And the walls came tumbling down

Elisabeth Bumiller’s article in the New York Times outlining the way Israel plans to attack Iran's nuclear facilities, was summarily dismissed by military affairs analyst Ehud Ya’ari He intimated that Ms Bumiller’s piece was little more than amateur dabbling in a field she is unfamiliar with. Under the heading “Iran Raid Seen as a Huge Task for Israeli Jets” Bumiller NYT’s national affairs correspondent described the logistic difficulties involved in such an attack. She based her article on interviews with a retired US air force general, a former Pentagon official and a former CIA director. All assume that Israel will try to destroy the Iranian targets by deploying its F15 and F16 fighter bombers in a massive assault on the Iranian nuclear sites. This simplistic frontal attack scenario ignores all other possibilities. Perhaps the only redeeming part of the article was a paragraph admitting that there is a dearth of information regarding the IDF’s capabilities and operative plans. “Still, a top defense official cautioned in an interview last week that ‘we don’t have perfect visibility’ into Israel’s arsenal, let alone its military calculations. His views were echoed by Anthony H. Cordesman, an influential military analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. ‘There are a lot of unknowns, there are a lot of potential risks, but Israel may know that those risks aren’t that serious,’ he said.” Dr. Ronen Bergman, a highly respected military affairs journalist and author has improved that visibility. In a lead article he wrote for Yediot Ahronot's weekend magazine dedicated to the Jericho project Bergman broke a major taboo. Admittedly, he was careful to qualify just about every claim he made with the standard censorship evading phrase "according to foreign/western sources," but the mere mention of the code name “Jericho” was a major departure from accepted news media etiquette. Of course anyone can surf Wikipedia references relating to Israel’s intercontinental ballistic missiles and discover that for the past fifty years Israel in conjunction with three other nations has designed and developed a series of ballistic missiles. Nevertheless, a shroud of mystery surrounds the Jericho project. Hitherto the only reference to it was found in external sources. Israel has never officially confirmed or denied its existence. A vapour trail seen careering across the sky south of Tel Aviv early one morning in November last year aroused no special interest. After all, the nearby Palmahim air force base is used for test launching of rocket defence systems. A brief statement released by an IDF spokesman the same day mentioned the testing of a new missile engine but provided no technical details. Later references to the event in the Israeli news media quoted foreign news sources without identifying the particular "projectile." Unfettered by Israeli security censorship a column in the Irish Times described how Israel had conducted a successful launch of the Jericho-3 intercontinental ballistic missile. The report in the Irish Times wasn't groundbreaking news. In the past, both foreign news media and defence industries publications have mentioned the Jericho missile project and the specific Jericho-3 model too. However, Ronen Bergman’s follow-through tracing the development of the Jericho missile from its very inception in the early 1960s till the recent test launching, revealed hitherto unknown details and hinted that Israel has more than one operative plan for dealing with the Iranian nuclear threat. In his article Bergman relates to an early cooperation with France in the 1960s that produced the first prototype missile dubbed Jericho 1. This early version had a range of 500km and was capable of carrying a 750kg warhead. This joint venture came to an end after the Six Day War when France imposed an embargo on arms sales to Israel. Notwithstanding this setback development work continued with the help of another partner. In his timeline of the Jericho saga Bergman introduced an unprecedented "parading" of the missiles in 1973 during the Yom Kippur War. He quotes the very reliable Jane's Defence Weekly and claims that the much needed US arms airlift was impeded by an intentionally slow implementation. He says the missiles were taken from their hangers/silos and given an "airing" for the sake of the US reconnaissance satellites. The Americans understood the message and the arms deliveries continued. At a later stage in the war, according to the same source, the Russians stationed support forces in the Nile Delta region. A repeat performance of the open air show took place, this time for the sake of Russian reconnaissance satellites. The message Israel wanted to convey was, "We have gone crazy, get the hell out of here." On that occasion too the gambit worked. The Russians packed up and left.

After 1973 Israel explored other possibilities for further research and development in its missile programme and approached two potential partners, each separately, namely Iran and South Africa. At that time South Africa was ruled by a white majority government pursuing an Apartheid policy so Israel preferred dealing with Iran. As we recall Iran was still under the rule of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. It has been argued that Israel sought a joint venture based on the reasoning that it could offer a foreign partner its acquired expertise and experience in the field of missile technology and the prospective partner would provide the money, resources and a lot of empty space where the products could be tested without nosey neighbours knowing what it was doing. The negotiations led to a joint venture with Iran aimed at producing a two-stage missile capable of reaching targets 1,700 km away. A prototype dubbed the Jericho-2 was produced and tested A more advanced version, the Jericho-3 designed to have a range of 4,500 km was planned for development at a later stage. Details of the joint venture were discovered in documents found in the U.S embassy when it was seized following the return of the Ayatollah Sayyed Ruhollah Musavi Khomeini to Iran after the fall of the Shah.

At the end of 1978 when demonstrations in support of Khomeini spread throughout Iran the Israelis saw the writing on the wall and decided to pack up and go home.

In some ways the South African option was more convenient than the joint venture with Iran. There was no cause to suspect that technical details would be passed on to one of Israel’s enemies. Details of the joint initiative appeared in a number of publications recently, some of them in limited editions. It’s interesting to speculate why this information is coming to light now and not immediately after the collapse of the Apartheid regime in South Africa.

Ronen Bergman says that when the Israel – South African joint venture ended shortly before the collapse of the South African apartheid government, the Israelis requested that all documents relating to the two nation cooperation be destroyed. It appears that copies of these documents were filed in the government archives and only recently were they made available to researchers. Two years ago Sasha Polakow-Suransky senior editor at Foreign Affairs published a book titled “The Unspoken Alliance “ describing Israel’s relationship with Apartheid South Africa. The author’s source material was gleaned mainly from the South African archives.

At this juncture I want to pause and consider some of the moral ramifications of the links Israel forged with two unsavoury regimes - Mohammad Pahlavi’s autocratic government and the much despised South African Apartheid government. For that matter why did Israel invest large sums of money and enormous efforts in its ballistic missile venture? Well, existential dangers concerned us just as much in the 1960s as they do now. Israel had to prepare for every contingency. If that meant making a Faustian bargain, where the devil is Pahlevi's Iran or Apartheid South Africa, our leaders at the time thought it was prudent to do so because it was the only choice they had. Today, Israel bashers like the Guardian and to a lesser extent Sasha Polakow-Suransky and others are exploiting yellowing pages from archived minutes to malign Israel. In a review of Polakow-Suransky's book The London Review of Books related to the Israel-South African weapons cooperation. "When it comes to choosing our friends,' the president of the Israeli-South Africa Chamber of Commerce said in 1983', 'we haven’t got too many friends we can afford to antagonise. Pariahs can’t be choosers.' That seems to have been the fundamental basis of the relationship between them." Defence analysts and layman alike have questioned the wisdom of the open debate being conducted in the Israeli news media and the halls of government regarding the need for an Israeli preemptive attack on Iran’s nuclear installations. It appears the Iranian leadership finds it very disconcerting. In fact Mohammad Hejazi the deputy head of the Islamic Republic's armed forces has threatened to preempt our preemptive strike, namely beating us to the punch. "Our strategy now is that if we feel our enemies want to endanger Iran's national interests, and want to decide to do that, we will act without waiting for their actions," he said on Tuesday. These threats and counter-threats have created an atmosphere of brinkmanship. The Israeli logic seems to be that the perceived existential danger is real. We are preparing for every contingency. If as a result of our sabre rattling the US and the EU impose more stringent sanctions on Iran, namely, really crippling sanctions, then so be it. The Iranian threat to preempt our preemptive attack threat indicates that they are really concerned.

I don't know why our defence establishment chose the name Jericho for its ballistic missile programme. Jericho is a very unimpressive aggregation of dusty Palestinian residential neighbourhoods adjacent to an old Ottoman administrative centre, The nearby archaeological site is the Jericho of old. It is the lowest permanently inhabited site on earth. It is also believed to be the oldest continuously inhabited city in the world.

The town is best remembered for the biblical account of how Joshua and his original "big band" brought the walls down with their trumpet playing. We tend to overlook the espionage provided by Rahab a local harlot. Another example of doing "whatever it takes" to achieve the end.

Have a good weekend.

Beni 23^rd of February, 2012

Krak des Chevaliers

Our Friday morning trip was an unpretentious local outing organised by the kibbutz. The itinerary included two main points of interest; the Gazelle Heights just north of Ein Harod and the Harod Stream in the Jezreel and Beit Shean valleys.

We had to keep ahead of the approaching rain, so we set out first along the Gazelle Heights road. At its eastern extremity the road connects with the main thoroughfares leading to Beit Shean. At that junction we followed the Harod Stream part of the way to its source. The stream carries the waters from Gideon's Spring and flows in an easterly direction to the Beit Shean Valley where it feeds the Jordan River.

During the Ottoman period over thirty water-powered flour mills were built on the banks of the stream. Sections of the stone conduits and some of the mill houses are still visible.

Driving across the Gazelle Heights we saw groups of gazelles scampering away as we approached. Sharing the heights with jackals, hyenas and a few wolves makes them skittish and difficult to approach. . The flat plateau-like area that extends from Ein Harod to the north is no more than 200-250 metres above sea level. A number of ravines intersect it from east to west. We stopped to observe the landscape at a point not far from one of the ravines.

Click on this hyperlink to see the video of our trip:

You can watch it here:
http://vimeo.com/36610109

Tu Bishvat 2012 http://vimeo.com/36610109 Involves Beni Kaye.

Beyond it the Issachar Heights stretch to a high point on the horizon marked by a clump of trees and the ruins of a Crusader fortress. Variously called "Star of the Jordan," “Star of the Winds” and “Belvoir," the fortress was built by the Knights Hospitallers in the twelfth century.

After defeating the Crusader army at the Battle of the Horns of Hittin, Saladin laid siege to Belvoir. For eighteen months the warrior monks fought off the Muslim army before negotiating terms of surrender in January 1189.

The moat, the massive ramparts, towers and keep impart a sense of impregnability common to mediaeval fortresses. Of all the fortresses the Crusaders built Krak de l'Ospital, or as it was called later Krak des Chevaliers, is by far the most formidable. A few months before he besieged Belvoir Saladin led an army to attack Krak des Chevaliers, but on seeing the fortress he decided it was too well defended and turned back.

Krak des Chevaliers

Krak des Chevaliers is situated 65 km west of Homs and 75 km south-east of Tartus. Lately Homs has been one of the targets of Assad's ruthless crackdown on opposition groups. Syrian army tanks are currently deployed in the Homs municipal area bombarding opposition forces and civilians alike.

Russia maintains a naval base at Tartus on the Syrian coast. The facility is being renovated to serve as a foothold for a permanent Russian naval presence in the Mediterranean. Two weeks ago I wrote "Moscow is clearly interested in the survival of Assad's regime because Syria is a major importer of Russia's arms. Syria buys ten percent of Russia's annual arms exports amounting to $1 billion. Mindful that Russian arms manufacturers lost close to $4 billion in defence contracts in Libya following the collapse of Muammar Gaddafi's government, Moscow is keen to prevent the same thing happening in Syria." Bearing this in mind the naval base at Tartus is an added reason for Russia's intransigent defence of Assad's regime. In effect Tartus is Russia's only foothold in the Middle East.

Military historians maintain that fortresses have evolved in line with weapons technology, an axiom borne out by the chain of fortresses built by the Crusaders.

They claim the principals of attack and defence have remained unchanged. Many modern military principles are based on time-tested traditional techniques.

The relatively short history of tank warfare is another good example. With the advent of anti-tank mines, new anti-mine techniques were developed to clear minefields. R.P.Gs and smart armour piercing anti-tank shells and rockets almost made tanks obsolete. In the heyday of asymmetric warfare small guerilla forces armed with hand-carried anti-tank rockets were able to immobilise heavily armed tank formations. At a time when many military analysts were writing eulogises for the demise of the MBT (main battle tank) the IDF improved the armour on its Merkava tanks and developed the ultimate tank and armed personnel carrier defence mechanism, namely the ASPRO-A (Trophy) active protection system This sophisticated add-on to the tank's defence array rapidly detects and tracks any anti-tank threat, classifies it, estimates the optimal intercept point in space and finally intercepts and destroys the threat.
The threat detection and warning subsystem consists of several sensors, including search radar located around the protected vehicle providing a full hemispherical coverage. The intercept and destroy mechanism is activated only if the detected threat is about to hit the vehicle.. A similar real threat detection and destroy principle was incorporated in Israel's "Iron Dome" defence system and it will be an integral element in the "Magic Wand" and "Arrow" anti-rocket and missile defence systems. The latter are almost ready for deployment; however these sophisticated systems are expensive and budgetary cuts threaten to delay their acquisition.

IDF Deputy Chief of Staff Major-General Yair Naveh warned that the pending budget cuts will harm the military's satellite deployment and have forced the IDF to suspend the purchase of two additional Iron Dome batteries, as well as several acquisitions pertaining to the Arrow and Magic Wand systems.

The current budgetary cuts are linked to the world-wide recession and local constraints resulting from last summer's social welfare protests. The protests led the government to commission the Trajtenburg Committee to investigate the complaints made by the protestors. The committee's recommendations necessitated budgetary cuts to pay for pre-school education and other social welfare benefits. The principle of taking from Peter to pay Paul is an alternative or a supplement to additional taxation. The ministry of finance regards the relatively large defence budget as a convenient kitty it can dip into to pay all the needy underprivileged sectors. The SIPR (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute) ranked Israel in 18^th place in its database of national defence spending last year. We spent more than $13 billion on warding off our enemies. That sum is equivalent to 6.3% of our per capita GDP.

Minister of Finance Dr.Yuval Steinitz has never accepted the time-tested tradition of letting the defence establishment plan its own budget.. In his dealings with the ministry of defence he insists on budgetary transparency. Understandably, he demands that all defence expenditure be clearly itemised. Minister of Defence Ehud Barak claims there's no lack of transparency. However, he knows that if he gives the ministry of finance a full and complete breakdown of defence expenditure Dr. Steinitz will be able to pinpoint vulnerable items such as the IDF's generous pension scheme. So Barak and the IDF big brass are threatening layoffs in the defence industries and acquisition cutbacks. Barak hopes the prime minister will intervene on his behalf, however so far Netanyahu has sided with Steinitz. If you sense a distinct "déjà vu" regarding the battle between the two ministries your instincts are right. Following the Second Lebanon War the government appointed David Brodet a former Director-General of the Ministry of Finance to conduct a comprehensive study of the functioning of the IDF, its structure and budget. People selected to head government appointed committees and commissions of inquiry nearly always attain immortality. Thus the Brodet Commission will live on long after David Brodet and all the merry band of government ministers have departed this world. The commission’s report was particularly harsh in criticising the way in which the IDF and the defence ministry handled military and budgetary business. Furthermore it accused the IDF of manipulating data presented to the government in order to increase its budget. Perhaps the most invasive recommendation made by the Brodet Commission was a proposal to introduce external control over the defence budget. It suggested that the National Security Council be given a central role in that respect on behalf of the prime minister. Of course it takes time to implement these recommendations. So far nothing has changed.

In an article on the current situation in Syria published in the Washington Institute’s PolicyWatch Jeffrey White said, "Ultimately, without armed intervention, substantial military assistance to the FSA, or both, the best that can be hoped for is a bloody and protracted war of attrition with an uncertain outcome." In referring to the difficulties Assad is facing he noted that, "Although the regime has a large number of forces -- up to several hundred thousand military and security personnel, depending on how they are counted -- it cannot conduct large-scale multi-brigade/divisional offensives in all areas of unrest simultaneously. In areas where the FSA is embedded, Assad must use significant forces combining armor, infantry, and artillery." The Christian Science Monitor correspondent Dan Murphy believes international military action against Bashar al-Assad's regime remains unlikely. Quoting Aram Nerguizian, a military analyst with the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington and author of a December report on the risks of military intervention in Syria, Murphy says, "Anything that would involve direct Western intervention would be deeply destabilizing at the regional level…. With diplomacy stalled and a Libya-style intervention out of the question, Western and Arab officials are weighing military support for the rebel Free Syrian Army, a catch-all for Syrian army defectors, Islamist activists, and others who have taken up arms against Assad." A report in the Economist last week pointed out that the fragmentation of the opposition groups and their inability to fight under one flag will likely make their struggle protracted and bloody. "The fissures within Syrian society have stymied efforts to organise opposition to the regime." Quoting Nerguizian again Murphy highlighted another danger," Given the sectarian nature of Syria's politics, there's a risk that today's freedom fighters could become tomorrow's oppressors."

Roxanne Horesh reporting for AL JAZEERA emphasised the low profile Israel has maintained regarding the Syrian opposition. She called it a "strategy of silence". Horesh pointed out that, "Given Syria’s perceived geographic vulnerability, and limited military resources, the chances of Assad leading a successful military campaign against Israel are relatively low. The Israel-Syria border has remained rather quiet since 1973." Relating to what she termed as Israel's obsession with containing Iran’s nuclear ambitions and the speculation regarding an Israeli preemptive attack on Iranian nuclear facilities , she said that, "Many Israeli officials and analysts have recommended taking a stronger position in support of the Syrian opposition. They view the prospective collapse of the house of Assad through the prism of Israel’s realpolitik, as a way to break the so-called Tehran-Damascus axis and as a means of weakening Hamas…"The current climate is an opportunity to redraw the map of the region, isolating Iran and bringing Syria into its orbit."

On a lighter side Jewish Chronicle correspondent Jennifer Lipman reported that Israeli fans of Madonna have appealed to Prime Minister Netanyahu to postpone action against Iran until after her Tel Aviv concert. Madonna is scheduled to open her world tour with a performance in Tel Aviv at the end of May. The prime minister's office declined to comment on the request.

Assad has supporters in Israel too. Hundreds of Druze gathered on Tuesday at Majdal Shams in the Golan Heights protesting in support of Syrian President Bashar Assad. The demonstration was held on the thirtieth anniversary of the Israeli annexation of the Golan Heights. The 20,000 strong Druze community in the Golan Heights is in an unenviable predicament. Materially they are better off under Israeli rule. However, they have strong ties with family and friends in Syria. Many of them fear that one day Israel will return the Golan Heights to Syria. Druze "collaborators" will then suffer the heavy hand of Syrian retribution. Demonstrators held portraits of the Syrian president, calling on him to continue to "his struggle against the Syrian opposition," Israeli police and security forces turned a blind eye to the demonstrations.

Have a good weekend.

Beni 16^th of February, 2012.

Getting out of the woods

Early Saturday morning, according to plan and aided by fair weather we drove north to visit the Biriya forest. The forest covers about 5,000 acres of hill country north of Tzfat. Along the scenic road that winds through the forest we stopped at vantage points to enjoy the view. The Golan Heights and the snow-capped Mt. Hermon formed a backdrop for the Hula valley below us. Visibility was good, good enough to identify villages across the border in southern Lebanon. However, knowing that beyond the horizon,

The Naburiya synagogue

45 km to the north, as the crow flies, people in Syria were dying, our idyllic landscape seemed completely out of context. A few kilometers further on a sign showed the way along a side road to the tomb of Rabbi Jonathan ben Uziel. Many people say prayers recited by "singles" at his tomb are sure to bring them a life partner and other benefits. According to some sources Rabbi Uziel was so absorbed in Torah study that he himself found no time to find a wife. People unfamiliar with these traditions will probably find it strange that the tomb of an unmarried rabbi serves as a more potent intercessor than any matchmaking website. Rest assured, this is simply a case of reverse logic. Supplications to a long dead bachelor rabbi are said to bring the ideal husband or wife, a happy marriage and successful children. Let me quote a latter day case in point, namely the fairly recent "beatification" of Olga Hankin. Olga, the wife of Joshua Hankin, the man responsible for most of the major land purchases made by the World Zionist Organisation in Ottoman Palestine, was a midwife, but by an ironic twist of fate or physiology she was childless. A native of Minsk, Olga had a traditional Jewish upbringing, but by all accounts wasn't observantly religious. Notwithstanding her lack of piety Olga Hankin's grave on the slopes of Mt. Gilboa attracts many infertile religious women seeking the childless midwife's aid. During the Second Lebanon War 250 rockets fired by Hezbollah landed in the Biriya forest and caused fires that gutted more than ten percent of the trees. Today after considerable reclamation and intensive afforestation the damage is hardly discernible. Further on we stopped by the ruins of a lesser known ancient synagogue. The synagogue was built by the residents of Naburiya an ancient Jewish farming community. There is evidence that a village by that name existed here during the First and Second Temple periods. Later still in the third century the village synagogue was renovated and extended, but a hundred years later it was destroyed by an earthquake. Later on Naburiya was resettled and the synagogue was rebuilt in 564 CE. Coins found in the synagogue's charity box indicate that the site was deserted in 640 CE at the time of the Muslim conquest. Not far to the north of Naburiya the Jews of Merot fared better. Merot too had a synagogue that was destroyed and rebuilt. Adjacent to the synagogue was a small Beit Midrash (study centre). As late as the twelfth century Jews lived in Merot, however this small community and others like it found themselves situated close to the seam line demarcating the Crusader kingdom from its Muslim neighbours. Their existence was too precarious and one by one they were deserted. Only the stones remained waiting for new settlers and the planting of the Biriya forest. Since nothing in Israel stands alone, but is inextricably tied to events occurring elsewhere in the region, there is every reason to suppose that the Biriya forest is somehow linked to the Iran, Syria and Lebanon axis. Just follow the ball of string and we will get there. Jewish town dwellers and villagers; in the Holy Land and elsewhere, in the distant past, during mediaeval times and even recently, often lived in fear of imminent attack. Crusader armies, Mongol invaders as well as their non-Jewish neighbours often turned on them, killing and maiming them and destroying their communities. In May 1948 a turning point in our history occurred. We were attacked again but then and ever since we have been able to fight back. Furthermore, we can take the initiative and attack preemptively. "Will Israel Attack Iran?", asked Israeli military analyst Dr. Ronen Bergman in this week's New York Times Magazine following through with his assessment that Israel will indeed strike Iran in 2012. "War with Iran is coming" declared economist Sever Plocker in an op-ed he wrote for Yediot Ahronot on Wednesday. He is sure Israel with Western and Arab support will bomb Iran’s nuke sites earlier than predicted. "Israel and Iran are on an almost certain collision course," said Plocker. The same paper reported that embassies in Israel are also readying themselves for the strike on Iran. It said foreign legations in Israel are preparing contingencies in case of missile attacks. They fear thousands of dual-citizenship Israelis will seek evacuation. That piece of news coming after Washington Post columnist David Ignatius claimed that, “US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta believes there is a strong likelihood that Israel will strike Iran in April, May or June — before Iran enters what Israelis described as a ‘zone of immunity’ to commence building a nuclear bomb,” raised my anxiety level a couple of notches. Just the same, recalling the tranquil view from that vantage point in the Biriya forest I decided not to heed the panic mongers and stay here instead. The only place I know that provides an adrenaline boost every day. Nevertheless, if the prophets of impending doom are right Mahmoud Ahmadinejad might respond to an Israeli attack either by a direct counter attack with mass missile barrages aimed at Israel and maybe US targets in the Middle East, or subcontract the counterattack to Iran’s proxies - Hezbollah and Hamas. Syria is too preoccupied to even contemplate anything more than moral support for the Iranian response. Perhaps a combination of a direct reprisal backed by rocket barrages from Hezbollah and Hamas is a third possibility we should consider.

Walter Rodgers wrote in the Christian Science Monitor this week, "The Iranians are neither crazy nor stupid, although they often have a grossly inflated view of their place in the world, seeing themselves as heirs of the once proud Persian Empire. There is method in what Israelis like to portray as the mullah’s madness." Quoting Ali Alfoneh, a leading scholar of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, Rodgers said that much of Ahmadinejad’s vehemence is for domestic consumption. Iran has been acutely weakened by economic sanctions. Its leaders want to convince their public that despite cyber attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities, mysterious assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists, and what is believed to have been an attack on an Iranian missile factory, the country is still strong and capable of acting against its perceived enemies. In an article published in Haaretz author Sefi Rachlevsky emphasised the deterrence factor. He drew on remarks made by IDF Military Intelligence chief Maj. Gen. Aviv Kochavi regarding the existential threat Israel is facing at present. General Kochavi is no panic monger. He weighs his words carefully and phrases his remarks precisely. Speaking at a defence forum last week he reminded his audience that there are currently 200,000 rockets and missiles aimed at Israel. They are positioned in Iran, Syria, Lebanon and the Gaza Strip. He said the 200,000 strong pyrotechnic package includes thousands of rockets/missiles carrying large explosive warheads, and some with chemical and biological payloads. They are in the hands of people bent on Israel’s destruction. In fact, most of them are religious extremists, perhaps best described as apocalyptical madmen. “Therefore,” Rachlevsky says, “whoever believes that credible deterrence can't work should be high-tailing it out of here, and fast. After all, 200,000 missiles are being pointed at him right now. Whoever fears an Islamic nuclear explosion should certainly be fleeing. Pakistan has had nuclear weapons for over a decade, and they could fall into the Taliban's hands at any moment. The idea that 66-year-old technology can be kept from someone who wants it badly is absurd. A leadership that doesn't believe in deterrence should be arranging green cards for all its citizens."…. Strategic deterrence is definitely a factor in the Israel-Iran equation. "Israel's enemies also want to live, even the religious extremists." Richard Hass Foreign Relations president doubts if we can bank on a sane and sober Iranian leadership making rational decisions. On the contrary, we can't assume that Iran’s divided and radical leadership will always act rationally.. "There are significant drawbacks to acquiescing to a nuclear-armed Iran." He says, "Given its use of subversion and terrorism against its adversaries, a nuclear-armed Iran might be even more assertive. It might also transfer nuclear-related material, technology, or weapons to allies." The corollary of Hass' reasoning is that if Iran develops its nuclear weapons, countries such as Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt would be tempted to purchase or develop nuclear weapons of their own. He concludes, "A Middle East with multiple fingers on multiple triggers is as good a definition of a nightmare as there is." The defence forum addressed by General Kochavi, the Herzliya Conference held at the Campus of the Interdisciplinary Centre, Herzliya was well attended by distinguished participants from Israel and abroad. It seems only one question concerned the speakers at the conference. Is Israel planning to attack Iran's nuclear facilities in the coming year? Minister of Defence Ehud Barak said, "Many commentators believe that dealing with a nuclear Iran will be more complex, more dangerous, than stopping it today.” Strategic Affairs Minister Moshe Ya'alon ostensibly echoed Barak's aggressive line. “An Iran with nuclear weapons,” he said, “would be a nightmare for the free world, for Arab countries, and of course a threat to Israel.” Indicating the consequences of a nuclear armed Iran Ya’alon said, “There would be nuclear chaos in the Middle East, because other countries would not sit on the sidelines." Nevertheless, he added, "Any facility that is protected by people can be penetrated by people. Every military facility in Iran can be hit, and I say this from my experience as chief of staff." This message was directed at Barak no less than at the Iranians. After all, the defence minister recently claimed that time was running out, that in less than a year, Iran's centrifuges would be deep underground. Ya'alon thinks there is still time to consider alternative action. IDF Chief of Staff Benny Gantz seems to be in no hurry to launch an attack. He spoke of "continuing to disrupt Iran's attempts to attain nuclear weapons." It is very important, he said, "to continue to build strong, reliable, impressive military capabilities, and to be prepared to use them if and when the need arises." Military Intelligence chief, Maj. Gen. Aviv Kochavi’s measured analysis indicated that we still have time to carefully consider all the options. He said that to produce nuclear weapons, Iran has virtually no need of additional capabilities. Thus everything depends on Iran's spiritual leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s decision. “If Khamenei decides to build a facility to manufacture the first nuclear warhead, we believe it would take a year. If he gives a directive to translate that capability into a nuclear warhead, we believe it would take another two or three years," Kochavi said. General Kochavi didn’t underestimate the international sanctions imposed on Iran. He said they were showing results: "Iran now has an almost 16 percent unemployment rate and 24 percent annual inflation, with zero growth”…”So far, the pressure has not produced a strategic change in Tehran's policies, but the stronger the pressure grows, the greater the chances are that the regime will worry first of all about its survival and reevaluate its nuclear programme," he said.

Tomorrow morning we are going on a short trip in and around the Jezreel Valley. There will be more idyllic views, photo opportunities and an occasion to relax.

Have a good weekend.

Beni 9^th of February, 2012.

If you go down to the woods today

The path that led from the road into one of the JNF forests in Upper Galilee was not one of the marked and mapped Nature Preservation Society tracks. It appeared to be a much trodden route beaten by weekend travellers looking for wildflowers. As we followed in their footsteps two verses of the immortal "Teddy Bears' Picnic" came to mind.

If you go down to the woods today
You're sure of a big surprise
If you go down to the woods today
You'd better go in disguise.

If you go down to the woods today
You'd better not go alone
It's lovely down in the woods today
But safer to stay at home.

Well we weren't wearing a disguise and we certainly didn't expect a surprise encounter with a bear in any form or shape. The last Syrian Bear (Ursus arctos syriacus), a subspecies of the Brown Bear was shot by hunters hereabouts in 1934. Today, the Syrian Bear still ranges from Turkey to Iran, including the Caucasus Mountains of Russia, Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan, but is generally believed to be extinct in its namesake country of Syria, as well as neighbouring Lebanon. Although the bear is known to avoid contact with people the prophet Elisha appears to have enlisted a couple of bears to avenge the insults he suffered (2 Kings 3:4–24). Notwithstanding its "doesn't live here anymore" status, the Syrian Brown Bear was chosen as Syria’s Animal of the Year for 2010. Lately it's open season for the Syrian army bent on killing nonviolent protesters and armed resistance fighters alike.

After sifting through various accounts of the fighting in Syria I find it difficult to assess the situation. Syrian President Bashar al Assad is a chip off the old block. Like his father before him he is resorting to violent means to suppress all opposition to his regime. The demonstrations continue and in recent weeks there have been clashes between armed rebel opposition groups and Assad's infantry and armoured corps units.

Referring to the Free Syria Army (FSA), in a Washington Institute publication Andrew J. Tabler said that while the FSA is more like a franchise than a centrally commanded militia, it now represents a major force within the Syrian opposition that Washington is struggling to reckon with. The FSA emerged last summer as a collection of Syrian army defectors who fled to Turkey. Once dismissed as a mere Internet phenomenon, the FSA and other domestically based groups of armed defectors joined forces to carry out attacks against regime forces throughout the country. Armed opposition units have attacked regular army units and army camps. They are armed with weapons smuggled over from neighbouring Lebanon (as well as Turkey and Iraq) or weapons seized from Assad regime depots

So far U.S. policy has been to support non-violent means of opposing the Assad regime as, quite rightly, the opposition has much more political leverage keeping the high moral ground and the regime has the armed opposition heavily outgunned. Nevertheless, the international community's inability to get Assad to stop shooting his way out of the crisis, as well as its reluctance to intervene on the ground, means that more and more Syrians are looking to the FSA not as an alternative to the protest movement, but rather as a way to support an overall revolutionary effort. Tabler asks, "Will Washington follow suit? What kinds of assistance can and should the United States and its allies provide the FSA as part of an overall strategy of helping to achieve President Obama's goal outlined last August to get Assad "to step aside"? Or should Washington subcontract that support to regional allies who may share Washington's short term goal of changing the Assad regime, but differ significantly on what political forces should replace Assad? " US State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland said there is a growing consensus that Assad's days are numbered. Karim Emile Bitar a senior fellow at the Institute for International and Strategic Relations in Paris was a little more optimistic. He said the regime's prospects are better than two months ago but remain dim
Bitar noted that the Arab League's mission to Syria failed miserably, the Syrian economy is falling apart and the opposition's protests continue unabated. Bad as the situation is, the main pillars of Assad's support are still standing. The military and the security apparatus remain loyal to the regime, mostly for sectarian considerations. Assad can still count on significant popular support particularly among religious minorities, whose fears and existential angst keep them from switching sides. Despite defections from the army Syria's two major cities, Damascus and Aleppo, have not joined the revolution, partly because of the close surveillance exerted by the "shabiha" militias--but also because of the vested interests of the Sunni business elites who have too much to lose and have not fully accepted the opposition's rationale.
The US withdrawal from Iraq and the spectre of a wide Sunni-Shiite internecine war help the Syrian regime's propaganda. Also, the anti-Putin demonstrations in Moscow increased Russia's fear of revolutionary contagion and act as an incentive for Putin to keep supporting Assad. All these factors reinforce Bashar Assad's delusions that he can cling to power if he only digs in his heels and waits for the storm to pass. He knows that 2012 is an election year in France, in the United States and in Russia and that a western military intervention is not on the agenda. He knows that an Iraq under increasing Iranian influence will soon take over Qatar's place at the head of the Arab League. Assad is still convinced that his regime can show resilience, at least in the absence of a US-Russian or US-Iranian grand bargain that would lead his two foreign patrons to pull the plug on him.

Assad still has to find a way to overcome Syria's seemingly untenable economic situation. European Union sanctions preventing Syria from selling its oil are costing the country $450 million per month. Tax revenues are down 50 percent. The budget deficit is close to 20 percent of the country's gross domestic product. The Syrian pound is under severe pressure. Foreign exchange reserves are rapidly depleting and are now estimated by many experts at less than $12 billion.

From Israel's point of view the worst case scenario imaginable is a fundamentalist Muslim government replacing Assad's Ba’ath party regime. Russia prefers dealing with the Assad and fears the prospect of a regime change in Syria. In this regard it would seem that Russia and Israel share common interests. I doubt if this so. Israel wants to sever the weapons supply line from Syria to Hezbollah and would prefer a liberal democratic government in Damascus, be it Islamic or secular.

"What does Russia want?" asked journalist Hussain Abdul-Hussain in a piece he wrote for the Bitter Lemons blog. Abdul-Hussein says, Russian policy regarding Syria doesn't appear to be planned and coherent, but a closer look shows that Moscow has not prepared an end-game strategy for a possible regime change in Syria. Instead it is improvising its moves as events unfold.
Moscow is clearly interested in the survival of Assad's regime because Syria is a major importer of Russia's arms. Syria buys ten percent of Russia's annual arms exports amounting to $1 billion. Mindful that Russian arms manufacturers lost close to $4 billion in defence contracts in Libya following the collapse of Muammar Gaddafi's government, Moscow is keen to prevent the same thing happening in Syria.
Arms sales are not the only motive behind Russia's support for Assad. Putin fears that the collapse of yet another despotic Arab regime, a regime closely associated with Russia, might encourage Russian opposition groups Abdul-Hussein proffers a third reason behind Moscow's obstruction of the world effort to stop Assad's brutal force against his citizens, namely Russia's self-perception as heir to the glorious Soviet empire. Since Putin's accession to power in 2000, Moscow has always tried to show foreign policy muscle. Opposing Western initiatives is part and parcel of this policy.

Columnist Amanda Paul who writes for the Turkish English language Today’s Zaman, detects a change in Russian policy, “ With the death toll rising and the eventual fall of Assad -- one way or another – it's reasonable to suppose that Moscow realises that it may have to abandon its long-time friend. Hence, it has begun to hedge its bets.”

David Pollock and Andrew J. Tabler also believe the Russians are likely to change course. In an article they published in the Washington Institute bulletinPolicy Alert they wrote," Significantly, the absence of mandatory sanctions from the UN draft resolution was calculated to help secure the necessary Russian support (or at least abstention) in the Security Council. " …. "Although Russia has resisted further Security Council action on Syria, invoking the recent Libyan intervention as an unacceptable precedent, there are reasons beyond the mere absence of sanctions to suspect that Moscow's policy may soon shift in a more favorable direction. Arab media report rumors that Russian economic and military interests in Syria may be privately guaranteed both by outside powers and by the Syrian opposition, and that Russia may be quietly designated to offer Assad asylum. Most of all, Russia may accept assurances that this relatively mild resolution will hold off military intervention against the tottering Syrian regime until a relatively friendly replacement takes over. None of this is certain, but the odds appear to be increasing every day."

In May last year a Syrian blogger using the nom de plume Ali al-Hajj, wrote in the Guardian likening Bashar al-Assad to an aging bear falling from a tree. "The world is trying to slow the fall in order to soften the blow and avoid a regional conflagration."

According to the Israeli Meteorological Service January was the rainiest month recorded so far. The rain has spurred wildflower growth. Wild poppies are in full bloom in the south. They say lupins are flowering near Neura (a nearby Arab village). On Saturday, weather permitting we will join a few friends on a drive to points of interest in the Birya forest near Safed. Mindful of a remote possibility that a Syrian bear might have wandered back here, we plan to eat lunch in an Italian restaurant near Hatzor.

Have a good weekend

Beni 2^nd of January, 2012.