Iran, Syria, and US in War of Words as West Bank is Digested by Israel

Iran on Friday threatened to “cut off Israel’s feet” if the latter attacks Syria, AFP reported.

During a visit to Damascus, Iranian Vice President Mohammad Reza Rahimi said: “We will stand alongside Syria against any [Israeli] threat … If those who have violated Palestinian land want to try anything we will cut off their feet,” he said.

Rahimi called Syria a “strong country that is ready to confront any threat” and said Iran “will back Syria with all its means and strength.”

The Obama administration Thursday warned Iran and Syria that America’s commitment to Israel’s security is unshakable, and they should understand the consequences of threats to the Jewish state.

Clinton warns Iran, Syria on threats to Israel
2010-04-29, MSNBC:

The Obama administration warns Iran and Syria that America’s commitment to Israel’s security is unshakable and that they should understand the consequences of threats to the Jewish state…

“These threats to Israel’s security are real, they are growing, and they must be addressed,” she said in the speech to the American Jewish Committee. The speech was the administration’s latest effort to reassure Israel that its ties to the United States remain strong despite tensions that flared last month.

Clinton told the group that Israel is “confronting some of the toughest challenges in her history,” particularly from Iran, Syria and groups they support like Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza Strip, and reaffirmed U.S. determination to get them to change course.

“Transferring weapons to these terrorists, especially longer-range missiles, would pose a serious threat to the security of Israel,” she said….

“We are concerned about the broader issue of the nature of Syrian support to Hezbollah involving a range of missiles, including that one,” Crowley said. He added that U.S. intelligence was looking at “multiple systems” from “multiple sources,” including Syria, that Hezbollah may have.

Getting Syria to stop, he said, is one of the administration’s prime goals in returning an ambassador to Damascus.

Syria warns U.S. on accepting Israel scud claims

“We warn the United States not to adopt false Israeli allegations and we say what destabilizes the security of the region is in fact beefing up Israel with all the latest U.S. weaponry and abetting Israeli allegations at our expense.”

France tells Syria to toughen border security AFP

“The situation is serious, dangerous,” Kouchner told Europe 1 radio. “There is a stockpile of weapons, short-range, medium-range and perhaps even long-range missiles and we are concerned.”  “We are asking the Syrians to guarantee the security of that border,” Kouchner said. “I am not saying that it’s a sieve because a certain number of facts have not been established. “But this is dangerous and reinforces extremism,” he added.

Palestinian Roads:  Cementing Statehood, or Israeli Annexation?
By Nadia Hijab & Jesse Rosenfeld New evidence indicates that the PA’s ambitious road-building program–heavily funded by the United States and Europe–is being used by Israel to facilitate settlement expansion.
April 30, 2010, The Nation

Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad has staked his political credibility on securing a Palestinian state by 2011 in the entire West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem, a program enthusiastically embraced by the international community. Ambitious PA plans include roads and other infrastructure across the West Bank, with funds provided by the United States, Europe and other donors.

Fayyad has argued that development will make the reality of a Palestinian state impossible to ignore. However, many of the new roads facilitate Israeli settlement expansion and pave the way for the seizure of main West Bank highways for exclusive Israeli use.

For decades Israel has carried out its own infrastructure projects in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem. These include a segregated road network that, together with the separation wall Israel began building in 2002, divides Palestinian areas from each other while bringing the settlements–all of which are illegal under international law–closer to Israel.

Now, armed with information from United Nations sources and their own research, Palestinian nongovernmental organizations are raising the alarm. Their evidence spotlights the extent to which PA road-building is facilitating the Israeli goal of annexing vast areas of the West Bank–making a viable Palestinian state impossible. ….

The Future of Palestine: Righteous Jews vs. the New Afrikaners
John J. Mearsheimer on P U L S E

My talk is about the future relationship between Israel and the Occupied Territories.

Of course, I am not just talking about the fate of those lands; I am also talking about the future of the people who live there. I am talking about the future of the Jews and the Palestinians who are Israeli citizens, as well as the Palestinians who live in the Occupied Territories.

The story I will tell is straightforward. Contrary to the wishes of the Obama administration and most Americans – to include many American Jews – Israel is not going to allow the Palestinians to have a viable state of their own in Gaza and the West Bank. Regrettably, the two-state solution is now a fantasy. Instead, those territories will be incorporated into a “Greater Israel,” which will be an apartheid state bearing a marked resemblance to white-ruled South Africa. Nevertheless, a Jewish apartheid state is not politically viable over the long term. In the end, it will become a democratic bi-national state, whose politics will be dominated by its Palestinian citizens. In other words, it will cease being a Jewish state, which will mean the end of the Zionist dream…….

Playing peace to target Iran
Graham Usher in Al-Ahram

Every time the US president tries painstakingly to build a coalition against Iran up pops Israel, writes Graham Usher in New York

Obama needs Palestine merely to pursue his scheme to isolate Iran, says Khaled Amayreh cynically in occupied Jerusalem

Desperate to achieve progress of any kind on the Israeli- Palestinian track, the Obama administration is pressuring, even bullying the weak and vulnerable Palestinian Authority (PA) to agree, at least in principle, to an Israeli proposal that would see the creation of a Palestinian “state” on some 60 per cent of the West Bank.

However, such an entity as proposed by the Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu in recent talks with US officials, would be devoid of any semblance of sovereignty and conspicuously lacking control of its borders, which would be temporary in any case and tightly controlled by Israel…

One PA official present at the Al-Quds University conference described Mitchell’s talks with PA officials in Ramallah as “a tedious repetition of the same old platitudes about the beauty of peace and need to restart talks.”

“The Americans, unable or reluctant to pressure Israel, are trying to pressure us, given the fact that we are the weaker party. They think that the key to isolate Iran in the current standoff with the West lies in far-reaching Palestinian concessions to Israel on cardinal issues such as Jerusalem and the refugees. And I want to tell you something. Even if all Arab states say yes for such concessions, we, the mother of the child, will say a clarion no because this is our land, our future.”

The official, who demanded that his name not be mentioned, said the bulk of the PA leadership was fully aware of “Netanyahu’s tricks, deception, mendacity and stalling tactics”.

“Netanyahu wants to gain more time to create more irreversible facts in Jerusalem and the rest of the West Bank, and the Americans have come to think that we are merely obsessed with the symbol of statehood, even at the expense of losing Jerusalem and one third of the West Bank, in addition to the right of return for the refugees. Well, all I can tell you is that they are dreaming if they think that we will succumb to their designs and wishful thinking.”

Needless to say, the Palestinian official’s scepticism is more than justified. Netanyahu, while telling Mitchell and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that he is willing to conduct “frank and honest discussion” over all core issues, has been telling settlers, leaders and his own coalition partners that there is no way Israel would leave any part of Jerusalem to the Palestinians and that settlements west and east of the Annexation Wall would continue to grow irrespective of the peace process with the Palestinians.

Ten reasons why East Jerusalem does not belong to Israel

Israeli hawks say that Jerusalem is theirs because of a long, romantic national history there. Too bad it’s made up….
By Juan Cole in

The French spy, the CIA, and the Syrian reactor
By Jeff Stein, April 29 (Washington Post blog)

September, 2007: CIA officials peered at the “overhead” — satellite photos.

The pictures were crystal clear: A clandestine Syrian nuclear facility, bombed by Israeli jets, lay in ruins on the edge of the desert, 90 miles south of Damascus.

Most important, the photos showed that the core of the reactor, built with secret North Korean help, had been totally destroyed.

But at CIA headquarters, Deputy Director Stephen R. Kappes was chafing — at what he didn’t have, according to two former intelligence officials, recounting the tale only on condition of anonymity because the incident remains sensitive.

Recently returned from a self-imposed, two-year exile, the career spy wanted somebody to eyeball that wreckage — get in close, point a camera at it, maybe even take a radiation reading.

Days had passed, however, and the CIA, with an estimated budget of $10 billion in 2009, had not been able to get a spy out there.

It wasn’t that close-in photos would be crucial: It was a point of pride. This is what first-class intelligence services do. They dispatch spies to watch and hear things that their fabulous technology might have missed.

And Kappes, who had quit the agency in 2004 rather than take instruction from the staff of Bush’s CIA Director Porter Goss, wanted to show what the spies under his direction could do. Alas, somebody else was about to beat him to it.

How galling it must have been for the CIA: It was the French.

According to the former officials, the French military attaché in Damascus simply took it upon himself to drive out to the reactor on his own and take pictures.

One of the former officials said that the attaché, whose name could not be learned, drove out to the desert site, near the village of At Tibnah, trailing a virtual caravan of Syrian “minders,” domestic security agents assigned to follow him around.

When he pulled up to the reactor site, according to this source, the attaché jerked his thumb over his shoulder and told the bewildered guards, “They’re with me.”

Apparently that bought him enough time to snap some pictures.

But the second former official said “there was no sign of security personnel being present” at the site.

The attaché “drove there and took the photos from his vehicle,” said the former official. “A few had the steering wheel and dashboard prominently featured.

“He was never out of the vehicle, and he never got into the wreckage itself. But he was damn close, and it was a really ballsy move,” the source added.

A little while later, the French presented the photos to the CIA.

Iraq a Catalyst for Rapprochement?
By Marwan Kabalan in Qantara

From mid-2007, Syria and the United States, notwithstanding the hostile rhetoric, started to explore common interests regarding Iraq. On this particular matter, they could increase their cooperation and stop their deteriorating relationship, says Marwan Kabalan…

Iraq’s banned Baath holds first public meeting in Syria (AFP)

DAMASCUS — Iraq’s banned Baath party, booted out of power in the 2003 US-led invasion, held its first public meeting in the Syrian capital on Thursday.

“We have launched negotiations to reunite the party,” Ghazwan Qubaissi, the number two in a wing led by Mohammed Yunes al-Ahmad, a former governor of Mosul under now executed dictator and Baath chief Saddam Hussein, told AFP.

“There is no difference between Baath party members here and those there (inside Iraq) … All are contributing to the liberation of the country,” he said at a meeting in a Damascus cultural centre attended by 300-500 people.

He was referring to a wing led by Ezzat Ibrahim al-Duri, Saddam’s number two and the highest-ranking party official still at large, seven years after the invasion which split the Baath into Duri- and Ahmad-led factions….

Several senior Iraqi Baath officials fled after Saddam’s ouster to neighbouring Syria, which itself is ruled by a rival wing of the Baath party, an Arab nationalist movement…. Qubaissi at the meeting also hit out at Iraq’s new leaders who had “strayed from national reconciliation because they are in the process of sidelining all Baathists and nationalists.”

Iraq’s Justice and Accountability Committee barred about 500 candidates from the country March 7 general election on account of their alleged links to the Baath party….

Hezbollah leader won’t confirm or deny Scud claims

“… Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah has refused to confirm or deny Israeli allegations his group has obtained long-range Scud missiles from Syria. Nasrallah, in an interview with Kuwait’s al-Rai television broadcast on Thursday, said the claims were an attempt to “intimidate” the armed Lebanese political organization, but he did not see a repeat of the 2006 Israeli-Hezbollah war on the horizon.

“I cannot say that it is close. Myself and brothers in Hezbollah see that all this intimidation does not hide behind it a war. On the contrary, if there was silence and quietness, then everyone must be vigilant,” he said. “But when you see all this American and Israeli noise, this means they want to use this noise to achieve political, psychological and certain security advantages without resorting to the step of war.

“Today it’s Scuds, yesterday other kinds of rockets … the aim is one, and that is to intimidate Lebanon, to intimidate Syria and to put pressure on Lebanon, Syria, the resistance movement and the Lebanese and Syrian people,” Nasrallah said. “Regardless of whether Syria gave Hezbollah this type of rockets … of course Syria denied, and Hezbollah as usual does not comment.”

Comments (47)

Akbar Palace said:

Syria Comment & Juan Cole: A Marriage Made in (anti-Israel) Heaven

Professor Josh continues his anti-Jewish on-slaught with another series of anti-Israel and anti-Jewish articles from dummies and so-called Middle East experts.

To wit, in an article by Juan Cole entitiled:

Ten reasons why East Jerusalem does not belong to Israel, Juan Cole states:

The present-day Palestinians are the descendants of the ancient Jews and have every right to live where their ancestors have lived for centuries.

Actually, after reading the text of his article, it really should be read:

“Ten reasons why JERUSALEM does not belong to Israel”

I suggest that Professor Josh and Juan Cole spend more time “digesting” the Jewish religion if they want to understand why Israelis are not going to leave the West Bank or East Jerusalem. Either the Palestinians will have to guarantee Jewish well-being under Palestinian control, or Palestinians will have to accept land elsewhere.

In Judaism, the daily prayers contain numerous references to Jerusalem. The amidah prayer, which is recited three times on regular weekdays, must be said facing towards Jerusalem. The following supplication is contained in it:

“And to Jerusalem, Your city, may You return in compassion, and may You rest within it, as You have spoke. May You rebuild it soon in our days as an eternal structure, and may You speedily establish the throne of King David within it. Blessed are You, God, the builder of Jerusalem…May our eyes behold Your return to Zion in compassion. Blessed are you God, who restores His presence to Zion.”

In the Grace After Meals which is recited after partaking of a meal eaten with bread, the following is said:

“Have mercy Lord, our God…on Jerusalem Your city, on Zion the resting place of Your glory, on the monarchy of King David Your anointed, and on the great and holy Temple upon which Your name is called…Rebuild Jerusalem, the holy city, soon in our days. Blessed are you God who rebuilds Jerusalem in His mercy, amen.”

After partaking of a light meal, the thanksgiving blessing states:

“Have mercy, Lord, our God…on Jerusalem, Your city; and on Zion, the resting place of Your glory; upon Your altar, and upon Your Temple. Rebuild Jerusalem, the city of holiness, speedily in our days. Bring us up into it and gladden us in its rebuilding and let us eat from its fruit and be satisfied with its goodness and bless You upon it in holiness and purity.”

Steve Plaut offers an inside review of Juan Cole and his lack of intelligence…

May 3rd, 2010, 12:15 pm


Akbar Palace said:

Something you’ll never see Professor Josh or the likes of Jonathan Cook investigate:

Incitement in Palestine

May 3rd, 2010, 2:07 pm


Ghat Albird said:



A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm

The examples and perspective in this article may not include all significant viewpoints. Please improve the article or discuss the issue. (February 2010)
A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm (commonly known as the \”Clean Break\” report) is a policy document that was prepared in 1996 by a study group led by Richard Perle for Benjamin Netanyahu, the then Prime Minister of Israel.[1] The report explained a new approach to solving Israel\’s security problems in the Middle East with an emphasis on \”Western values\”. It has since been criticized for advocating an aggressive new policy.

According to the report\’s preamble,[1] it was written by the Study Group on a New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000, which was a part of the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies. Former United States Assistant Secretary of Defense Richard Perle was the \”Study Group Leader\”, but the final report included ideas from James Colbert, Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Robert Loewenberg, Douglas Feith, David Wurmser, and Meyrav Wurmser.[2]

The content of the report is organized into an introduction followed by six sections. The report interleaves within its main commentary text a series of \”key passages of a possible speech.\”

\”While there are those who will counsel continuity, Israel has the opportunity to make a clean break; it can forge a peace process and strategy based on an entirely new intellectual foundation, one that restores strategic initiative and provides the nation the room to engage every possible energy on rebuilding Zionism, the starting point of which must be economic reform.\”[1]

The introduction specifically proposes three new policies:

1. Rather than pursuing a \”comprehensive peace\” with the entire Arab world, Israel should work jointly with Jordan and Turkey to \”contain, destabilize, and roll-back\” those entities that are threats to all three.

2. Changing the nature of relations with the Palestinians, specifically reserving the right of \”hot pursuit\” anywhere within Palestinian territory as well as attempting to promote alternatives to Arafat\’s leadership.

3. Changing relations with the United States stressing self reliance and strategic cooperation.

\”This can only be done if Israel takes serious steps to terminate aid, which prevents economic reform.\”[1]

\”Securing the Northern Border\”************

\”Syria challenges Israel on Lebanese soil. An effective approach, and one with which American can sympathize, would be if Israel seized the strategic initiative along its northern borders by engaging Hizballah, Syria, and Iran, as the principal agents of aggression in Lebanon, including by: —striking Syria’s drug-money and counterfeiting infrastructure in Lebanon, all of which focuses on Razi Qanan. —paralleling Syria’s behavior by establishing the precedent that Syrian territory is not immune to attacks emanating from Lebanon by Israeli proxy forces…. \”[1]

\”Israel also can take this opportunity to remind the world of the nature of the Syrian regime. Syria repeatedly breaks its word. It violated numerous agreements with the Turks, and has betrayed the United States by continuing to occupy Lebanon in violation of the Taef agreement in 1989. Instead, Syria staged a sham election, installed a quisling regime, and forced Lebanon to sign a \”Brotherhood Agreement\” in 1991, that terminated Lebanese sovereignty. And Syria has begun colonizing Lebanon with hundreds of thousands of Syrians, while killing tens of thousands of its own citizens at a time, as it did in only three days in 1983 in Hama….Given the nature of the regime in Damascus, it is both natural and moral that Israel abandon the slogan comprehensive peace and move to contain Syria, drawing attention to its weapons of mass destruction programs, and rejecting land for peace deals on the Golan Heights.\”[1]

\”Moving to a Traditional Balance of Power Strategy\”

\”Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions.\”[1]

\”Since Iraq\’s future could affect the strategic balance in the Middle East profoundly, it would be understandable that Israel has an interest in supporting the Hashemites in their efforts to redefine Iraq,including such measures as: visiting Jordan as the first official state visit, even before a visit to the United States, of the new Netanyahu government; supporting King Hussein by providing him with some tangible security measures to protect his regime against Syrian subversion; encouraging — through influence in the U.S. business community — investment in Jordan to structurally shift Jordan’s economy away from dependence on Iraq; and diverting Syria’s attention by using Lebanese opposition elements to destabilize Syrian control of Lebanon. .. Were the Hashemites to control Iraq, they could use their influence over Najf to help Israel wean the south Lebanese Shia away from Hizballah, Iran, and Syria. Shia retain strong ties to the Hashemites: the Shia venerate foremost the Prophet’s family, the direct descendants of which — and in whose veins the blood of the Prophet flows — is King Hussein.\”[1]

\”Changing the Nature of Relations with the Palestinians\”
\”Israel has a chance to forge a new relationship between itself and the Palestinians. First and foremost, Israel’s efforts to secure its streets may require hot pursuit into Palestinian-controlled areas, a justifiable practice with which Americans can sympathize.\”[1]

\”Forging A New U.S.-Israeli Relationship\”

\”Israel can make a clean break from the past and establish a new vision for the U.S.-Israeli partnership based on self-reliance, maturity and mutuality — not one focused narrowly on territorial disputes. Israel’s new strategy — based on a shared philosophy of peace through strength — reflects continuity with Western values by stressing that Israel is self-reliant, does not need U.S. troops in any capacity to defend it, including on the Golan Heights, and can manage its own affairs.\”[1]

\”Conclusions – Transcending the Arab-Israeli Conflict\”

\”Israel’s new agenda can signal a clean break by abandoning a policy which assumed exhaustion and allowed strategic retreat by reestablishing the principle of preemption, rather than retaliation alone and by ceasing to absorb blows to the nation without response.\”[1]

\”Israel’s new strategic agenda can shape the regional environment in ways that grant Israel the room to refocus its energies back to where they are most needed: to rejuvenate its national idea, which can only come through replacing Israel’s socialist foundations with a more sound footing; and to overcome its exhaustion, which threatens the survival of the nation.\”[1]

\”Ultimately, Israel can do more than simply manage the Arab-Israeli conflict though war. No amount of weapons or victories will grant Israel the peace its seeks. When Israel is on a sound economic footing, and is free, powerful, and healthy internally, it will no longer simply manage the Arab-Israeli conflict; it will transcend it. As a senior Iraqi opposition leader said recently: Israel must rejuvenate and revitalize its moral and intellectual leadership. It is an important — if not the most important–element in the history of the Middle East. Israel — proud, wealthy, solid, and strong — would be the basis of a truly new and peaceful Middle East.\”[1]

The Blueprint for the new Bush policy had actually been drawn up five years earlier by three of his top national security advisors, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and David Wurmser who were working for conservative pro-Israel think tanks. James Bamford explains, \”the centerpiece of the recommendations was the removal of Saddam Hussein as the first step in remaking the Middle East into a region friendly, instead of hostile, to Israel. Their plan \”A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm,\” also signaled a radical departure from the peace-oriented policies of former Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, who was assassinated by a member of an extreme right-wing Israeli group.\” [3]

The report was \”a kind of US-Israeli neoconservative manifesto\” according to journalist Jason Vest.[4]

In Vest\’s analysis, the report proposed \”a mini-cold war in the Middle East, advocating the use of proxy armies for regime changes, destabilization and containment. Indeed, it even goes so far as to articulate a way to advance right-wing Zionism by melding it with missile-defense advocacy.\”

Patrick J. Buchanan[5] wrote that the report \”urged Bibi to ditch the Oslo Accords of the assassinated Yitzak Rabin and adopt a new aggressive strategy.\”

Because of the shared organizational membership of the paper\’s authors, Vest wrote[4] that the report provides \”perhaps the most insightful window\” into the \”policy worldview\” of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs and Center for Security Policy, two United States-based thinktanks.

Sidney Blumenthal\’s summary of the report:[6]

\”Instead of trading land for peace, the neocons advocated tossing aside the Oslo agreements that established negotiations and demanding unconditional Palestinian acceptance of Likud\’s terms, peace for peace. Rather than negotiations with Syria, they proposed weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. They also advanced a wild scenario to redefine Iraq. Then King Hussein of Jordan would somehow become its ruler; and somehow this Sunni monarch would gain control of the Iraqi Shiites, and through them wean the south Lebanese Shia away from Hezbollah, Iran, and Syria.\”

John Dizard claimed there is evidence in the \”Clean Break\” document of Ahmed Chalabi\’s involvement. Chalabi is an Iraqi politician and was an ardent opponent of Saddam Hussein:[7]

\”In the section on Iraq, and the necessity of removing Saddam Hussein, there was telltale \’intelligence\’ from Chalabi and his old Jordanian Hashemite patron, Prince Hassan: \’The predominantly Shi\’a population of southern Lebanon has been tied for centuries to the Shi\’a leadership in Najaf, Iraq, rather than Iran. Were the Hashemites to control Iraq, they could use their influence over Najaf to help Israel wean the south Lebanese Shi\’a away from Hizbollah, Iran, and Syria. Shi\’a retain strong ties to the Hashemites.\’ Of course the Shia with \’strong ties to the Hashemites\’ was the family of Ahmed Chalabi. Perle, Feith and other contributors to the \’Clean Break\’ seemed not to recall the 15-year fatwa the clerics of Najaf proclaimed against the Iraqi Hashemites. Or the still more glaring fact, pointed out by Rashid Khalidi in his new book Resurrecting Empire, that Shiites are loyal only to descendants of the prophet Muhammad\’s son-in-law, Ali, and reject all other lineages, including the Hashemites. As Khalidi caustically notes, \’Perle and his colleagues were here proposing the complete restructuring of a region whose history and religion their suggestions reveal they know hardly anything about.\’ In short, the Iraqi component of the neocons \’new strategy\’ was based on an ignorant fantasy of prospective Shia support for ties with Israel.\”


[edit]Israel foreign policy
According to Sidney Blumenthal,

\”Netanyahu, at first, attempted to follow the clean break strategy, but under persistent pressure from the Clinton administration he felt compelled to enter into U.S.-led negotiations with the Palestinians.\”[6]

[edit]United States foreign policy
Brian Whitaker reported in a September 2002 article [8] published in The Guardian that

\”With several of the Clean Break paper\’s authors now holding key positions in Washington, the plan for Israel to transcend its foes by reshaping the Middle East looks a good deal more achievable today than it did in 1996. Americans may even be persuaded to give up their lives to achieve it.\”

John Mearsheimer wrote in March 2006 in the London Review of Books that the \’Clean Break\’ paper

\”called for Israel to take steps to reorder the entire Middle East.
Netanyahu did not follow their advice, but Feith, Perle and Wurmser
were soon urging the Bush administration to pursue those same
goals. The Ha’aretz columnist Akiva Eldar warned that Feith and
Perle \’are walking a fine line between their loyalty to American
governments … and Israeli interests\’.\”[9]

Ian Buruma wrote in August 2003 in the New York Times that[10]:

\”Douglas Feith and Richard Perle advised Netanyahu, who was prime minister in 1996, to make \’a clean break\’ from the Oslo accords with the Palestinians. They also argued that Israeli security would be served best by regime change in surrounding countries. Despite the current mess in Iraq, this is still a commonplace in Washington. In Paul Wolfowitz\’s words, \’The road to peace in the Middle East goes through Baghdad.\’ It has indeed become an article of faith (literally in some cases) in Washington that American and Israeli interests are identical, but this was not always so, and \’Jewish interests\’ are not the main reason for it now.\”

Buruma continues[10]:

\”What we see, then, is not a Jewish conspiracy, but a peculiar alliance of evangelical Christians, foreign-policy hard-liners, lobbyists for the Israeli government and neoconservatives, a number of whom happen to be Jewish. But the Jews among them — Perle, Wolfowitz, William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard, et al. — are more likely to speak about freedom and democracy than about Halakha (Jewish law). What unites this alliance of convenience is a shared vision of American destiny and the conviction that American force and a tough Israeli line on the Arabs are the best ways to make the United States strong, Israel safe and the world a better place.\”

Daniel Levy described the paper and the influence its authors came to yield on US foreign policy[11]:

\”In 1996 a group of then opposition U.S. policy agitators, including Richard Perle and Douglas Feith, presented a paper entitled \’A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm\’ to incoming Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The \’clean break\’ was from the prevailing peace process, advocating that Israel pursue a combination of roll-back, destabilization and containment in the region, including striking at Syria and removing Saddam Hussein from power in favor of \’Hashemite control in Iraq.\’ The Israeli horse they backed then was not up to the task. Ten years later, as Netanyahu languishes in the opposition, as head of a small Likud faction, Perle, Feith and their neoconservative friends have justifiably earned a reputation as awesome wielders of foreign-policy influence under George W. Bush.\”

An October 2003 editorial in The Nation criticized the Syria Accountability Act and connected it to the \’Clean Break\’ report and authors[12]:

\”To properly understand the Syria Accountability Act, one has to go back to a 1996 document, \’A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm,\’ drafted by a team of advisers to Benjamin Netanyahu in his run for prime minister of Israel. The authors included current Bush advisers Richard Perle and Douglas Feith. \’Syria challenges Israel on Lebanese soil,\’ they wrote, calling for \’striking Syrian military targets in Lebanon, and should that prove insufficient, striking at select targets in Syria proper.\’ No wonder Perle was delighted by the Israeli strike. \’It will help the peace process,\’ he told the Washington Post, adding later that the United States itself might have to attack Syria. But what Perle means by \’helping the peace process\’ is not resolving the conflict by bringing about a viable, sovereign Palestinian state but rather – as underscored in \’A Clean Break\’ – \’transcending the Arab-Israeli conflict\’ altogether by forcing the Arabs to accept most, if not all, of Israel\’s territorial conquests and its nuclear hegemony in the region.\”

Taki writes in the September 2006 issue of The American Conservative[15] that

\”recently, Netanyahu suggested that President Bush had assured him Iran will be prevented from going nuclear. I take him at his word.

Netanyahu seems to be the main mover in America’s official adoption
of the 1996 white paper A Clean Break, authored by him and American
fellow neocons, which aimed to aggressively remake the strategic
environments of Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, and Iran. As they say in
boxing circles, three down, two to go.\”


May 3rd, 2010, 2:17 pm


Jad said:

Today, AP become so religious and wants to follow the books in the case of AlQouds aka Jerusalem.
You religiously (all religions) radical people are the scum of humanity, you kill and steal in the name of your blood thirsty God according to your books and you call that ‘written’
As one wise man said: “Wake up an smell the Hummus” by OTW

May 3rd, 2010, 3:24 pm


Nour said:

Actually the only inaccuracy in Juan Cole’s article is his argument that peoples do not have any attachments to their land, which is a completely nonsensical statement indicating a complete ignorance of basic sociology and anthropology. The land, or more accurately the physical environment, of a specific geographic territory plays a major role in shaping a nation’s character and psyche.

The formation of nations begins with man’s interaction with the land on which he lives. This interaction is two-fold: a horizontal interaction with other groups within the same geographic territory, and a vertical interaction with the land itself, in attempting to shape and exploit the land. Of course, just as man is able to shape the physical environment to satisfy his needs, so is he limited by his very physical environment in the extent of this shaping.

The horizontal and vertical interaction on and with the land inhabited by man helped shape human development in three basic ways: its topography greatly determined the nature and scope of human adaptation as well as the form of human resources and their combinations; its natural composition influenced the outward and psychological makeup of peoples; and, finally, its natural division into zones facilitated internal group unity and prevented the integration of mankind into a single community.

But Juan Cole is correct in his historical accounts which clearly establishes that this land, in its entirety, belongs to its indigenous population and original inhabitants, namely the Syrians (which include the Palestinians). The fact that Jews may have a religious attachment to Jerusalem in no way justifies their usurpation of that land. If I create a religion, cult, or ideological school that regards any single city or piece of land as important to my set of beliefs, I fail to see how that justifies my exclusive right to it.

As the president of the Syrian Social Nationalist Party recently declared, in response to continuous “Israeli” baseless claims to Jerusalem, Jerusalem, all of Jerusalem, is the capital of the Syrian nation, as it shall continue to be Syrian in its character and belonging, regardless of all attempts to Judaize it and distort its history.

May 3rd, 2010, 4:48 pm


Amir in Tel Aviv said:

The Babylonians, the Assyrians, the ancient Greeks, the Ptolemies, the Seleucids, the Sassanian Empire, the Romans, The Pharaohs, the Byzantines, the Mamlooks and the Ottomans… all are history.

And the Jews are here, and are kicking. Literally.
There’s no Islam with no Mecca. There’s no Catholicism with no Rome,
And there’s no Judaism with no Jerusalem.

There is Islam with no Al Quds.

May 3rd, 2010, 4:57 pm


jad said:

Does the Prince in a stolen tent know anything about the raise and fall of civilizations? Someone needs to read and understand history.
“There’s no Islam with no Mecca. There’s no Catholicism with no Rome,
And there’s no Judaism with no Jerusalem.”
What a lame way of thinking.

May 3rd, 2010, 5:33 pm


Ghat Albird said:


JERUSALEM — Israel has indicted five of its citizens, including A RETIRED ARMY GENERALl, with operating a nationwide organ trafficking ring that ensnared dozens of potential victims
The charges released Thursday include human trafficking for the purpose of organ harvesting and money laundering. The indictment says the organ harvesting ring exploited the desperate condition of sick people, calling it a “form of modern slavery.”

Police say the traffickers allegedly offered up to $100,000 per kidney but in at least two cases didn’t pay the donors.

The charges say donors were sought through advertisements. Then they were flown from Israel to Europe, South America or Southeast Asia, where the organs were extracted in illegal procedures.

May 3rd, 2010, 5:45 pm


Amir in Tel Aviv said:

May be lame to you, Tribal.. not to me.
My tent was stolen from me for many years. Now the Jewish tent is back with it’s original and lawful owners.

I’m not at all religious, as you already know. I read the Books as a lesson in history, and as a moral guidance.

Attempts to try and to deny the rights of the Jewish nation in HolyLand, will bring you nowhere, and will only prolong the struggle.

I never said or thought that HolyLand should be exclusively Jewish.
There’s place for all. But until there’s no recognition and an acceptance, that Jews have the right to manage their life independently in (at least PART) of historic HolyLand, this right will not be given to others.

May 3rd, 2010, 5:52 pm


Nour said:

Civilizations within a particular nation rise and fall; this is the natural course of history, but this does not negate the continuous presence of a people on a single piece of land. The Babylonian, Assyrian, Canaanite, etc. Syrian civilizations may no longer be present currently, but this does not mean that the descendants of those peoples are no longer there. The point is that this land was continuously inhabited by the same people since time immemorial, and those people have the first right to this land, not a group of people emigrating there from all four corners of the world without any prior attachment to that land.

Your argument is akin to saying that the Gauls, Franks, and Etruscans are history and therefore the French have no right to France. Or that the Normans, Saxons, and Anglos are history and therefore the English have no right to England. It’s nonsense.

As for religious attachments to particular cities, this has nothing to do with actual belongings to pieces of land. One may have a spiritual attachment to particular sites or locations based on a certain religious significance they hold. But that in no way entitles a particular “ethnic” group exclusive rights to that land when there are other people living there.

May 3rd, 2010, 6:46 pm


Shai said:


Thank you for continuing to “update” us on Israel. Thankfully, it is the Israeli justice system that indicted those five organ-traffickers, and Israeli media that informed us of that.

By the way, do you suppose organ-trafficking, a crime that is widely practiced in many nations across the world, is not reported in the Arab world because it simply isn’t practiced there, or because its “free-press” isn’t sharing the stories with us?

May 3rd, 2010, 7:24 pm


jad said:

“is not reported in the Arab world because it simply isn’t practiced there, or because its “free-press” isn’t sharing the stories with us?”

Hi Shai,
How are you?
Actually we had similar story about ‘new born baby trafficking’ in Syria and it is reported in our Syrian Media and the Doctors who did that are facing charges, so we are not that bad in covering our inhumane stories 🙂
Here is the story in Arabic (OLD NEWS), just to let you know that it does happen everywhere in the world:

May 3rd, 2010, 8:07 pm


Ghat Albird said:


Obviously the socalled “non-freedom” in the arab media is of peculiar interest to you and a selected few.

Interestingly many non “special/chosen” react in somewhat a similar fashion to the world-wide known fact that zionists [mostly jewish zionists] control over 96% of the worldwide media.

At least the Arab media, given the world we all live in only affects Arabs. Whereas those who control the 96% of the wolrd media affects 96% of the whole world.

As far as trafficking in body parts, the only reference to such activities by the European media referenced such activities in Hungary, Haiti and the Bronx in New York in addition to the one in Israel.

IMO you’ all should continue doing what Amir claims all Israelis are doing and that is literarly “kicking”. Salams.

May 3rd, 2010, 8:29 pm


Ghat Albird said:

SHAI said:


Thank you for continuing to “update” us on Israel.

While this may be construed to elicit more thanks by SHAI.
Its intended primarely for US and Arab viewing.

May 3rd, 2010, 10:50 pm


Yossi said:

Ghat AlBird,

You surprise me, don’t you know that 97.3234222441787% of the Arab media is ALSO controlled by “zionists” affecting 98.312423423% of the Arab population and another 2.2342343% of the rest of the world (e.g., Philipono maids in the UAE who have to watch Arabic media)? Did you really think there is anything in the world that escapes our control? Don’t tell me you also believe that YOU have free volition? You’re not aware of the zionist chip in your head? Ahh… the subject is not even aware of his state… perfect…

May 4th, 2010, 12:06 am


norman said:

Improving Syrian /US relation is a jock , now we see where the Scud story is coming from , they wanted to extend the sanction , they should know that Syria is not a charitable organization and they have to show good behavior if they want Syria to help them in Iraq , Palestine and Lebanon ,

Iran is the happiest country today , she is telling the Syrians , (( I TOLD YOU SO ,THEY JUST WANT TO USE YOU )) , and Syria will admit that it is true ,

Obama extends sanctions on Syria for one year

4 May 2010 | 02:25 | FOCUS News Agency

Washington. President Barack Obama Monday renewed US sanctions on Syria for a year, accusing Damascus of supporting “terrorist” groups and pursuing missile programs and weapons of mass destruction, AFP reported.
There had been no expectation that Obama was ready to lift the measures, but the renewal comes at an especially sensitive time in US-Syria relations, despite efforts by the administration to return an ambassador to Damascus.
The United States has also recently accused Syria and Iran of arming Hezbollah with increasingly sophisticated rockets and missiles, which it says are undermining stability in the region.

May 4th, 2010, 12:39 am


jad said:

Dear Norman,
Did you expect anything other than that from a weak president like Obama??
I agree with you, today is a joyful day for Iran. There is a war coming to our region and anything other than that is a big lie.

May 4th, 2010, 12:47 am


norman said:

Jad ,

I agree , war is coming and i do not know how long we are going to be naive thinking that our rights will be given to us only if we disarm as they want us to believe ,

Rights are taken not given and when we recognize that fact we will be able to get get our rights and the Palestinians’ too ,

May 4th, 2010, 1:59 am


Amir in Tel Aviv said:


Look at this not-very-big-mosque

When you stand close to this mosque, it’s quite big, but compared
with the humongous man-made plateau, this mosque looks not so big.

Here’s a small part of the wall, that supports this titanic man-made elevated plateau

Now, do you know who built this gigantic man-made plateau?
The mosque was built roughly around 7th-8th centuries, so this giant man-made platoe is obvieusly older.

I’ll spare you the googeling. It was built by Jews, and when it was complited some 2000 years ago, it looked like this.,vnesa169.jpg

This is what I call a NATIONAL project.
This land and structure was stolen from the Jewish nation. Jews never sold it, nor they gave it away to any one.
According to any law, international or other, when you build something on your own property, the building is yours.

This monument was build by Jews on Jewish property, for Jews to use it, on a Jewish land, during a rule of a Jewish leadership.

So this is a Jewish piece of property.

May 4th, 2010, 2:35 am


Shai said:

Yossi, please try not to exaggerate. Ghat knows what he’s talking about, and when he says 96% of the world is dominated by Jewish media, it’s 96%, and not 97.3234222441787%.

But you are right in suggesting that Ghat himself is controlled by the Jewish media. He has to be, according to his own empirical analysis. Because how likely is it that the Arabs, who belong to Ghat’s 4% that aren’t fed by the Zionist-controlled media, really aren’t affected by such a giant? Even in the remote chance that Ghat is exceptionally resistant to such influence, surely most of the common folk in the Arab world aren’t.

Interestingly enough, this is about the spread of PC’s and Mac’s worldwide, isn’t it? Some 96% of global consumption is affected by PCs (they buy it), and only 4% by Mac. And yet, though always comfortable in the extreme minority, I do find myself purchasing Microsoft Office packages designed-for-Mac every few years. Ziosoft (I mean, Microsoft) has gotten to me too…

May 4th, 2010, 6:21 am


Shai said:

Dear Jad,

Thank you for the link. I know that this terrible crime (organ trafficking) is carried out worldwide, and not just in Hungary, Haiti, the Bronx, and Israel, as Ghat seems to suggest. A tiny bit of extra research online would expose that unfortunate truth to Ghat, if he only bothered to look. Of course trafficking of this sort also takes place in the Arab world, and Ghat probably knows it. If not, he does now, after you shared with us that link.

I hope you and Norman are wrong, that war is coming. Unfortunately, I can’t say your rationale is bad – it isn’t. I really feel that there are just too many similarities between today, and the period just prior to October 1973. And if, God-forbid, there will be war, few will be able to say “We had no idea this could happen!” That’s what’s so sad about it. We already have the script right in front of us, we can know in advance what would happen, how terrible it would be, and how we would find ourselves months or a few years afterwards, right back in the same spot, but this time forced by the international community to resolve the issues or face dire consequences.

It’s always the few that “see the light”, isn’t it? Shame it’s never the majority.

May 4th, 2010, 6:33 am


qunfuz said:

I think this piece, by me, contributes to the Elie Haj debate on Arabs, Islam and democracy. I’m indebted to Abdelwahab el-Affendi for many of the ideas.

May 4th, 2010, 10:27 am


Akbar Palace said:


Another in a long series of Zionist-controlled jihadists was caught trying to kill Americans.

I hope the US government will finally pressure the Israeli government to make peace so we can avoid this behaviour.;)

May 4th, 2010, 10:37 am


Off the Wall said:

Where did you come up with your numbers, seems that you are not on top of things. According to my Jewish friend and employee, his little brother no longer writes for his school newspaper (seems that the cute editor is no longer the editor). As such only 97.3234222440212% is now controlled by Jews.

May 4th, 2010, 11:08 am


Akbar Palace said:

It’s Never our Fault NewZ

President-for-Life, Dr. Bashar Assad is still searching for the right American president to make peace with. Perhaps Ron Paul or Pat Buchanan will win the next election. We can only hope…

US President Barack Obama has renewed sanctions against Syria, saying it supported terrorist groups and was pursuing weapons of mass destruction.

May 4th, 2010, 11:08 am


Ghat Albird said:

The zionist hope in 2012.

Looks and brains too.

Who Are the Jews Behind Palin in 2012?

By Gal Beckerman

When Sarah Palin was asked by Barbara Walters late last year whether she supported a freeze on settlement growth in the West Bank, Palin issued an emphatic NO. But her reasoning confounded many: “More and more Jewish people will be flocking to Israel in the days and weeks and months ahead. And I don’t think that the Obama administration has any right to tell Israel that the Jewish settlements cannot expand.”

Who were these Jews, and why were they “flocking”? Those predisposed to be critical of the former Alaska governor and Republican vice presidential nominee, such as writer and blogger Jeffrey Goldberg, saw Palin’s evangelical Christian roots showing. She was clearly expressing some kind of end-of-days theology, he said, that demands the ingathering of Jews before the Second Coming and its accompanying rapture (an event that doesn’t bode well for the Jews).
But Goldberg’s reading, though certainly the dominant interpretation, was not the only one. Benyamin Korn, a Philadelphia-based activist and former editor of the Jewish Exponent, heard something less apocalyptic in Palin’s words.

“If you work with Nefesh B’Nefesh, then you know exactly what she meant,” Korn said, referring to the Zionist group that facilitates North American immigration to Israel. “She understands that Zionism, which means the Jews should live in the Land of Israel, is a vital force. That’s all.”

Korn is the founder of a new group called Jewish Americans for Sarah Palin, and his efforts are part of some recent Jewish support that has been trickling in the direction of the hockey mom from Wasilla. Even though American Jews have repeatedly disapproved of her in large numbers in poll after poll, giving her abysmally low approval ratings, her recent high-profile jabs at the president have earned her support from some of the most prominent Jewish conservatives today.

Not only does she continue to receive the hearty backing of William Kristol, editor and publisher of The Weekly Standard and contributor to Fox News, but at the end of March, Norman Podhoretz, former editor of Commentary and godfather of the neoconservative movement, took to the op-ed page of The Wall Street Journal to offer a “defense of Sarah Palin.” He compared the ridicule that has greeted her arrival on the national scene to the laughter at Ronald Reagan’s expense when Reagan became the Republican presidential nominee. Podhoretz’s argument boiled down to this: “What she does know — and in this respect, she does resemble Reagan — is that the United States has been a force for good in the world, which is more than Barack Obama, whose IQ is no doubt higher than hers, has yet to learn.”

Podhoretz closed by dramatically proclaiming that he would “rather have Sarah Palin sitting in the Oval Office than Barack Obama.”

But these are neoconservative intellectuals, most of whom — as an article in the January issue of Commentary by Jennifer Rubin illustrated — are spending their time trying to figure out why Palin “rubs Jews the wrong way.” Is there anyone in the American Jewish community at large willing to wear a Palin 2012 button? Korn thinks there is, and it’s this demand he’s hoping to fulfill.

It should be said that as of yet, Jewish Americans for Sarah Palin has not published a list of the “doctors, lawyers, professors, rabbis” that Korn said support his efforts. At this point, there is little evidence that his constituency is more than one — though Korn has managed to put together a fairly professional-looking website. But with an increasing number of American Jews anxious about what they see as the undue pressure that Obama is applying on Israel, Korn thinks that more of them will come to see Palin’s value.

He doesn’t hide the fact that, in his eyes, her main strength is just how much she irritates those on the left.

“She has the ability to get under the skin of the opponents and particularly this president,” Korn said. “And from the point of view of someone who opposes what this president is doing, particularly on Israel policy, I’m glad that she has that ability.”

Korn himself has an unusual background. Up until the mid-1980s, he was a self-proclaimed “left-wing organizer” who taught pan-African studies, was a Central America solidarity activist and worked at a jazz radio station in Philadelphia with Mumia Abu-Jamal. He even voted for Jimmy Carter in 1980. He then had a radical transformation, switched to Orthodox from Reform Judaism and became a strident pro-Israel activist, an opponent of, as he put it, the “series of concessions that are called the peace process.” Eventually Korn, now 54, even headed the Zionist Organization of America.

His attraction to Palin began when he first saw her speak at the Republican National Convention. He had never even heard of her before then.

“I was captivated — not by her looks, for goodness sake — but by her charisma, her brilliance, her grasp not just of the issues, but of the moment,” Korn said. “Which is a very different thing in politics, to understand the moment. And it is because of my understanding of the moment that we hurried to launch this organization. I have been an admirer of hers since then.”

Korn went live with his website,, earlier than expected in mid-April, a response, he said, to comments by President Obama that appeared in the New York Times on April 14, linking continued conflicts in the Middle East with the danger to American soldiers

in the region. Korn called this a “modern blood libel” and decided that it was the right time to go public with his creation — “our motivation is so strongly in reaction to what is coming out of Obama,” Korn insisted.

It’s not clear though that Korn or any other high-profile Jewish supporter can swing American Jews behind Palin. A recent blog post by Jonathan Chait on The New Republic’s website in mid-April, titled “The Non-Mystery of Why Jews Hate Palin,” pointed to recent comments in which Palin referred to the United States as a “Christian nation” and questioned the separation of church and state. No wonder, he wrote, that Jews find her distasteful.

And yet, as Palin gains acceptance, however small, in certain Jewish quarters, she undoubtedly becomes more credible for a larger American Jewish audience, of which some members are eager to find a fitting opponent to the president.

Seth Lipsky, former editor of the New York Sun and of this publication, is friendly with Kristol and Podhoretz and shares some of their neoconservative views. He doesn’t offer an endorsement of Palin, but he does welcome the formation of Korn’s group and believes that Palin is “staking out a terrific set of positions.”

May 4th, 2010, 1:18 pm


Akbar Palace said:


Do think the US gov’t should question Faisal Shahzad to see if he has any zionist connections?

May 4th, 2010, 1:59 pm


Shai said:


I really hate picking on you so much lately, but it’s so dang difficult letting you spread those Zionism-Controls-The-World theories unchecked.

I gather this latest attempt, hoping to reinforce your theories about Zionist domination, intended to display Zionism’s dream of a Palin president. But with the assumption that most Zionists are Jews, the article you posted clearly states, time and again, how the large majority of Jews did not and do not support Sarah Palin. It wasn’t, and it isn’t their “Zionist Hope in 2012” to see Sarah Palin president.

Don’t forget that 78% of American Jews voted Obama, as did the overwhelming majority of American Muslims. It seems quite clear that over that Sarah Palin character, most Jews and Muslims certainly agree. I’m sure over a lot of other issues that relate to America.

May 4th, 2010, 2:04 pm


Yossi said:


Yes, but at the same time, my 2 year old just learned to sing the ABC song. Having reached such a language-skill related milestone at such an early stage, I have adjusted the rate-of-control to account for his projected future contribution to the control of the minds of millions of sheep (that is, non-Jews) 🙂

May 4th, 2010, 2:40 pm


Ghat Albird said:


If you insist on picking pick on Gal Beckerman who wrote the commentary.

To show you I have no hard feelings towards you I added the link below.


May 4th, 2010, 3:22 pm


Ghat Albird said:

27. AKBAR PALACE said:


Do think the US gov’t should question Faisal Shahzad to see if he has any zionist connections?

Why not? There’s no question though about this guy’s connections. Is there AP?

May 4th, 2010, 3:45 pm


norman said:

Hey Yossi ,

He must be smart like his ……Mother , she picked you ,

May 4th, 2010, 3:47 pm


jad said:

هدف أوباما تحييد سوريا بشار !

تعرف الادارة الاميركية ان اسرائيل تشعر بالقلق الشديد من استمرار الجمهورية الاسلامية الايرانية في العمل لامتلاك تكنولوجيا نووية وقدرة واسعة على استخدامها سواء لصنع اسلحة نووية تدافع بها عن نفسها ضد التهديدات المتنوعة التي تواجهها او لتأمين مصدر طاقة بديل رغم انها لا تفتقر اساساً الى المصادر التقليدية للطاقة وفي مقدمها النفط.
وتعرف ايضاً ان اسرائيل تؤمن بأن ازالة القلق المذكور الناجم عن التهديد الذي تعتقد ان ايران تشكّله لها كياناً ودولة وشعباً بل وجوداً، تتحقق فقط بتوجيه ضربة عسكرية الى المنشآت النووية في هذه الدولة بل الى بناها التحتية كلها من عسكرية تقليدية وغير تقليدية واقتصادية و”اتصالاتية” وغيرها. وتعرف ثالثاً ان اسرائيل تفضّل ان تنفذ اميركا الضربة العسكرية لايران او ان تنفّذ الاثنتان معاً ضربة كهذه او ان تنفّذها اسرائيل، بعدما استعدت لها، ولكن بموافقة من واشنطن ومع ضمان انخراطها في مواجهة آثارها والانعكاسات بعد القيام بها وخصوصاً اذا كانت عسكرية. لكن الادارة الاميركية تعرف، في مقابل ذلك، ان ضربة عسكرية لايران قد تفجّر المنطقة كلها فتتحول كارثة ليس لأبنائها فحسب بل للعالم كله ايضاً. وهذا ما تحاول ان تتلافاه وستستمر في محاولتها هذه الى ان تنجح في انهاء الخطر النووي لايران الاسلامية على المنطقة والعالم سواء عبر عقوبات مجلس الامن او عبر الحوار الذي دعا اليه الرئيس باراك اوباما منذ تسلمه سلطاته الدستـــــورية والـــــذي لا يزال المسؤولون في طهران يتهربون منه، وإن من دون رفض رسمي ومباشــــر له في المطلق على الاقل.
وتعرف الادارة الاميركية ان القيادة في ايران الاسلامية تستعمل كل براعتها للاستمرار في مشروعها النووي وفي سعيها الى امتلاك دور واسع في الشرق الاوسط ولإقناع اميركا والمجتمع الدولي به، وتستعمل ايضاً المواجهة السياسية المباشرة والمواجهة الأمنية واحياناً العسكرية غير المباشرة اي عبر حلفائها وفي مقدمهم “حزب الله” اللبناني و”حماس” الفلسطينية. لكنها تعرف في الوقت عينه ان القيادة هذه لا تريد مواجهة شاملة مع اميركا رغم ان اللعب على حافة الهاوية ليس مضمون النجاح في كل الاوقات.
وتعرف الادارة الاميركية ان سوريا لا تريد بدورها حرباً اقليمية قد تعرّض نظامها وبنيتها المتنوعة للانهيار رغم ان موقفها هذا لم يدفعها، على الاقل حتى الآن، الى اظهار ميل جدي للتفاهم مع اميركا بواسطة الحوار الذي عرضه عليها رئيسها اوباما، ربما لأن حلفها مع ايران يعطّل ذلك، وربما لأن اميركا غير جدية اولاً في الضغط على اسرائيل لإعادة الجولان المحتل اليها، وثانياً في الضغط عليها للتوصل الى تسوية “عادلة” في الحد الادنى لقضية فلسطين، وثالثاً في التفاهم معها على دور اقليمي معقول.
طبعاً هذه المعرفة المتشعّبة لمواقف اسرائيل وايران وسوريا المفصّلة اعلاه للإدارة الاميركية لا تعني ابداً ان المنطقة قد تبقى بمنأى عن الحرب. ذلك ان حرب الواسطة بين محور سوريا – ايران ومحور اميركا – الغرب – اسرائيل – عرب اميركا وهم الغالبية، قد تتسبب عن غير قصد بحرب واسعة. وهذا الاحتمال كان، في رأي مصادر ديبلوماسية غربية مطّلعة، احد اسباب إثارة الادارة الاميركية مسألة الصواريخ المرسلة عبر سوريا الى “حزب الله” في لبنان رغم غياب الاثبات الرسمي لذلك على الاقل حتى الآن. ذلك ان الجبهة اللبنانية – الاسرائيلية هي الوحيدة المرشحة للاشتعال في ظل إصرار اصحاب الجبهات الاخرى على تلافي ذلك. واذا اشتعلت بسبب الصواريخ التي تُخِلُّ بتوازن القوى بين اسرائيل و”حزب الله”، استناداً الى مسؤولين فيها، فان احداً لا يضمن عدم اتساعها بل عدم تحوّلها شاملة. وذلك يشكّل كارثة محققة.
ولهذا السبب فان استراتيجية الرئيس اوباما هي منع المواجهة الفرعية والاكبر. ومن هنا ضغوطه على سوريا بشار الاسد في شأن علاقاتها بـ”حزب الله”. وهو، على ما تؤكد المصادر نفسها، صبور وملحاح وسوف يستمر في ممارسة ضغوطه على كل الافرقاء وذلك للتأكد من انهم لن يجدوا انفسهم منزلقين او متورطين في حرب شاملة لم يكونوا مخططين لها. والطرف الأبرز في هذا المجال سيكون سوريا للأسباب المذكورة اعلاه. ولذلك فان سياسة اوباما هي دفعه الى موقع الحياد وخصوصاً اذا فشل الجميع في تلافي مواجهة او حرب سواء بين ايران الاسلامية واسرائيل او بين ايران هذه واميركا. ولا ينبع ذلك من حرص اميركي على هذه السوريا او من حرص اسرائيل عليها، رغم التقاء المصالح الذي يقر به الجميع، بل من حرص على عدم انتشار العنف والحروب في كل المشرق او بالأحرى الشرق.
والمعلومات الواردة من دمشق الى واشنطن تشير وعلى نحو اكيد ان الرئيس بشار الاسد يفهم تماماً ما يحاول الرئيس اوباما القيام به والمفصّل اعلاه، لكنه حتى الآن لم يعط اي اشارة تفيد انه مستعد للانتقال الى موقع المحايــــد في حال اندلعت المواجهة او الحرب.
سركيس نعوم

May 4th, 2010, 4:07 pm


why-discuss said:


“Don’t forget that 78% of American Jews voted Obama, as did the overwhelming majority of American Muslims.”

Would they again now that Obama is showing his “baby” teeth with Israel?

May 4th, 2010, 4:32 pm


Shai said:


That’s a good question. Though we all felt Obama was not going to treat Israel the same way as his predecessor, already during his campaign. And yet an overwhelming majority of Jews voted for him.

May 4th, 2010, 4:51 pm


jad said:

الانسحاب من الجولان واحتواء ايران خطوتان متلازمتان
الاربعاء, 28 أبريل 2010

مارتن انديك *
لعل دعوة الرئيس الاميركي الى قمة نووية لتقييد طموحات ايران النووية وغياب رئيس الوزراء الإسرائيلي عنها، مرآة تأزم صريح في العلاقات الأميركية – الإسرائيلية. وعلى رغم أن بنيامين نتانياهو أنزل مواجهة المخاطر النووية الإيرانية التي تتهدد وجود اسرائيل صدارةَ أولويات ولايته الثانية، لم يشارك في قمة الأمن النووي، ولا في إقناع الصين بتشديد عقوبات الأمم المتحدة على ايران. ويُبرز رهن مسألة استراتيجية اسرائيلية حيوية بمطالب اليمين، في حكومة نتانياهو، الشرخ بين ادارة اوباما والحكومة الاسرائيلية.

وعلى خلاف أوباما وإدارته، يرى نتانياهو أن حل القضية الفلسطينية لن يغير نوايا ايران أو يهدئ الشارع العربي، وأن توسل بلاده القوة يردع وحده «حماس» و «حزب الله»، وأن طهران تخلص من خلاف واشنطن مع اسرائيل على تجميد بناء المستوطنات الى ان أوباما عازم على الحؤول دون قصف اسرائيل المنشآت الايرانية النووية.

ووراء الخلاف الاسرائيلي – الاميركي انعطاف كبير في رؤية واشنطن الى مصالحها في الشرق الاوسط. والانعطاف هذا بدأ قبل ثلاثة أعوام يوم أعلنت وزيرة الخارجية الاميركية، كوندوليزا رايس، في خطاب بالقدس أن مصالح اميركا الاستراتيجية ترتبط بحل النزاع الفلسطيني – الاسرائيلي. وحذا أوباما، الاسبوع الماضي، حذوها، وأعلن أن حل النزاع هذا هو مصلحة «وطنية (اميركية) أمنية حيوية». ولم يعد طي النزاع هذا من قبيل مساعدة حليف أثير في تذليل مشكلة عويصة فحسب. فهو ضرورة استراتيجية اميركية، في وقت يخوض 200 ألف جندي أميركي حربين في الشرق الاوسط الكبير، وتسعى واشنطن في وقف برنامج ايران النووي.

وعلى خلاف الموقف الاميركي، يرى الإسرائيليون، وخصوصاً تيار اليمين في ائتلاف حكومة نتانياهو، أن السلام مع الفلسطينيين المنقسمين ليس خياراً واقعياً. ويبدو أن نتانياهو لم يلاحظ تعاظم الخلاف مع الاميركيين. ولذا، تفاجأ حين أبدت واشنطن استياء عارماً جراء ما حسِب أنه سوء توقيت، في أثناء زيارة نائب الرئيس الاميركي، جو بايدن. ولم يرَ أوباما أن اعتذار نتانياهو كافٍ ويمهد للبحث في المشكلة الفعلية. وقبل يوم من زيارة بايدن، أعلن مبعوث الرئيس الاميركي، جورج ميتشيل، الاتفاق مع نتانياهو ومحمود عباس، رئيس السلطة الفلسطينية، على بدء مفاوضات. ولكن حكومة نتانياهو بادرت، في اليوم التالي، الى اعلان بناء مستوطنات في القدس الشرقية، وأجهضت المفاوضات قبل أن تبدأ. وحريّ بنتانياهو التفكير في قرارات اتخذها اثنان من أسلافه على رأس «الليكود» وفي رئاسة الوزراء وهما مناحيم بيغن وأرييل شارون، وربما الاحتذاء عليهما. فبيغن تخلى عن سيناء لقاء سلام مع مصر ليتجنب التصادم مع جيمي كارتر، الرئيس الاميركي يومها، على مسألة وطن الفلسطينيين. ورأى شارون أن تفادي الخلاف مع رئيس الولايات المتحدة هو خشبة خلاصه السياسية. فقرر الانسحاب من غزة لإرجاء نزاع مع الأميركيين على الضفة الغربية والقدس. وشجب اليمين الليكودي القرارين هذين، وندد بهما.

وفي وسع نتانياهو الاعتبار بما خلص اليه سلفه اسحق رابين، وهو كان أبرز المفكرين الاستراتيجيين الإسرائيليين. ورأى رابين أن السلام مع العرب، وهم في دائرة الشرق الأوسط «الاقرب أو الادنى» الى إسرائيل، هو السبيل الأمثل الى احتواء ايران، وهي الواقعة في دائرة الشرق الأوسط «الأبعد». ولذا، مدّ رابين يد السلام الى «فتح» ياسر عرفات، واقترح على سورية حافظ الأسد الانسحاب الاسرائيلي الكامل من الجولان. وأمثل طريق الى عزل ايران اليوم هو تنازل نتاياهو عن الجولان، على ما اقترح أربعة من أسلافه، لقاء السلام مع سورية، وهي جسر ايران الى زرع الاضطراب في المنطقة.

ونتانياهو أمام مفترق جراء تغير المصالح الاميركية في الشرق الاوسط. فإما أن يقف الى جانب الرئيس الاميركي أو الى جانب يمين حزبه. وعواقب مماشاته وزراء حكومته اليمينيين على العلاقات الاسرائيلية – الاميركية وخيمة.

* مدير مركز الشؤون الخارجية «بروكينغ انستيتيوشن» وسفير الولايات المتحدة سابقاً في اسرائيل، عن «نيويورك تايمز» الاميركية، 20/4/2010، إعداد منال نحاس.

May 4th, 2010, 4:54 pm


Akbar Palace said:

Would they again now that Obama is showing his “baby” teeth with Israel?

WD –

What a silly question. Of course. Liberalism trumps Israel.

(The First Rule of American Jewry)

We’re going to need another excuse besides “Jooos” and “Neocons” to explain why Obama isn’t getting on so well with Syria. It’s all very fuzzy.

May 4th, 2010, 4:55 pm


jad said:

Unrelated subject and far away from War&Peace:
IBM’s CityOne Is Like Sim City, Except the Solutions Are Real

May 4th, 2010, 5:58 pm


Shai said:


I have no hard feelings towards you either. My replies to your recent comments are not personal, they’re counter-arguments to what I sometimes deem dangerous generalizations that remind me of similar things I hear about Muslims. Bad things tend to happen when we lend a hand to mutual demonization. We need to rid ourselves of this activity, regardless of how tempting it is to partake in it.

As for Kissinger, I suppose he politely accepted a request (probably for a photo-op) by the Northern Redneck Majesty, and there’s a story for you. But I suspect Henry Kissinger was still more impressed by Obama, as the following may suggest:

May 4th, 2010, 6:44 pm


Mer detaljer – och allt fler skeptiker – om Obamas tredje fredsinitiativ i Mellanöstern | Det Progressiva USA said:

[…] steg för steg befäster sina positioner på Västbanken och gör ett fritt Palestina omöjligt: Syria Comment » Archives » Iran, Syria, and US in War of Words as West Bank is Digested by Isr… New evidence indicates that the PA’s ambitious road-building program “heavily funded by […]

May 5th, 2010, 1:26 am


qunfuz said:

Ghat – I think the Mearsheimer speech published above gives a better sense of the politics of american Jews. Whenever I feel a bout of overgeneralisation coming on I remember not only my syrian jewish auntie (who married into a muslim family) but also the jewish israeli who works with us on – several times arrested recently for defending the palestinians of sheikh jarrah, as well as Ilan Pappe, Jeff Halper, Phil Weiss, Shlomo Sand, the Neturei Karta, all the secular and religious self-proclaimed anti-zionist jews who you meet on pro-palestine demonstrations in london, etc, etc. no people is monolithic. It’s really very important to focus on the Israel Lobby and its pernicious role, but also very important not to overgeneralise in essentialist and racist directions. That only discredits our important arguments, and harms the palestinian (and syrian and lebanese and regional) cause. and it’s wrong.

May 5th, 2010, 1:49 am


norman said:

Qunfuz ,

Well said , there is a difference,

May 5th, 2010, 3:04 am


Husam said:

Whether it is Obama or Palin in the next showdown, it is all a fraud. This is like Toyota & Lexus – same company, same objective, just different design. Regardless who is in the White House, the policies are and will remain the same. The CFR (Council on Foriegn Relation), The Trilateral Commission, the Bilderbergers, and so on all report to their masters for the New World Order. It is in plain sight repeated over and over again.

These are facts, but many choose to ignore them or label truths as theories because they are unable to realize that that we all are unfortunately controlled one way or another.

Whether war in the ME is eminent remains to be seen. For Syria, it knows it cannot rely on rotten-carrot hand outs. Nothing good will come until Syria is stronger, stratgically united with its neighbours and determined to move forward. I believe Syria is on track.

May 5th, 2010, 3:38 am


Ghat Albird said:


Its Cinquo Di Mayo as well as one year less than one week since a Former Secretary of State of the USA told like it is.

Winston churchill is quoted as sating:-

“The farther backward you can look, the farther forward you can see”.

Mao Tse Tung is quoted as having said, :”power comes out of a gun”.

Baron M. A. Rothschild who claimed he was the actual ruler of the British empire is quoted as having said:-“Give me the control over a nation’s currency and I care not who makes its laws”

And Madeleine Allbright said:- WE THINK THE PRICE ( OF KILLING 500,000 IRAQI CHILDREN) IS WORTH IT ).

Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half
million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in
Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice,
but the price–we think the price is worth it. -60 Minutes (5/12/96).



May 5th, 2010, 12:39 pm


Off the Wall said:

Cool, so Hollywood it is ?, 🙂

May 5th, 2010, 2:35 pm


Husam said:


Although you are quoting from history, you will be labelled a conspiracy theorist with a chip implanted in your head!

May I add Franklin D. Roosevelt:
“The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government of the U.S. since the days of Andrew Jackson. History depicts Andrew Jackson as the last truly honorable and incorruptible American president.”

and Woodrow Wilson:
“A great industrial nation is controlled by it’s system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the world– no longer a government of free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of small groups of dominant men.”

Ghat, these are statements of past presidents of the USA who had the “cohones’ to speak their minds. The same remains today and the world revolves around power, money and corruption. So much for the Amirs, the PPP’s, who state Syria is controlled; they are biased and/or don’t understand the inner workings of the real world as a whole.

May 5th, 2010, 9:38 pm


Akbar Palace said:

Important Arguments NewZ

Qunfuz said:

no people is monolithic.

Neither are Arabs. Some are quite pro-Israel.

It’s really very important to focus on the Israel Lobby and its pernicious role


You can focus on the “Israel Lobby” or the current Likud government, because both these groups are for a negotiated settlement.

But if you’re talking about a “perncious role”, the “resistance” camp of Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran help to define that phrase more appropriately.

Whether or not you believe that to be true or not doesn’t matter. The West and most of the UN member states believe that to be so.

… but also very important not to overgeneralise in essentialist and racist directions.

Don’t be too hard on Ghat. He provides essential information.

That only discredits our important arguments, and harms the palestinian (and syrian and lebanese and regional) cause. and it’s wrong.

You don’t say? A lonely voice in the wilderness…

May 5th, 2010, 11:10 pm


Post a comment

Neoprofit AI Immediate Venture Instant Prosperity