahead with preparations for a preemptive attack on Iranian nuclear and missile facilities.

Have a good weekend

Beni 8^th of December, 2011.

Balagan

"Balagan" is one of the first words newcomers to Israel learn. A useful addition to a new immigrant’s limited vocabulary, it can mean anything from "a mess" to "utter chaos."

No grammarian will challenge any extended usage of the word, because it simply isn’t Hebrew. I’m hard put to explain where it came from and when it was first used in this country. Our forefathers managed well enough without it and even today when it has found a niche in colloquial Hebrew and its popularity is undeniable, I prefer not to use it.

It seems Yiddish speakers brought it with them generations ago. It was probably borrowed from Russian/ Ukrainian. Its migration can be traced through Persian and at least two Turkic languages. In all these tongues the word has different and additional nuances.

Some people dispense with complex, difficult to understand situations by using the concise and descriptive phrase "What a balagan!", often condensed to "Balagan!"

Viewing the scenes in Tahrir Square this week and reading the opinions of our modern Egyptologists. The temptation to dismiss it all using the one-size-fits-all word - "balagan," was almost too great to resist.

However, we can't afford to write it off that easily. We are concerned neighbours, too concerned to ignore the volatile situation in Egypt.

Journalists quick to coin catch phrases changed the seasons this week. Now they are calling the once hopeful “Arab Spring" a gloomy "Arab Winter."

John Bradley reporting for the Daily Mail said, "As protests grip Cairo and Islamic fundamentalists gain in confidence there and elsewhere across the region, the hopes of Western leaders for a new era of democracy across the Middle East have been exposed as hopelessly naïve. The uprisings have led only to more intolerance, authoritarianism and division.”

The Daily Telegraph's David Blair summed up the latest flare-up in the following words, “These are dangerous times. In Egypt the central paradox remains, that everything has changed except the country’s rulers. The dictator has gone, but the system that he built and the political allies whose careers he nurtured are still in place.”
Eighty six year old Moshe Arens is a busy senior citizen. An active Chairman of the International Board of Governors of the Ariel University Centre of Samaria and an op-ed columnist for Haaretz . Formerly, he was professor of aeronautics at the Haifa Technion, ambassador to the United States, twice Minister of Defence and once Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Drawing on his close acquaintance with Arab leaders and considerable knowledge of events occurring in this region, he wrote in Haaretz. “The Islamists are going to inherit the mantle of the dictators. Zine El Abidine Ben Ali in Tunisia, Hosni Mubarak in Egypt and Muammar Gaddafi in Libya were corrupt dictators, but they suppressed the Islamic movements in their respective countries and were all thus on the side of the seculars in their own perverse way. The same holds true for Syria's Bashar Assad. The toppling of these Arab dictators was inevitable. Unfortunately what will follow is just as inevitable. It looks like it is going to be long Arab Winter.”

Ben Macintyre writing for The Times disagrees, "There was nothing inevitable about the Arab Spring .These tumultuous events tend to be seen as the ineluctable flood of history flowing in one direction. But in reality, all mass movements are made up of countless individuals making private decisions based on morality, ideology, courage, as well as fear and self-interest.

Millions of people across the Arab world were inspired, not by Islamic fervour or charismatic leaders, but by one another. Nothing is inevitable about this process, let alone its success. "·

In an article published in the Washington Institute's PolicyWatch Robert Satloff also wonders if developments in Egypt were really unavoidable.

"It is important to recall that the current situation was not inevitable. For example, it remains a mystery as to why a risk-averse Egyptian military would insist that risky legislative elections precede a less-risky presidential election. More fundamentally, even accounting for the serial bungling of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF), there were many points during the past eight months at which the military could have achieved its prime objective -- defining a protected space for itself in a new, democratic Egypt -- without triggering an all-out backlash. "

Speculating a little, Satloff says, "Yet the most likely outcome of holding legislative elections in the current environment is to increase the plurality that Islamist factions -- the Muslim Brotherhood's Freedom and Justice Party and the even more extreme Salafist parties -- are expected to receive. Some in Washington may view this outcome as appropriate (i.e., representing the 'authentic' voice of the Egyptian people) and even advantageous to U.S. interests (i.e., the Islamists in question offer an alternative to the bin Ladenist violent model), but they are wrong. Egypt's Islamists may be taking an evolutionary approach to political change, but it is the product of a pragmatic assessment of what circumstances permit, not some ideological opposition to a radical Islamization of politics, culture, society, or foreign policy"

Zvi Bar'el Middle East affairs analyst related to this pragmatism in an article published in Haaretz

"Even if all of Egypt's Islamist factions were to join forces, the Muslim Brotherhood will need to find coalition partners, and compromise on Islamist ideology for the sake of political strength." Bar'el assumes that the combined Islamic parties will win between 30 to 40 percent of the vote.

When it is finally formed the coalition government will have to face a formidable task, "With the Egyptian treasury set to empty, inflation already at 8 percent, millions of unemployed Egyptians threatening to go out into the streets after the elections, and foreign direct investment at almost non-existent levels, their organisational ability, and their talent for amassing international funds will face a decisive test." Says Bar'el

Reviewing "Egypt’s turmoil" The Economist concluded "The generals must go. Egypt, above all, must not fail. It is the biggest Arab prize by virtue of history, geography and population, now more than 85 million strong. It is the seat of the rejuvenated 22-country Arab League. It should be the Arabs’ breadbasket and economic motor. It was the first Arab country to make peace with Israel and has been America’s most stalwart Arab ally. If Egypt’s surge of people power is reversed, the whole of the Arab world might sink back into authoritarianism. If it is sustained, the desire for change might prove irresistible elsewhere."

In a blistering critique the paper goes on to list the failings of Egypt's interim military government. It claims the generals have made a hash of just about everything. They have stymied every effort towards economic reform, deterred investors and let the country slide more deeply into penury and debt. "They have entirely failed to reflect the spirit of democratic change," says The Economist. "The interim government has been overhasty and undemocratic in amending the constitution and has tried to slip additional pre-emptive clauses into the constitution that would give the armed forces an entirely unwarranted position of political power, protecting their economic privileges and keeping the defence budget secret. It was this last mistake that prompted Egypt’s democrats in the past week to take again to the streets across the country."

The concluding remarks of the Economist's lead article leave room for a little cautious optimism. "The choice is not between soldiers and mullahs. Egyptians need not be caught in a vice between bloody-minded anti-democratic generals on the one hand and bogus-democratic Israel-hating Islamists on the other. There is a good chance that, as in Tunisia, Islamists will play by democratic rules, and influence but not dominate the polity. Anyway, even if the revolution could be suppressed, the lesson from the stultifying rule of Mr Mubarak and his fellow autocrats is that blocking the Brothers is a surer recipe for trouble than letting them into government.

Democracy was never going to arrive swiftly, and perfectly formed, in the Arab world. Pursuing it is a risk; but it is one that Egypt, and its neighbours, must take."

In an era when almost everything is tagged and bar-coded a lot of people have been cost-labelling and making damage assessments.

Associated Press’ correspondent viewed Tahrir Square and counted the cost. "Political differences aside, what has become clear is that the latest clamour against Egypt’s military rulers is pummelling the country’s already flailing economy at a crucial time when many hoped winter tourism would pick up. A financial crisis is looming, say analysts."

“We’re not far off,” said Neil Shearing, chief emerging markets economist with Capital Economics. “There’s enough money left in the coffers to get through the year, but not much beyond that. Crunch time is two to three months away.

It took 30 years to engineer the revolution that ousted former President Hosni Mubarak in February. But it only took months to push the 7 percent annual growth rate of recent years to an anaemic forecast of only about 1 percent this year." Says Shearing and concludes, "As of October, the country’s net foreign reserves had fallen to $22 billion from $36 billion at the end of 2010. At least part of that money has gone to supporting the Egyptian pound, which economists worry could face severe depreciation if officials don’t shore up the country’s finances."

Already nearly half the population lives near or below the poverty line set by the World Bank of $2 a day.

The economy depends heavily on agriculture, tourism and cash remittances from Egyptians working abroad, mainly in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf countries.

However, rapid population growth and the limited amount of arable land is straining the country's resources and economy. Egypt's main exports are petroleum, petroleum products and cotton. The World Bank report for 2009 listed Egypt's gross national income per capita as US $2,070 .

By comparison the same World Bank report listed Israel’s GNI per capita as US $25,740.

It's no secret that both Israel and the US were better positioned in the days before the Arab Spring. However, now we have to adjust to the new emerging reality of regime change and the uncertainty of the outcome of that change.

The need to adjust was mentioned in an editorial in Haaretz this week.

“It would be deceptive to say the Muslim Brotherhood or Islam in general were responsible for the change in attitude toward Israel. Israel must recognise that the region's political and social reality is changing. It would do well to consider how to adjust its policy to the change instead of lamenting the change itself.”

In the article he wrote for PolicyWatch Robert Satloff traces changes in relations between Washington and Cairo. He wrote, "Egypt's parliamentary elections, which begin today, may yet produce an outcome that advances U.S. interests, but it would only be due to a stroke of good fortune."

Satloff claims the Obama administration's once-powerful message to Egypt about strategic direction, democratic institutions, and economic growth has lost its voice. Nevertheless, he believes it's possible to salvage something. Writing as the polls opened in Egypt he said , "It’s still not too late to engage Egyptians on the consequences of their vote."

However, Eric Trager, another Washington Institute fellow reporting from Cairo for The New Republic described how the Moslem Brotherhood’s well organised Freedom and Justice Party will probably win more seats than any other party.

Trager visited a few polling stations on Election Day and in many places he witnessed scenes of typical Levantine chaos.
"Ballots arrived late at approximately 900 polling stations and, in a few cases, angry voters held judicial monitors hostage after their ballots failed to arrive. Meanwhile, candidates nationwide scrambled to correct their campaign literature when they found that their numerical ballot placements did not match the numberings that had been announced prior to the election. In many places, lines were incredibly long -- including a seven-hour wait for women voters in the relatively wealthy, northern Cairo neighbourhood of Heliopolis.

But despite the day's various frustrations and confusions, one thing seemed quite clear at every polling place that I visited: The Muslim Brotherhood's Freedom and Justice Party is poised for victory."

Trager spoke to Brotherhood activists who acknowledged that Salafist parties could cut into their Islamist vote-share. "People fear that those with Islamic ideology are competing with one another," they said.

Noting how visible the thousands of Brotherhood volunteers were at every polling station he visited, Tager remarked, "What makes the Brotherhood's showing so remarkable is how consistent it is: they are, simply put, everywhere. And given that they are pushing an Islamist message that holds visceral appeal for the religious Muslim public of Egypt, they may have devised a formula for victory."

Both the voters and the parties contesting the parliamentary elections face a daunting challenge, namely Egypt's absurdly confusing balloting system. Voters cast one ballot for their preferred party, which elects a slate of party-affiliated candidates that will comprise two-thirds of the next parliament; and another ballot on which they choose two individual candidates -- one professional and one worker -- who will comprise one-third of the parliament. To complicate matters further, there might be as many as fifty parties on a given party-list ballot, and dozens of names on the individual-candidacy ballot. For the quarter of Egyptians who are illiterate, there is yet another complication: each candidate and party is assigned a unique symbol, though some are easy to confuse. Tager explains how the Brotherhood managed to overcome some of these obstacles. "They set up kiosks, adjacent to the polling stations where their volunteers advised confused voters where to go to, how to vote and who to vote for."

The results of the first round of voting in the elections indicate that the Muslim Brotherhood's Freedom and Justice Party has managed to win more seats than the observers predicted but not enough to govern on its own. It remains to be seen what kind of coalition government it will form.

Have a good weekend

Beni 1st of December, 2011.