videoforce1 — February 01, 2010 — Lost on a painted sky, with the wings of dreams I can fly with you...Album: Legend of the sea
Web: http://ernestocortazar.net/index.php
NeoEarth
Friday, May 7, 2010
Ernesto Cortazar - Free as a seagull and Ernesto Cortazar - Orchidea
videoforce1 — February 01, 2010 — Lost on a painted sky, with the wings of dreams I can fly with you...Album: Legend of the sea
Web: http://ernestocortazar.net/index.php
Everybody - Itzik Orlev - Modern Jewish Music and Jerusalem, by Yaniv ben Mashiach
modernjewishmusic — March 24, 2010 — Rate, Comment and Subscibe to ModernJewishMusic
Yaniv ben Mashiach - Jerusalem
modernjewishmusic — September 30, 2009 — He sings about the beauty of jerusalem
Yaniv Ben Mashiach - Lecha Bore Olam יניב בן משיח - לך בורא עולם
modernjewishmusic — May 05, 2010 — Song Name: You Creator of the universe
One of the best songs I ever heard: I even Got Lyrics for those who don't understand Hebrew
Lyrics:
Once again, the day a dream come true
Beautiful blossoms around the world sends a great love
I laugh my heart is silent
Can not find a word that describes the wonderful feeling
You (G-D) sitting up there
You (G-D) light up my night
Because of You I know peace
Thanks to You every moment happiness touches my heart
Creator Thank You for Helping me exist
Even if the road is difficult sometimes
My soul still says Thank You
Creator Thank You for Helping me exist
Even if the road is difficult sometimes
My soul still says Thank You
Creator
What I feel in my heart, even if it is pain
Only You know What is best for me
and You always Always hear me
I am not really a perfect person
My soul struggles between good and bad
and it learns the path of light(The good wins)
You (G-D) sitting up there
You (G-D) light up my night
Because of You I know peace
Thanks to You every moment happiness touches my heart
Creator Thank You for Helping me exist
Even if the road is difficult sometimes
My soul still says Thank You
Creator Thank You for Helping me exist
Even if the road is difficult sometimes
My soul still says Thank You
Creator .....
(Please share My channel with other people who like Modern Jewish Music Thank You.)
Note: Modern Jewish Music's channel is one of the very best on You Tube. I have a file of all the lovely songs he brings to others. As he said, if you like his choice of music, please visit his channel. He is another very good friend to me. Bee Sting
Elchai Refua - Father of all - אלחי רפואה - אבא של כולם
ruth681eg — April 29, 2010 — השיר הנפלא "אבא של כולם" ייצג את ישראל ב"אירוויזיון היהודי" של תנועת בני עקיבא. בביצועו של אלחי רפואה.
את המילים הנפלאות כתבה המשוררת הדגולה חמוטל בן זאב-עפרון, הלחין אוהד חיטמן והפיק מוזיקלית נדב ביטון.
הקליפ מוקדש לך באהבה, חמוטל היקרה, מילים מרגשות ויפות כמו תמיד. ממני.
אבא של כולם
שמע בני מוסר אביך
ואל תיטוש תורת אמך
השם אחד ושמו אחד
הסר כל פחד מליבך
תשמח תמיד בחלקך
השם אחד לעדי עד
פזמון:
ביושר לב ימי שניך
בענווה השפל עיניך
כבודו מלא עולם
ואם טעית וכשלת
אל תתייאש גם אם נפלת
כי הוא אבא של כולם
אשא תפילה אל השמים
ילדי שלי תפקח עיניים
עשה טוב וסור מרע
כוון את מעשה ידיך
השם אוהב את תפילותיך
עמוד מולו בוש ונכלם
פזמון:
ביושר לב ימי שניך...
ואם פתאום לבד נשארת
אז תתחזק ,עוד לא שכחת
כי הוא אבא של כולם
Note: Ruth, the dear lady who presents the beautiful prayers and music videos lives not far from Jerusalem. We are good friends even though an ocean separates us from enjoying each other's company in person. Whenever the news becomes over-bearing, or there are signs of war appearing on the scene in Israel, my heart sinks for all my good friends who have entered my life this past year. I send my best wishes, to all of you. Shalom! Keep safe and be of good courage. I wish I could be with you now, today! Bee Sting
In My Heart Bilvovi - Yossi Toyeb - בלבבי - יוסי טויב
ruth681eg — May 04, 2010 — הרב הוטנר זצ"ל כתב והלחין תפילה מרגשת זו:
"בלבבי משכן אבנה להדר כבודו,
ובמשכן מזבח אקים לקרני הודו,
ולנר תמיד אקח לי את אש העקידה,
ולקרבן אקריב לו את נפשי היחידה."
מוקדש באהבה לקב"ה ולרפואה שלמה והחלמה מהירה לרב מרדכי אליהו, מרדכי צמח בן מזל, אשר מקריב גופו, נפשו ונשמתו למען עם ישראל.
אנא קראו את המזמור הבא לרפואתו:
שִׁיר, לַמַּעֲלוֹת:
אֶשָּׂא עֵינַי, אֶל-הֶהָרִים מֵאַיִן, יָבֹא עֶזְרִי.
עֶזְרִי, מֵעִם יְהוָה עֹשֵׂה, שָׁמַיִם וָאָרֶץ.
אַל-יִתֵּן לַמּוֹט רַגְלֶךָ; אַל-יָנוּם, שֹׁמְרֶךָ.
הִנֵּה לֹא-יָנוּם, וְלֹא יִישָׁן שׁוֹמֵר, יִשְׂרָאֵל.
יְהוָה שֹׁמְרֶךָ; יְהוָה צִלְּךָ, עַל-יַד יְמִינֶךָ.
יוֹמָם, הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ לֹא-יַכֶּכָּה; וְיָרֵחַ בַּלָּיְלָה.
יְהוָה, יִשְׁמָרְךָ מִכָּל-רָע: יִשְׁמֹר, אֶת-נַפְשֶׁךָ.
יְהוָה, יִשְׁמָר-צֵאתְךָ וּבוֹאֶךָ מֵעַתָּה, וְעַד-עוֹלָם.
(תהילים פרק קכא)
In my heart I will erect a sanctuary to glorify His honor.
In the sanctuary I will place an altar to acknowledge His splendor.
For the eternal light I will take the fire of Isaac's sacrifice.
And with this, my singular soul, will I sacrifice before Him
BREAKING NEWS: Former US General Warns of Chemical Attacks Against Israel
MIDDLE EAST ON THE EDGE - 2010
Potential Hezbollah offensive includes chemically armed SCUD missiles with a 450 km range, preemptive strikes on air fields, and a wave of tunnel attacks that cross from Lebanon into Israel.
Potential Hezbollah offensive includes chemically armed SCUD missiles with a 450 km range, preemptive strikes on air fields, and a wave of tunnel attacks that cross from Lebanon into Israel.
PLEASE WATCH THIS 12 MINUTE VIDEO, LOCATED AT "middle east on the edge" - Pajamas Media.
As the former US General stated in this interview (video),
"We cannot allow Israel to stand alone".
SOMETHING IN THE AIR Report calls tea-party supporters 'insurgents' Raises questions whether grass roots can impact GOP
Real Americans fly the flag, salute the flag, and sing the national anthem.
Obama refuses to salute the flag, honor the Constitution, or respect America's citizens.
Which one would you call the "insurgent"?!
WORLD NET DAILY
Posted: May 07, 2010
12:50 am Eastern
A report about this week's primary elections calls citizens in the grass-roots tea-party movement "insurgents" and raises questions about whether they can impact the November vote.
The Associated Press story analyzes several early primaries, which were won mostly by incumbents even though some were challenged by candidates supported by tea-party activists.
The report says the "tea party-backed challengers and other outsiders were shut out in competitive House and Senate primaries" and then declared the results "renewed a debate about the clout of the insurgents in the remaining primaries."
"Insurgents" largely has been used of late in the media as a watered-down reference to terrorists such as those battling American and NATO troops in Iraq and Afghanistan
It's not the first time a derogatory term has been applied to tea-party activists.
One of the better known events was when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi likened tea-party activists to Nazis:
It happened in San Francisco where a Chronicle reporter asked her for her opinion on whether there is "legitimate grass-roots opposition" to the Democrats' health-care reform plan.
Pelosi said: "I think they are Astroturf."
And she continued, "They're carrying swastikas and symbols like that to a town meeting on health care."
The labeling of opponents of Obama's policies and actions, however, had begun earlier.
WND reported when a Missouri state report cited 32 characteristics police should watch for as signs or links to domestic terrorists.
Many of the same issues are cited as concerns by tea-party activists.
"Police were instructed to look for Americans who were concerned about unemployment, taxes, illegal immigration, gangs, border security, abortion, high costs of living, gun restrictions, FEMA, the IRS, The Federal Reserve, and the North American Union/SPP/North American Community. The 'Missouri Documents' also said potential domestic terrorists might like gun shows, short wave radios, combat movies, movies with white male heroes, Tom Clancey novels, and Presidential Candidates Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and Chuck Baldwin!" wrote Americans for Legal Immigration PAC at the time.
"When many of us read these Missouri Documents we felt that the false connections, pseudo research, and political attacks found in these documents could have been penned by the SPLC and ADL," said William Gheen of ALIPAC. "We were shocked to see credible law enforcement agencies disseminating the same kind of over the top political propaganda distributed by these groups."
 |
Titled "Right-wing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment," the April 7 report stated "threats from white supremacist and violent anti-government groups during 2009 have been largely rhetorical and have not indicated plans to carry out violent acts."
However, the document, first reported by talk-radio host and WND columnist Roger Hedgecock, went on to suggest worsening economic woes, potential new legislative restrictions on firearms and "the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks."
The report from the DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis defined right-wing extremism in the U.S. as "divided into those groups, movements and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups) and those that are mainly anti-government, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration."
Most notable was the report's focus on the impact of returning war veterans.
"Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to right-wing extremists," it said. "DHS/I&A is concerned that right-wing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize veterans in order to boost their violent capacities."
Note: Obama resents and opposes any and all criticism from American citizens who are concerned about all this things mentioned in this commentary. As Obama rushes forward with his socialism doctrine and policies, it is clear that he rushes, as he is aware that time is short before Americans catch on to the "change" he referred to during his campaign speeches - false promises and "change" that represents socialism and worse, dictatorship.
Obama oversteps his authority as president and tends to ignore Freedom of Speech under our Constitution. Obama and all who must obey his commands attempt to remove even the few worthy news/press/journalists, such as, Fox News as a legitimate news agency in order to silence the majority. One thing American citizens understand is, in fact, Obama's purpose for silencing the majority of America's citizens by demonizing them, in order to remove the First Amendment from the Constitution.
Amazing to me is that it was the Democrats who spoke out against the Patriot Act, under Bush, to protect America from Islamic terrorism. Obama removes Islam, terrorists from Homeland Security documents, which in turn prevents the govenment from determining America's real enemies, and in its place, defines America's citizens as "insurgents".How's that "hope and change" coming along? Have you had enough? Under this administration, I am sure it is just the beginning of worse things to come. Bee Sting
Jerusalem Day Celebration - Official web site
Jerusalem Day - A Historical Introduction
Jerusalem was divided during the War of Independence and nineteen years later was reunited as a result of the 6-Day War.
The battle of Jerusalem began on the morning of June 5, 1967 when the Jordanians opened fire along the entire cease-fire line. By that afternoon the Jordanians occupied the Governor's Palace.
The Central Command of the Israeli Army, under the command of General Uzi Narkiss, moved the "Har'el" brigade to the Jerusalem front. This force tore through the enemy positions of "Har Adar" and "Abdul Aziz" and conquered "Nebi Samuel".
By the morning of June 6 this force reached the Jerusalem-Rammalah road and stormed "Tel-El" and "Givat HaMivtar". In addition a paratroop brigade was moved up. Its instructions were to open the way to Mount Scopus and the Rockefeller Museum in order to position themselves to break through to the "Old City" of Jerusalem on very short notice.
This force cut through the frontline of the town and occupied the Police Academy, Ammunition Hill, Mandelbaum Gate, the American quarter and "Wadi Jos". The way to Mount Scopus was now cleared and the northeast section of Jerusalem was liberated.
On June 7th the General Staff issued the order to liberate the "Old City". The Central Command activated the paratroop brigade that had conquered the Mount of Olives and the Mount Scopus ridge. These troops broke through to the "Old City" by way of the "Lions' Gate" and hoisted the Israeli flag over the "Western Wall" (the last surviving remnant of the Second Temple).
Following the 6-Day War victory, on June 27, 1967, the Government presented the Knesset with three law proposals. These proposals determined the effective unification of Jerusalem and sanctioned the application of Israeli law in the entire area of the unified city. The municipal boundaries of the city were altered and its area was increased threefold: from 38,100 dunams to 110,000 dunams. At the same time a law was adopted that enabled free access to the holy places by the members of every religion. In 1980, the Basic Law: Jerusalem was adopted. This law determined that Jerusalem was the capital of Israel and the location of all state authorities. On May 12 1968 the Government, decided to make the 28th of Iyar the symbolic holiday, Jerusalem Day , a day that symbolizes the continued historical connection of the Jewish People to Jerusalem. Thirty years later, this holiday became anchored in the law: On March 23 1998 the Knesset passed the second and third readings of the "Jerusalem Day Law", which determined that the date that Jerusalem was liberated during the 6-Day War was now a national holiday.
After the 6-Day War the city and its environs underwent an intensive and unprecedented process of restoration and development. Institutions were built, entire new neighborhoods were established and an extensive system of roads and transportation infrastructure was constructed.
Ten new neighborhoods were built on 21,000 dunams. This development enabled a significant increase in Jerusalem's population and the absorption of considerable numbers of new immigrants. Today, according to the Central Bureau of Statistics, Jerusalem's population stands at about 681,000 in an area of 126 square kilometers.
Jerusalem, the capital of Israel, has become a large and expansive city. It stands as an inspiration not only to residents of Israel and the Jewish People but also to the entire world. Jerusalem attracts tourists from around the world who come to see her beauty, to imbibe of her past and make pilgrimage to the holy sites, which serve as a place for prayer and a connecting point for the members of all three major religions.
-
Historical Overview Legislation on Jerusalem:
Basic Law: Jerusalem, the Capital of Israel (1980)
Jerusalem Day Law, 5758-1998
Commander's Speech To the Regimental Formation on the Temple Mount
Statements of the Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion Regarding Moving the Capital of Israel to Jerusalem
Consulate General of Israel in New York - Next week Israel will celebrate Yom Yerushalayim
| |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
http://www.israelfm.org/en/resources/general-information
What's Wrong--and Dangerously So--With U.S. Strategic Policy in the Middle East
US 10th Mountain Division soldiers in Afghanistan
Monday, May 3, 2010
Rubin ReportsBy Barry Rubin
I've just read two interesting articles by David Goldman (better known by his pen name, Spengler) and Lee Smith which have different themes but fit together very nicely and make some incredibly important points.
Spengler shows that current U.S. military strategy in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Palestinian Authority consists of creating heavily armed local armies, then withdrawing with the dubious expectation that they will be moderate, democratic, and pro-American.
In Iraq, for example, the United States is building up both regular Iraqi forces and a Sunni militia to fight terrorists who are clients of Iran and Syria. Yet the outcome might well be a bloody Iraqi civil war between U.S.-subsidized and trained armies. Moreover, when Washington stops bribing those involved they might well turn against their creator.
Regarding the Palestinian Authority (PA), the forces trained by General Keith Dayton and his team are more likely to wage war on Israel than on Hamas some day. Already, Goldman points out, the Taliban is seizing American money and weapons being handed out in Afghanistan. I could add that the United States, on a far smaller scale, is arming a Lebanese army which is close to being in Hezbollah's pocket.
Goldman writes:
"Having armed all sides of the conflict and kept them apart by the threat of arms, the United States now expects to depart leaving in place governments of national reconciliation that will persuade well-armed and well-organized militias to play by the rules. It is perhaps the silliest thing an imperial power ever has done. The British played at divide and conquer, whereas the Americans propose to divide and disappear."
Lee Smith discusses a totally different aspect of the issue: the current U.S. concept of counterinsurgency. He points out that U.S. strategy in Iraq under both the Bush and Obama administrations might be setting up a future in which Iran wields dominant influence in that country:
"The test of victory is simply whether or not you are capable of imposing terms on your adversaries; if you can’t, if rather they shape your strategic decisions--e.g., if they determine your security environment by funding, arming and training militias--then you have not won."
Smith continues:
"If Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps and its Al-Qods force can heat things up now with U.S. troops present, what do you think they will do once we have gone?...Not only have we not won, we have rendered ourselves incapable of acting against the agent that is most desirous of ruining our position across the region. In short, we have deterred ourselves on behalf of our enemy, the Islamic Republic of Iran."
Indeed, there are three other points that can be added here. First, current U.S. strategy very much reminds me of Vietnamization, the plan that was supposed to win the Vietnam war. The U.S. approach was to turn the fighting over to local forces and withdraw. This was a short-run success. The fact that the local forces then collapsed and the other side won the
war was redefined as something for which U.S. policy wasn't responsible. A congressional funding cut-off played a role here, too.) Yet isn't what we're seeing today the old Richard Nixon strategy which could be summarized, to quote the formula of an antiwar senator earlier, as: Declare victory and bring the troops home.
It is funny how failed policies of the past are revived and given a change of name--often by the side that once opposed them--and then presented as bold new thinking.
That doesn't mean I'm advocating keeping the troops there, especially when it comes to Afghanistan but also to Iraq. Not at all. The real problem is the failure to define the real enemy and do everything possible to foil it by other means, too. One of the most important ways to do so is to maintain credibility, toughness, and vigorous leadership of allies, all ideas very much out of fashion in official Washington.
The other two points are central to my soon-to-be published piece in Foreign Affairs (which I will make available on publication). That is, the main task for the United States today is a long, difficult battle that the United States will have to wage against the Iran-led alliance, and other revolutionary Islamist groups, throughout the region to contain or defeat them. (For a detailed discussion of what U.S. foreign policy should be understanding and doing, see HERE.)
Given the weakness and unreliability of most local U.S. allies--the Afghan government, internally divided Shia leadership in Iraq, PA and Fatah, faint-hearted and quick-to-appease Arab states--this struggle is going to be all the more difficult.
There is also a mountain-sized paradox in current U.S. policy which is so obvious it is remarkable virtually everyone is missing it:
On the one hand, the Obama Administration tends to appear fearful of angering, much less confronting, enemies. On the other hand, this same government insists it can contain Iran by making it fear America! At the same time, it insists local U.S. allies will stand up and take risks because they are so certain that the United States is strong and determined!
After having shown itself to be so non-scary, so opposed to intimidation and power politics, how is the Obama Administration going to make Iran tremble?
You don't cease looking like a paper tiger by suddenly issuing a quavering growl that you have muscles of stainless steel.
Perhaps the Obama Administration might jump into a phone booth and emerge as a new and transformed leadership? But there's no sign of this happening at all.*
Smith puts it very well:
"We did we not win in Iraq because states like Syria and Iran did not pay a price for the acts of force they used to shape political effects to their own advantage; when we failed to do so we abandoned our Middle East policy to the mercy of our enemies, who, as we are repeatedly told, can ruin Iraq and Afghanistan whenever they decide to take off their gloves. We did not win because our leadership, abetted by Washington policy intellectuals, is more interested in political effects in Washington than strategic victories in the Middle East. Seen in this light, the only American victory in the region is a Pyrrhic one, the bitter harvest of which we may well be reaping for many years to come."
I'm not sure that the United States could have done better directly in Iraq itself than has happened in direct terms. But ignoring the daily involvement of Iran and Syria in sponsoring, arming, training, and financing terrorists to kill Americans is a disaster. Similarly, not holding Syria and Iran responsible for their policy in Lebanon while not developing a truly tough anti-Hamas policy are also setting up a sharp decline in American credibility combined with a boost for the revolutionary Islamist (and Iran-Syria) side.
All these points will be very clear in 20 or 30 years as people look back on these mistakes but are powerless to change them. It would be far better if they were understood and corrected right now.
*For those who don't know, Superman disguised himself as the mild-mannered Clark Kent but when faced with a crisis he jumped into a phone booth and changed into his superhero clothes before going off to bash the villains. Unfortunately, there are no more phone booths in America, which has a certain symbolic significance in this context, doesn't it?
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). His new edited books include Lebanon: Liberation, Conflict and Crisis; Guide to Islamist Movements; Conflict and Insurgency in the Middle East; and The Muslim Brotherhood. To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books. To see or subscribe to his blog, Rubin Reports.
Spengler shows that current U.S. military strategy in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Palestinian Authority consists of creating heavily armed local armies, then withdrawing with the dubious expectation that they will be moderate, democratic, and pro-American.
In Iraq, for example, the United States is building up both regular Iraqi forces and a Sunni militia to fight terrorists who are clients of Iran and Syria. Yet the outcome might well be a bloody Iraqi civil war between U.S.-subsidized and trained armies. Moreover, when Washington stops bribing those involved they might well turn against their creator.
Regarding the Palestinian Authority (PA), the forces trained by General Keith Dayton and his team are more likely to wage war on Israel than on Hamas some day. Already, Goldman points out, the Taliban is seizing American money and weapons being handed out in Afghanistan. I could add that the United States, on a far smaller scale, is arming a Lebanese army which is close to being in Hezbollah's pocket.
Goldman writes:
"Having armed all sides of the conflict and kept them apart by the threat of arms, the United States now expects to depart leaving in place governments of national reconciliation that will persuade well-armed and well-organized militias to play by the rules. It is perhaps the silliest thing an imperial power ever has done. The British played at divide and conquer, whereas the Americans propose to divide and disappear."
Lee Smith discusses a totally different aspect of the issue: the current U.S. concept of counterinsurgency. He points out that U.S. strategy in Iraq under both the Bush and Obama administrations might be setting up a future in which Iran wields dominant influence in that country:
"The test of victory is simply whether or not you are capable of imposing terms on your adversaries; if you can’t, if rather they shape your strategic decisions--e.g., if they determine your security environment by funding, arming and training militias--then you have not won."
Smith continues:
"If Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps and its Al-Qods force can heat things up now with U.S. troops present, what do you think they will do once we have gone?...Not only have we not won, we have rendered ourselves incapable of acting against the agent that is most desirous of ruining our position across the region. In short, we have deterred ourselves on behalf of our enemy, the Islamic Republic of Iran."
Indeed, there are three other points that can be added here. First, current U.S. strategy very much reminds me of Vietnamization, the plan that was supposed to win the Vietnam war. The U.S. approach was to turn the fighting over to local forces and withdraw. This was a short-run success. The fact that the local forces then collapsed and the other side won the
It is funny how failed policies of the past are revived and given a change of name--often by the side that once opposed them--and then presented as bold new thinking.
That doesn't mean I'm advocating keeping the troops there, especially when it comes to Afghanistan but also to Iraq. Not at all. The real problem is the failure to define the real enemy and do everything possible to foil it by other means, too. One of the most important ways to do so is to maintain credibility, toughness, and vigorous leadership of allies, all ideas very much out of fashion in official Washington.
The other two points are central to my soon-to-be published piece in Foreign Affairs (which I will make available on publication). That is, the main task for the United States today is a long, difficult battle that the United States will have to wage against the Iran-led alliance, and other revolutionary Islamist groups, throughout the region to contain or defeat them. (For a detailed discussion of what U.S. foreign policy should be understanding and doing, see HERE.)
Given the weakness and unreliability of most local U.S. allies--the Afghan government, internally divided Shia leadership in Iraq, PA and Fatah, faint-hearted and quick-to-appease Arab states--this struggle is going to be all the more difficult.
There is also a mountain-sized paradox in current U.S. policy which is so obvious it is remarkable virtually everyone is missing it:
On the one hand, the Obama Administration tends to appear fearful of angering, much less confronting, enemies. On the other hand, this same government insists it can contain Iran by making it fear America! At the same time, it insists local U.S. allies will stand up and take risks because they are so certain that the United States is strong and determined!
After having shown itself to be so non-scary, so opposed to intimidation and power politics, how is the Obama Administration going to make Iran tremble?
You don't cease looking like a paper tiger by suddenly issuing a quavering growl that you have muscles of stainless steel.
Perhaps the Obama Administration might jump into a phone booth and emerge as a new and transformed leadership? But there's no sign of this happening at all.*
Smith puts it very well:
"We did we not win in Iraq because states like Syria and Iran did not pay a price for the acts of force they used to shape political effects to their own advantage; when we failed to do so we abandoned our Middle East policy to the mercy of our enemies, who, as we are repeatedly told, can ruin Iraq and Afghanistan whenever they decide to take off their gloves. We did not win because our leadership, abetted by Washington policy intellectuals, is more interested in political effects in Washington than strategic victories in the Middle East. Seen in this light, the only American victory in the region is a Pyrrhic one, the bitter harvest of which we may well be reaping for many years to come."
I'm not sure that the United States could have done better directly in Iraq itself than has happened in direct terms. But ignoring the daily involvement of Iran and Syria in sponsoring, arming, training, and financing terrorists to kill Americans is a disaster. Similarly, not holding Syria and Iran responsible for their policy in Lebanon while not developing a truly tough anti-Hamas policy are also setting up a sharp decline in American credibility combined with a boost for the revolutionary Islamist (and Iran-Syria) side.
All these points will be very clear in 20 or 30 years as people look back on these mistakes but are powerless to change them. It would be far better if they were understood and corrected right now.
*For those who don't know, Superman disguised himself as the mild-mannered Clark Kent but when faced with a crisis he jumped into a phone booth and changed into his superhero clothes before going off to bash the villains. Unfortunately, there are no more phone booths in America, which has a certain symbolic significance in this context, doesn't it?
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). His new edited books include Lebanon: Liberation, Conflict and Crisis; Guide to Islamist Movements; Conflict and Insurgency in the Middle East; and The Muslim Brotherhood. To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books. To see or subscribe to his blog, Rubin Reports.
Just a Perfect Day by Lou Reed (Performed by Duran Duran)
RUMI 131
Sow a character and you reap a destiny.
Sow an act and you reap a habit.
Sow a habit and you reap a character. Sow a character and you reap a destiny.
(Marcus Fabius Quintilianus, ca. 35 – ca. 100)
Cyrus Rumi
"This site contains some of the thoughts and excerpts from the author's book: 'The Codex: A Divine Writ' by Cyrus Rumi. Blogs are posted weekly."
Note: Please check out Cyrus Rumi's web site! Wonderful quotes and interesting videos and a great break from the on-going news! Bee Sting
Cyrus Rumi
"This site contains some of the thoughts and excerpts from the author's book: 'The Codex: A Divine Writ' by Cyrus Rumi. Blogs are posted weekly."
Note: Please check out Cyrus Rumi's web site! Wonderful quotes and interesting videos and a great break from the on-going news! Bee Sting
Time to plan for war
By Caroline B. Glick
| | |
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com |
So much for US President Barack Obama's famed powers of persuasion. At the UN's Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty review conference which opened this week, the Obama administration managed to lose control over the agenda before the conference even started. Obama administration officials said they intended to use the conference as a platform to mount international pressure on Iran to stop its illicit nuclear proliferation activities. But even before the conference began, with a little prodding from Egypt, the administration agreed that instead of focusing on Iran, the conference would adopt Iran's chosen agenda: attacking Israel for its alleged nuclear arsenal.
Last week the Wall Street Journal reported that US officials were conducting negotiations with Egypt about Egypt's demand that the NPT review conference call for sanctions against Israel for refusing to join the NPT as a non-nuclear state. The Journal quoted a senior administration official involved in the discussions saying, "We've made a proposal to them [Egypt] that goes beyond what the U.S. has been willing to do before."
Among other possibilities, that proposal may have included a US agreement to appoint a UN envoy responsible for organizing a UN conference calling for the Greater Middle East to become a nuclear-free zone. In diplomatese, "Middle East nuclear-free zone" is a well-accepted euphemism for stripping Israel of its purported nuclear capability while turning a blind eye to Iranian, Syrian and other Islamic nuclear weapons programs. Egypt's demand, which it convinced more than a hundred members of the Non-Aligned bloc to sign onto, is for Israel to open its nuclear installations to international inspectors as a first step towards unilateral nuclear disarmament.
On Wednesday the US joined the other four permanent members of the Security Council in signing a statement calling for a nuclear-free Middle East and urging Israel, Pakistan and India to accede to the NPT as non-nuclear states. Following the US's lead, on Thursday Yukiya Amano, the new Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency wrote a letter to IAEA member states asking for their suggestions for how to convince Israel to sign the NPT.
So as Iran — an NPT signatory — makes a mockery of the treaty by building nuclear weapons in contempt of its treaty obligations, the US has actively supported Iran's bid to use the NPT review conference as yet another UN forum for bashing Israel.
It bears recalling that the primary goal of the NPT is to prevent nuclear proliferation. From the amount of attention Israel is receiving at the NPT review conference, you could easily get the impression that Israel's purported nuclear arsenal is the gravest proliferation threat in the world today. But history shows that this is nonsense.
Israel's alleged nuclear arsenal, which it has reportedly fielded for four decades, has not led to a regional nuclear arms race. Notwithstanding their protestations to the contrary, Israel's neighbors fully recognize that the purpose of Israel's undeclared nuclear arsenal is to guarantee Israel's survival and consequently only threatens those who would attack the Jewish state with the intention of annihilating it. This is why although it is four decades old; Israel's undeclared nuclear arsenal has never caused a regional nuclear arms race. It has never harmed or called into question the relevance or usefulness of the NPT's international non-proliferation agenda. Moreover, as a non-signatory to the NPT, Israel has the right to develop a nuclear program.
Iran on the other hand gave up that right when it joined the NPT regime. So too, in sharp contrast to Israel's alleged program, it is clear that Iran's nuclear project is aggressive rather than defensive. Consequently, it is universally recognized that if Iran becomes a nuclear power, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and other states will begin developing their own nuclear arsenals in short order. That is, it is absolutely clear that if the NPT is to have any relevance in the coming years, if there is to be any hope that counter-proliferation regimes can be useful; preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons must be its signatories' chief aim.
But due to the Obama administration's diplomatic fecklessness and ideological blinders, administration officials were incapable of making these points. And so, instead through its actions, the administration has advanced the cause of nuclear proliferation. The US has now joined the ranks of fools who claim that nuclear weapons in the hands of states like the US and Israel are as problematic as nuclear weapons in the hands of states like Iran and North Korea.
But then, in the end it makes no difference that the US has followed Iran's lead at the NPT conference. Even if the administration had managed to make Iran's nuclear weapons program the focus of debate, it wouldn't have mattered because diplomacy is no longer a relevant tool for preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear power. Appeasement has failed. Sanctions are dead in the water in the Security Council.
And even if the Security Council passes a sanctions resolution, they will have no impact on Iran's behavior. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made that much clear in his speech on Monday and in subsequent remarks to the media. As he put it, "While we do not welcome sanctions, we do not fear them either. Sanctions cannot stop the Iranian nation."
What all of this demonstrates is that the diplomatic track — from appeasement to sanctions — is irrelevant for contending with Iran's nuclear program. The only way to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear bombs is to use military force to destroy or severely damage its nuclear installations.
And this of course is something Obama will do. His begging-to-shake-hands policy towards Iran and the one hand and his iron fist policy towards Israel on the other makes it absolutely clear that Obama will do nothing to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power. Rather than correct his abysmal failures, Obama seeks to hide them by minimizing the seriousness of the threat.
In remarks to the media this week, a White House official downplayed the Iranian threat. He told the Financial Times that Iran's "nuclear clock has slowed down. They are not making dramatic technical progress given the difficulties they are facing in their [uranium] enrichment program and the fact that their efforts to build secret facilities have been disclosed."
The fact that the US's published intelligence estimates of Iran's nuclear program contradict this claim didn't seem to faze the official.
The US's abdication of its responsibility as the leader of the free world to prevent the most dangerous regimes from acquiring the most dangerous weapons means that the responsibility for preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons has fallen on Israel's shoulders. Only Israel has the means and the will to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power. And the message the NPT follies convey is that Israel must develop contingency plans for attacking Iran as quickly as possible.
Daily reports of weapons build-ups and military exercises in Iran and among Iran's clients Syria, Hizbullah and Hamas expose the contours of their war plans.
Syria and Iran have armed Hizbullah with some 40,000 missiles and rockets, including hundreds of Scud missiles and guided surface-to-surface solid fuel M600 missiles with a 250 km range and. This week Hizbullah threatened to attack Israel with non-conventional weapons. Syria itself has a formidable chemical and biological arsenal as well as a massive artillery and missile force at its disposal.
As for Hamas, since Operation Cast Lead Iran's Palestinian proxy Hamas has expanded its own missile arsenal. Today it reportedly has projectiles capable of reaching Tel Aviv and beyond.
As for Iran, as its seemingly endless military exercises make clear, the mullocracy has the capacity to use conventional weapons to imperil global oil shipments from the Persian Gulf. So too, this week's report that Osama Bin Laden may have decamped to Iran in 2003 merely served to underline Iran's ability to utilize jihadist terror forces throughout the world.
From the open preparations for war that Iran and its clients have undertaken, it is clear that if they initiate the next round of fighting they will fight a four front war against Israel. That war will be dominated by missile attacks against the entire country aimed at breaking the will of the Israeli people while forcing the IDF to divert vital resources away from Israel's primary target — Iran's nuclear installations — to contend with Iran's proxies' missile stores.
As they consider Israel's options going forward, Israel's political and military leaders have to take two considerations into account. First, the side that initiates the conflict will be the side that controls the battle space. And second, there is a real possibility that the Obama administration will refuse to resupply Israel with vital weapons systems in the course of the war. The fact that Israel will be roundly condemned by the UN and its component parts is a certainty regardless of who initiates the conflict and therefore is irrelevant for operational planning.
Armed with these understandings, it is apparent that Israeli contingency plans for war must have limited goals and should be guided by the overarching aim of beginning and ending the war quickly. Luckily, Israel excels at limited, swift campaigns.
Responding to one of Syrian President Bashar Assad's recent threats, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman promised last month that if Assad attacks Israel, Israel will bring down his regime. While bringing about the utter defeat of Iran's regional proxies is a reasonable goal, it cannot be Israel's goal in the coming war.
In the coming war, Israel will have only one goal: to destroy or seriously damage Iran's nuclear installations. Every resource turned against Iran's proxies must be aimed at facilitating that goal. That is, the only thing Israel should seek to accomplish in contending with Syria, Hizbullah and Hamas is to prevent them from diverting Israeli resources away from attacking Iran's nuclear installations.
This means that Israel must launch a preemptive strike against Hizbullah's missiles and missile launchers, Syria's missiles, artillery and launchers, and Hamas's missiles and launchers. As for their short-range rockets, Israel should do its best to intercept them and otherwise hunker down to weather the storm of Katyushas and Qassams. Life of the homefront won't be easy. But it won't be impossible either, as we saw in 2006.
Almost every assessment of a possible Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear installations has assumed that Israel will use its Air Force to strike. All that can be said of that analysis is that, just as there is more than one way to skin a cat, so there is more than one way to destroy Iran's nuclear installations. An Israeli strike should utilize all of them to keep the Iranians off balance and on the defensive.
These are dangerous times. Iran, which seeks to position itself as a regional superpower, has been emboldened by the Obama administration's abdication of US global leadership. Only Israel can prevent Iran from endangering the world. But time is of the essence.
Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in Washington and in the media consider "must reading." Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)