The Israelis are getting nervous.

Our World: Israel's encirclement

Caroline Glick,
THE JERUSALEM POST
Oct. 30, 2006

www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=3&cid=1161811238155&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Last week Iran began enriching uranium in a second network of centrifuges. Just as Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has dropped nearly all pretenses about his intention to achieve nuclear weapons, so too he makes it clear daily that he intends to use such weapons to annihilate Israel.

The world's reaction to Iran's behavior is depressingly instructive. Russia tells us that we are being paranoid and continues to build the Bushehr nuclear plant. The Europeans cluck disapprovingly and threaten to pass a weak, "reversible" sanctions resolution in the UN Security Council whose main target is American security hawks. For his part, US President George W. Bush continues to adhere to the call for sanctions.

And so we have Israel. With Iran speeding up its program, Israel may have as little as six months to launch a strike on its nuclear facilities before they can start churning out atomic bombs.

Unfortunately, at this critical moment in Israel's history, we are led by Ehud Olmert, Amir Peretz and Tzipi Livni. Although Olmert claims that he is taking every step to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, through his government's actions in recent months, he has steadily undercut the IDF's ability to take decisive action against Iran.

Over the past two and a half months, the Olmert government has deliberately and willingly enabled Israel's encirclement by hostile forces.

Deployed along Israel's northern and southern borders, these forces constrict Israel's ability to maneuver, and prevent the IDF from taking preventative actions against Iran's proxies in Lebanon and Gaza thus increasing the risks that Israel will face in the event that action is taken against Iran's nuclear facilities and constraining Israel's ability to stealthily launch any attack.

Nearly 10,000 French-commanded UNIFIL troops today protect Hizbullah in south Lebanon. And increasingly, they do so while provoking Israel. Last week two incidents took place between German naval forces and the IAF. Last Tuesday and Thursday IAF jets were scrambled when a German naval helicopter entered Israeli airspace after taking off from a German naval ship off Rosh Hanikra without permission or prior coordination.

What is most remarkable about the story is its repetition. Last Tuesday the German helicopter elicited a strong Israeli response. Rather than desist from provoking the IAF, the Germans repeated their action on Thursday. So what could have been viewed as a regrettable incident was transformed into a provocation.

Germany's hostile behavior is par for the course with UNIFIL. Two weeks ago French Defense Minister Michele Alliot-Marie called the IAF's overflights of Lebanese airspace "extremely dangerous," and threatened that France's forces in Lebanon were liable to fire on the IAF flights "because they may be felt as hostile by forces of the coalition." By word and deed, UNIFIL forces are making clear that they view the IDF, not Hizbullah as their enemy. As they increase their provocations against Israel, UNIFIL forces turn a blind eye to weapons being smuggled daily to Hizbullah from Syria. Were Israel to attempt to take action against Hizbullah or Syria to prevent them from attacking in anticipation of an Israeli strike on Iran, there can be little doubt how UNIFIL would respond.

AND THERE is little that Israel today can do about UNIFIL. Olmert and Livni have been UNIFIL's most enthusiastic cheerleaders. They expended Israel's political capital convincing these hostile forces to perch themselves at our border. They then promised the Israeli public that the French would protect us. They are not in a position today to make demands.

And then there is Egypt.

Over the weekend, Egypt announced that it was deploying 5,000 troops (or "police" forces) along its border with the Gaza Strip in northern Sinai. The deployment was necessary, Egypt announced, to prevent Israel mounting a serious operation against the massive weapons smuggling that is quickly providing Palestinian terrorists with the means to transform Gaza into south Lebanon.

The fact that Egypt wishes to prevent Israel from stemming the flow of weapons to Gaza - which Egypt itself is supposed to be cutting off - should tell us all we need to know about Egypt's intentions. But apparently the government and Southern Command weren't listening. Sunday, Defense Minister Amir Peretz denied that Egyptian forces had been deployed along the border. An IDF commander in the Southern Command strangely expressed satisfaction at Egypt's move arguing that with the larger force Egypt would finally take action to prevent the arms transfers. The Foreign Ministry assured the public that the peace treaty with Egypt allows Cairo to deploy an unlimited number of "policemen" in the Sinai.

It is hard to decide which is more frightening, Egypt's move or Israel's response to it.

As MK Yuval Steinitz, former chairman of the Knesset's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee explains, Egypt's sudden decision to deploy a massive force along the border is a strategic threat of the first order to Israel. "Egypt," he explains, "is taking advantage of the weakness and incompetence of the government."

Over the past decade, Egypt has been assiduously preparing its military for war against Israel. From the ideological indoctrination of its forces, to its massive armament programs, to the relocation of its military installations, units and logistical bases to both sides of the Suez Canal, to the training of its troops to fight "an unnamed country on Egypt's northern border," Steinitz warns that Egypt has done more than Iran to ready its forces for war against Israel.

Rather than protest Egypt's actions, successive Israeli governments have swallowed whole Egypt's strategic deception. Egypt protests friendship and pretends to combat terrorism and prevent weapons smuggling into the Sinai.

Yet under this friendly guise, Egypt has legitimized Palestinian terrorists and stood behind the massive weapons smuggling operations. As Steinitz puts it, "Egypt is to Palestinian terrorism what Syria is to Hizbullah.

"The weapons to the Palestinians are brought in through Egyptian ports and El-Arish and are imported by land from Sudan. Those latter imports have to traverse Egypt on their way to Gaza. There is no way that the Egyptian government is not colluding with the weapons shippers."

AS STEINITZ notes, over the past eight months the weapons being shipped to Gaza have been sharply upgraded. Egypt today is overseeing the import of sophisticated anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles, as well as upgraded Katyusha rockets to Palestinian terror groups.

And now Mubarak is sending 5,000 "policemen to the border." As Steinitz notes, Israel has no way of knowing who these forces are, whether they are police or commandos or infantry or anti-aircraft units. He warns, that "If Israel does nothing to prevent their deployment today, there is no reason to doubt that in a year or two there will be tens of thousands of Egyptian troops along the border with Israel."

As Steinitz notes, not only does every single Egyptian soldier deployed along the border have a job to do in time of war, today they are perched along the border with the Negev, where, as the government turns its back on them and the IDF applauds their deployment, they are within striking distance of some of the IDF's most important military bases and strategic installations.

Since 1993, Israel's leftist governments have consistently followed a strategy of transferring responsibility for our national security to our enemies. First it was Yasser Arafat who was supposed to fight Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Now it is his deputy Mahmoud Abbas, UNIFIL and Mubarak who are all supposed to fight Israel's enemies. Far from learning from our bloody experience that our enemies have no interest in protecting us, in recent months, the Olmert government has expanded tenfold our reliance on our enemies.

As if having hostile Europeans guarding genocidal Iranian proxies in the north, and hostile Egyptians guarding and arming genocidal Palestinians in the south weren't enough, Sunday it was reported that the Olmert government is considering allowing thousands of armed PLO terrorists from the Badr Brigade in Jordan to relocate to Gaza.

It doesn't have to be this way. Although barring a major Hizbullah provocation, it isn't clear what Israel can do against the UNIFIL forces now enabling Hizbullah to rearm, Israel can still prevent the Egyptian deployment. If the government loudly protested the move and publicly requested the Bush administration order Egypt to remove its forces, Mubarak would do so. But in light of the Olmert government's mishandling of every military challenge Israel has faced since it came to power just six month ago, it is hard to imagine it will act responsibly.

But really, we don't have to worry. Olmert won't let Iran get nuclear weapons.

Editor's Notes: Tackle Teheran or face A-bomb Ahmadinejad

David Horovitz,
THE JERUSALEM POST
Oct. 27, 2006

www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1161811214002&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

It is probably unwise to overly analyze vague remarks casually made by politicians at glitzy receptions and fundraisers. But when the man doing the remarking is the leader of the free world, the subject matter is Iran, and the comments seem to have shifted a little over the months, they may be worth noting.

Two individuals told me at the very beginning of this calendar year that, in response to praise from guests at a White House reception for his firm position on Iraq, President George Bush said he intended to "take care" of Iran as well. But asked at a fundraiser much more recently how he planned to tackle Iran's drive to a nuclear capability, the US president was markedly less definitive, now saying only "we'll see."

In his interview with The Jerusalem Post early this month, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert expressed categorical confidence that Bush would thwart Teheran one way or another. But Bush is being dragged through the mud at home as casualties mount in Iraq; his popularity is low; his party is facing heavy midterm electoral losses.

I was in the United States last week, and when I reminded several Jewish audiences of our prime minister's public faith in their president's capacity and intention to stop Iran, I was met only very occasionally with nods of agreement. The more common responses ranged from heavy skepticism to outright ridicule. "That's just not going to happen," said a wise Washington insider with half a lifetime's experience in the US capital, a man whose opinions I respect in part because he is usually so much more reticent in giving them.
Even a majority of US Jews would rather Bush not intervene militarily to prevent Iran getting the bomb, according to a new American Jewish Committee poll reported in the Post this week. (Charmingly, the survey indicated, a majority of similar proportions would back Israel taking military measures for the same goal.)

And it may be that Olmert, too, is coming to doubt the degree to which he can afford to rely on the US president's undoubted good intentions. After all, the prime minister was uncharacteristically outspoken on the issue during his recent trip to Russia, warning the Iranians that "something will happen to them that they don't want" if they proceeded with their nuclear program, stressing that Israel could not reconcile itself to a nuclear Teheran, and speaking of there coming "a time when you have to do damage control."

With President Vladimir Putin alongside him, Olmert declared that "Israel does not have the luxury to allow the creation of a situation where a country like Iran has nonconventional potential. Israel can never abide this type of situation. For us, when the head of a country says he wants to destroy us, it does not sound like an empty declaration, but something we must prepare to prevent through all acceptable and possible ways."

If rhetoric is our guide, there is no question as to what our newest incoming minister Avigdor Lieberman, the man curiously awarded cabinet responsibility for "strategizing" on the Iranian nuclear threat, would advocate to deter the ayatollahs. (Quite how Lieberman's responsibilities on the subject interact with those of such minor cabinet players as our ministers of defense and of foreign affairs is anyone's guess...)

In an interview here ahead of the elections, Lieberman lamented the loss of Israel's deterrent capability on every frontier. He advocated that Hamas and other terror groups be warned that, if they dared carry out a further terror attack, "Every factory, every headquarters, every base, every office of theirs, we just wipe them out," and that the threat be implemented if the warning went unheeded. He was speaking about bombing Teheran as far back as 2001.

MILITARY INTERVENTION is not a good option for Israel. The only thing worse, as the increasingly well-worn truism has it, would be inaction and a nuclear Iran.

But the international community is hopelessly dragging its feet over meaningful sanctions. ("Reports from Iran do not indicate a real threat to peace and security," Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov reassured us all the other day.) And with time running out on the always faint possibility of domestic dissent unseating the regime, the stark choice is looking increasingly inescapable: It's a case of tackle Teheran or face A-bomb Ahmadinejad. The Chinas and Russias, who have resisted concerted diplomatic and economic measures with their determined softly-softly approach, in a misconceived assessment of their own self-interest, are closing the door on anything else.

As he has watched North Korea blithely ignore international bleatings and proceed inexorably toward the bomb, the Iranian president has seen absolutely nothing that would deter him from holding to the same course. Indeed, on Wednesday, Teheran delightedly announced the establishment of a second network of uranium-enrichment centrifuges, days after Ahmadinejad had hailed the tenfold expansion of his nuclear program over the past year, shrugged off the UN Security Council as "illegitimate," and asserted that Israel had "lost the reason for its existence" and would "disappear."

If the Bush administration is unwilling or incapable of acting to stop him, then the choice will rest with Israel - by no means the only goal of Ahmadinejad's ambitions, but certainly his initial potential target.

Incidentally, as James Woolsey, a former director of the CIA, pointed out to me last week, there is nothing to stop a nuclear North Korea simply flying in a bomb at Teheran's behest. The necessary materiel is neither bulky nor especially difficult to transport, he noted, and there's nobody checking the cargoes flying back and forth between the two countries.

THE AYATOLLAHS' nuclear program is, unfortunately, no Osirak. There's no single facility that, if destroyed, utterly cripples the effort. The installations are numerous and well-protected. There's expertise to correct any damage done, raw materials to restart affected processes. And there are all those global tentacles of terror to strike back at any attacker.

What of the consequences of not stopping Iran? The regime could wreak havoc without ever pressing the button, abusing the terrifying clout it would muster in the Middle East and beyond, not to mention prompting a regional arms race, as other nations rushed to strengthen themselves and even the playing field.

Already, Ahmadinejad's very pursuit of the bomb, combined with his relentless assertions that Israel will soon be swept aside, have reversed the process under which Middle Eastern regimes and their peoples, however grudgingly, were gradually coming to terms with the fact of Israel's permanence. The notion of destroying Israel, reduced to a dream or dismissed altogether, is again now widely regarded as feasible, even realistic.

Given the perceived religious imperatives of Teheran's fundamentalist Islamic leaders, would they aim for Israel and press the button? Would the prospect of "mutually assured destruction" stay their empowered hands, or do the ayatollahs share what former National Security Council director Giora Eiland has argued in these pages is Ahmadinejad's readiness to sacrifice half his country to destroy ours?

Still more chillingly, what would deter them from covertly supplying their nuclear capability, carefully concealing their culpability, to one of the innumerable terrorist organizations they encourage, fund and arm? Suicide bombers and their dispatchers, unlike nation states, have nothing to fear from a sovereign enemy's second-strike capability.

A much-admired IDF major-general (res.) this week suggested to me that, if all else failed, a limited Israeli air assault on Iran - not necessarily focused on the nuclear facilities - might "signal" to the leadership there that Israel means what Olmert says about not being able to "reconcile" itself to a nuclear Iran. A bitter hint of much worse to come, he said, might prove sobering. It would be a high-risk strategy, he acknowledged, and he wasn't sure, he added in response to my next question, that Israel had a leadership capable of implementing it.

But amid President Bush's troubles back home, is the co-option to the Israeli cabinet of Avigdor Lieberman, and that curious job-title he's been given, itself a first, small signal to Teheran?

.

bump

bump

Interesting tidbit in there about the Egyptians.

We are definately witnessing history in the making here.

and at my ripe old age of 22 i may very well get the opportunity to help make it

Quoted: bump

bumping your own stupid articles cause no one wants to read you apologist Dhimmi bullshit! thats pathetic. Get a clue, no one cares about how much you love Iran, Khatami or Islam.

Quoted: Quoted: bump bumping your own stupid articles cause no one wants to read you apologist Dhimmi bullshit! thats pathetic. Get a clue, no one cares about how much you love Iran, Khatami or Islam.

LOL! The article is from the Jerusalem Post. It's an Israeli paper. LOL! You really are a moron.

I can't imagine a war between Egypt and Israel... To far out for me....But I could see Israel starting shit with Iran...

Quoted: I can't imagine a war between Egypt and Israel... To far out for me....But I could see Israel starting shit with Iran...

I can.
They're run by the RoP®.
It doesn't have to be logical, just directed by the Quran.

wganz
¶

How long does a no frills conversion to judaism take?

I would love to do the 14 month IDF service just for the experience.

Quoted: How long does a no frills conversion to judaism take?

Depends on how long the 'shortening' takes to heal up.

Gee...that would break my fucking heart...

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: bump bumping your own stupid articles cause no one wants to read you apologist Dhimmi bullshit! thats pathetic. Get a clue, no one cares about how much you love Iran, Khatami or Islam. LOL! The article is from the Jerusalem Post. It's an Israeli paper. LOL! You really are a moron.

Oh yeah right, all you do on Arfcom is post bullshit from Moonbats about how great Iran is and I completely forget all about that. That red link i thought was just pretty coloring to gheyzor up your post, and the by line 'Caroline Glick' i thought that was your name in real life. Really, i did. Im sorry you cant understand Engrish all that well, what's you native tounge? Farsi? Urdu? Wallawalla? You see when i said "your own stupid articles" it was in reference to your POST WITH the articles.You posted them here hence they are "your articles", just like if i put a link on here it would be referred to as "MY LINK" even though i did not create the web page or the link address.  Most people learn that kind of advanced language skill at 6 years of age.
Here, let me school you since you mustve been in the special class and rode the short bus to school.

yahoo < do you see this Link? in future reference when talking to other persons here you can say "this is T-stoxs' link". See? And Johnny has a red ball. This is becuase it is on my post, and that is called abstract reference.
For more information about the English language please consult you local Childrens library, thank you.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: bump bumping your own stupid articles cause no one wants to read you apologist Dhimmi bullshit! thats pathetic. Get a clue, no one cares about how much you love Iran, Khatami or Islam. LOL! The article is from the Jerusalem Post. It's an Israeli paper. LOL! You really are a moron. Oh yeah right, all you do on Arfcom is post bullshit from Moonbats about how great Iran is and I completely forget all about that. That red link i thought was just pretty coloring to gheyzor up your post, and the by line 'Caroline Glick' i thought that was your name in real life. Really, i did. Im sorry you cant understand Engrish all that well, what's you native tounge? Farsi? Urdu? Wallawalla? You see when i said "your own stupid articles" it was in reference to your POST WITH the articles.You posted them here hence they are "your articles", just like if i put a link on here it would be referred to as "MY LINK" even though i did not create the web page or the link address.  Most people learn that kind of advanced language skill at 6 years of age. Here, let me school you since you mustve been in the special class and rode the short bus to school. yahoo < do you see this Link? in future reference when talking to other persons here you can say "this is T-stoxs' link". See? And Johnny has a red ball. This is becuase it is on my post, and that is called abstract reference. For more information about the English language please consult you local Childrens library, thank you.

Again, you are a moron.

You said I posted Dhimmi bullshit. I posted an article from the Jerusalem Post... with the link. That was all.

You are the freaking moonbat troll.

I guarantee you I have a better command of the english language than you will ever have. And a greater understanding of geo-politics and the middle east than you will ever have. Your ignorance is what leads you to rattle off that bullshit you spew in your posts.

It was your ass that was firmly planted on the short bus... not mine. But I can see how that might be confusing for someone so oblivious to the realities he is surrounded by.

The rest of what I would like to say to you is a CoC violation and I'll stop here. Suffice it to say every day I pray the world will be short one less troll on this earth.... hopefully in a very painful and morbid fashion.

what's a bump?

T-Stox: What gives? I interpreted the articles as "this is the threat that Iran presents", not "Dhimmi BS" ... Do you even know what Dhimmi is?

...

Israel IMHO has about 6 months before it's too late and the Iranians will have at least one nuclear capable weapon. Israel has every right to be nervous about this...

Quoted: what's a bump?

A Bump is a post that "bumps" the thread to the top of the list of discussions.

I say we offer the Isrealis safe haven here. I'd be personally willing to house a couple of those IDF chickas

t-stox, no offense but nothing you are posting makes any sense at all.

Israel has nukes, Pakistan has nukes, Iran will get nukes…

Then Saudi Arabia will get nukes to counter Irans nukes and Egypt will get nukes to counter the Saudi Arabian nukes…

It's going to be a big shit sandwich and everyone will get to take a bite.

ANdy

Oh teh Noes the French are perched at our borders to protect us.