Israel's Bleak Outlook A Certainty in Next War!

An interesting article contrasting the views of Vietnamese on the matter of entitlement and "owed anger." (See 1 below.)

Israel goes on alert in the event that Hezballah launches attacks. Nasrallah's threat is being taken seriously. (See 2 below.)

Editor Rosner interviews former American Amb. to Israel Daniel Kurtzer, who is now an adviser to Sen. Obama. (See 3 below.)

Editorialist Saul Singer accuses Olmert of being obsequious. (See 4 below.)

Cheney states Iran and Syria's support of Hamas is torpedoing peace efforts. (See 5 below.)

Report being circulated among Israeli Cabinet Ministers suggests next war could be devastating with high casualties as a result of Iranian and Syrian missile attacks. (See 6 below.)

Dick



1) Obama's Anger
By Ed Kaitz

"The anger is real. It is powerful, and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races."
- Barack Obama


Back in the late 1980s I was on a plane flying out of New Orleans and sitting next to me was a rather interesting and, according to Barack Obama, unusual black man. Friendly, gregarious, and wise beyond his years, we immediately hit it off. I had been working on Vietnamese commercial fishing boats for a few years based in southern Louisiana. The boats were owned by the recent wave of Vietnamese refugees who flooded into the familiar tropical environment after the war. Floating in calm seas out in the middle of the Gulf of Mexico, I would hear tearful songs and tales from ex-paratroopers about losing brothers, sisters, parents, children, lovers, and beautiful Vietnam itself to the communists.

In Bayou country I lived on boats and in doublewide trailers, and like the rest of the Vietnamese refugees, I shopped at Wal-Mart and ate a lot of rice. When they arrived in Louisiana the refugees had no money (the money that they had was used to bribe their way out of Vietnam and into refugee camps in Thailand), few friends, and a mostly unfriendly and suspicious local population.

They did however have strong families, a strong work ethic, and the "Audacity of Hope." Within a generation, with little or no knowledge of English, the Vietnamese had achieved dominance in the fishing industry there and their children were already achieving the top SAT scores in the state.

While I had been fishing my new black friend had been working as a prison psychologist in Missouri, and he was pursuing a higher degree in psychology. He was interested in my story, and after about an hour getting to know each other I asked him point blank why these Vietnamese refugees, with no money, friends, or knowledge of the language could be, within a generation, so successful. I also asked him why it was so difficult to convince young black men to abandon the streets and take advantage of the same kinds of opportunities that the Vietnamese had recently embraced.

His answer, only a few words, not only floored me but became sort of a razor that has allowed me ever since to slice through all of the rhetoric regarding race relations that Democrats shovel our way during election season:

"We're owed and they aren't."

In short, he concluded, "they're hungry and we think we're owed. It's crushing us, and as long as we think we're owed we're going nowhere."

A good test case for this theory is Katrina. Obama, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and assorted white apologists continue to express anger and outrage over the federal response to the Katrina disaster. But where were the Vietnamese "leaders" expressing their "anger?" The Vietnamese comprise a substantial part of the New Orleans population, and yet are absent was any report claiming that the Vietnamese were "owed" anything. This is not to say that the federal response was an adequate one, but we need to take this as a sign that maybe the problem has very little to do with racism and a lot to with a mindset.

The mindset that one is "owed" something in life has not only affected black mobility in business but black mobility in education as well. Remember Ward Churchill? About fifteen years ago he was my boss. After leaving the fishing boats, I attended graduate school at the University of Colorado at Boulder. I managed to get a job on campus teaching expository writing to minority students who had been accepted provisionally into the university on an affirmative action program. And although I never met him, Ward Churchill, in addition to teaching in the ethnic studies department, helped to develop and organize the minority writing program.

The job paid most of my bills, but what I witnessed there was absolutely horrifying. The students were encouraged to write essays attacking the white establishment from every conceivable angle and in addition to defend affirmative action and other government programs. Of the hundreds of papers that I read, there was not one original contribution to the problem of black mobility that strayed from the party line.

The irony of it all however is that the "white establishment" managed to get them into the college and pay their entire tuition. Instead of being encouraged to study international affairs, classical or modern languages, philosophy or art, most of these students became ethnic studies or sociology majors because it allowed them to remain in disciplines whose orientation justified their existence at the university. In short, it became a vicious cycle.

There was a student there I'll never forget. He was plucked out of the projects in Denver and given a free ride to the university. One day in my office he told me that his mother had said the following to him: "M.J., they owe you this. White people at that university owe you this." M.J.'s experience at the university was a glorious fulfillment of his mother's angst.

There were black student organizations and other clubs that "facilitated" the minority student's experience on the majority white and "racist" campus, in addition to a plethora of faculty members, both white and black, who encouraged the same animus toward the white establishment. While adding to their own bona fides as part of the trendy Left, these "facilitators" supplied M.J. with everything he needed to quench his and his mother's anger, but nothing in the way of advice about how to succeed in college. No one, in short, had told M.J. that he needed to study. But since he was "owed" everything, why put out any effort on his own?

In a fit of despair after failing most of his classes, M.J. wandered into my office one Friday afternoon in the middle of the semester and asked if I could help him out. I asked M.J. about his plans that evening, and he told me that he usually attended parties on Friday and Saturday nights. I told him that if he agreed to meet me in front of the university library at 6:00pm I would buy him dinner. At 6pm M.J. showed up, and for the next twenty minutes we wandered silently through the stacks, lounges, and study areas of the library. When we arrived back at the entrance I asked M.J. if he noticed anything interesting. As we headed up the hill to a popular burger joint, M.J. turned to me and said:

"They were all Asian. Everyone in there was Asian, and it was Friday night."

Nothing I could do, say, or show him, however, could match the fire power of his support system favoring anger. I was sad to hear of M.J. dropping out of school the following semester.

During my time teaching in the writing program, I watched Asians get transformed via leftist doublespeak from "minorities" to "model minorities" to "they're not minorities" in precise rhythm to their fortunes in business and education. Asians were "minorities" when they were struggling in this country, but they became "model minorities" when they achieved success. Keep in mind "model minority" did not mean what most of us think it means, i.e., something to emulate. "Model minority" meant that Asians had certain cultural advantages, such as a strong family tradition and a culture of scholarship that the black community lacked .

To suggest that intact families and a philosophy of self-reliance could be the ticket to success would have undermined the entire angst establishment. Because of this it was improper to use Asian success as a model. The contortions the left exercised in order to defend this ridiculous thesis helped to pave the way for the elimination of Asians altogether from the status of "minority."

This whole process took only a few years.


Eric Hoffer said:

"...you do not win the weak by sharing your wealth with them; it will but infect them with greed and resentment. You can win the weak only by sharing your pride, hope or hatred with them."

We now know that Barack Obama really has no interest in the "audacity of hope." With his race speech, Obama became a peddler of angst, resentment and despair. Too bad he doesn't direct that angst at the liberal establishment that has sold black people a bill of goods since the 1960s. What Obama seems angry about is America itself and what it stands for; the same America that has provided fabulous opportunities for what my black friend called "hungry" minorities. Strong families, self-reliance, and a spirit of entrepreneurship should be held up as ideals for all races to emulate.

In the end, we should be very suspicious about Obama's anger and the recent frothings of his close friend Reverend Wright. Says Eric Hoffer:

The fact seems to be that we are least open to precise knowledge concerning the things we are most vehement about. Vehemence is the expression of a blind effort to support and uphold something that can never stand on its own.

2)Barak: Israel’s army and intelligence poised for instant response to Hizballah attack

Military sources report that Israeli defense minister Ehud Barak decided to place the armed forces on guard in view of indications that Hizballah leader Hassan Nasrallah may seriously intend making good on his threat of “open war” against Israel, whom he accuses of the Feb. 12 killing of Imad Mughniyeh.

Barak said Monday, March 24, Hizballah’s revenge threats are not to be taken lightly: “We must all be vigilant in the near future. But we’ll overcome that too.”

The Israeli Air Force, according to our sources, has prepared two command and control airplanes which are capable of transporting command centers and special forces from place to place and reacting to terrorist attacks far from Israel.

The Magen David Adom service nationwide has placed on standby double its usual complement of ambulances and medical teams.

According to our military sources, Barak latest directives Monday, March 24, signify his change of mind about the prospect of a Hizballah revenge attack. The earlier presumption that the Lebanese terrorists would hold their fire up until the Arab League summit convening in Damascus on March 29-30 has been abandoned to meet fast-moving events across Israel’s northern border.

1. Syria last week pushed the fighting strength of Palestinian terrorist groups under its shared control with Iran – an estimated 3,000-strong – across the border into the Lebanese Beqaa Valley.

It was initially supposed that these groups had been removed from their Damascus bases to get them out of the way of the Arab summit. But they have since been observed taking up battle positions and the delivery of large quantities of brand new weapons and ammunition.

2. Syria has also speeded up its arms shipments to Hizballah - notably anti-aircraft weapons.

3. Apparently for back-up, Syria has massed armored divisions along its Lebanese border.

Israel’s military chiefs now read these moves as meaning that Hizballah, the new Palestinian deployment and the Syrian back-up forces are set to launch a military strike against targets in Israel and bracing for Israeli retaliation.

Israel’s defense chiefs do not count out Hizballah embarking on a number of coordinated terrorist operations over several hours or even days, synchronized with cross-border attacks on targets inside Israel.

The terrorist strikes may well be large-scale, multiple-casualty and directed at an overseas Israeli or Jewish target. The head of the terror center in the prime minister’s office referred incautiously last week to Hizballah’s hopes of Israel having to fly home “40 or 50 coffins,” a goal which Israel is determined to prevent - hence the Air Force’s command and control planes on the ready for rapid take-off to the scene of an attack. They are fitted out and manned for a wide range of contingencies, including rescue operations on foreign soil, requiring the local government’s approval.

3) Daniel Kurtzer
By Shmuel Rosner

Former U.S. ambassador to Egypt and Israel and current advisor to Senator Obama will discuss his new book. Readers can send questions.

The former U.S. ambassador to Israel and to Egypt, and current advisor to Senator Obama will discuss his new book. Readers can send questions.

Daniel C. Kurtzer holds the S. Daniel Abraham Chair in Middle East Policy Studies at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. Kurtzer retired from the United States Foreign Service at the end of 2005 with the rank of Career-Minister in the Senior Foreign Service.

During 29 years of public service, Kurtzer held a number of senior policy and diplomatic positions, including the U.S. Ambassador to Israel (2001-2005) and the U.S. Ambassador to Egypt (1997-2001), speechwriter for Secretary of State George P. Shultz and a member of the Secretary's Policy Planning Staff, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, and Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research.

Kurtzer is the co-author, with Scott Lasensky, of the new Negotiating Arab-Israeli Peace: American Leadership in the Middle East. He also served on the Iraq Study Group's expert subcommittee, and is now advising presidential candidate Barack Obama.

Resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict is and remains the primary responsibility of Israelis and Arabs themselves. No outside party, including the United States, should be seen as displacing the parties' central role.

The U.S. has demonstrated in the past the diplomatic will, capacity and skills to help willing parties achieve peace process agreements. These successes included the step-by-step diplomacy of Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in achieving Israeli-Egyptian and Israeli-Syrian disengagement agreements in 1974-75; the role of President Jimmy Carter in helping to broker the Camp David Accords in 1978 and the Egyptian-Israeli Peace treaty in 1979; and the Madrid Peace Conference in 1991, brought about through the diplomacy of Secretary of State James Baker. In other words, there is a track record of success for U.S. diplomacy on which to build.

In 2006, the United States Institute of Peace asked me to direct a study group and prepare a report on the U.S. role in the peace process since the end of the Cold War. The book that resulted from this effort - Negotiating Arab-Israeli Peace: American Leadership in the Middle East - offers a critical look at the policies and actions of three American administrations (Bush 41, Clinton and Bush 43) in carrying out U.S. policy in the peace process. The book emphasizes that U.S. involvement in the peace process is a vital American national security interest, not a favor the U.S. does for the parties. It offers a number of important recommendations for improving the style and substance of U.S. diplomatic activity in the peace process.

Since 1993, U.S. diplomacy has not contributed to peace process successes. Our book identifies some serious weaknesses in the U.S. diplomatic approach, as well as ways to remedy these weaknesses. These include stronger Presidential leadership in defining the peace process as a priority; creating a more diverse and experienced peace team; ensuring the U.S. carries out the roles it must play, including monitoring and helping address key asymmetries; and the like.

Even with a robust and more skillful U.S. role, there is no guarantee of success in the peace process, for such success depends first and foremost on the will of the parties to address problems through negotiations, not violence, and to reach agreement on the core issues still in dispute. But without a robust U.S. role, a peace process conducted solely by the parties themselves is unlikely to succeed. The U.S. can help the parties identify creative bridging solutions on substantive issues, and can help deal with the issues outside the negotiations that help or hurt the atmosphere for the negotiations.

4) Interesting Times: Olmert's obsequiousness
By SAUL SINGER

Seeing the pictures of the German and Israeli cabinets meeting in Jerusalem this week, the image that crossed my mind was of boxers hugging in the ring. Boxers seem to hug during a fight to gain a brief respite. A fighter who hugs can't punch, but neither can the fighter who is being hugged.

But Germany and Israel are friends, not fighters, you might protest. I agree. I have trouble understanding the objections of Labor Knesset member Shelly Yacimovich to German Chancellor Angela Merkel speaking to the Knesset in German. Either we have deep, friendly relations with Germany, or we do not. Germans do not pretend that they have no connection to their grandparents' generation, and continue to accept responsibility for the Holocaust.

What matters is not the language that Germans speak, but what they say and do. They have come in friendship and full of ideas to deepen the military, economic and cultural relations between our two countries. Yet all this hugging seems designed to prevent us from asking them to do what they will not do, which is to lead.

As Merkel explained Germany's Iran policy in her press conference with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, "We support a policy which unites as many partners as possible in the world. The result is that the process often moves forward slowly, but I believe that this is the right path and that there is no substitute."

In other words, it is important to stop Iran from going nuclear, but even more important for Germany not to be too out of step with Russia and China, or with the rest of Europe.

The multilateralist impulse is, of course, strong throughout Europe. To Europeans, but particularly to Germans, nationalism and particularism are like alcohol to an alcoholic: They must not be touched at all because of the bitter experience of where all that leads.
[Premier and Chancellor. Frank...]

Premier and Chancellor. Frank talk is not Ehud Olmert's strong suit.
Photo: AP

THERE IS, however, a small problem with hyper-multilateralism: the West's enemies don't believe in it, and are happy to take full advantage of the West's willingness to, indeed belief in hamstringing itself.

This creates a bitter irony: the exact impulse designed to keep Europe's totalitarian demons at bay lets these same demons gather and romp outside Europe with impunity.

This is not how it was supposed to be. Multilateralism, according to the United Nations Charter, was supposed to become a tool to prevent and address international aggression, not to protect aggressors.

Multilateralism was never meant to become an end in itself, but a means to a safer, freer world. Merkel may be right that there is "no substitute" for multilateralism, but there certainly is a substitute for the self-defeating variety that Germany has adopted and that imperils both Germany and Israel.

The multilateral principle is no excuse for German inaction. It is only natural that Germany, given its history, demonstrate to Europe the need for draconian sanctions against Iran by imposing such sanctions bilaterally. After all, for Europe as a whole to change policy, one nation must start the ball rolling by being out front.

But even if Germany is not willing to break ranks, even in a critical cause and even as a means to bring Europe along, what is stopping Germany from being the champion of such steps within internal European deliberations? In fact, the opposite has been the case: While France and the UK have been pressing for tougher European sanctions, it is Germany, among the EU-3, that has been most resistant.

While it is true that Germany has cut its export subsidies for trade with Iran, and that Austria and Italy are reportedly bigger offenders now than is Germany, this modest improvement does not compare with where Germany should be.

As Deputy Prime Minister Haim Ramon reportedly said to the German ministers: "I expect German society to sever all of its ties, commercial and otherwise, with Iran."

This, however, does not seem to be Olmert's position. With Merkel, Olmert spoke of the "shared position of Germany and Israel in the fight to prevent the nuclear armament of Iran."

But there is no shared position. Israel is not a key trading partner of Iran; Germany is. Israel does not have diplomatic relations with Iran; Germany does. Israel is not in a position to lead the push for a European trade and diplomatic boycott of Iran; Germany is.

Ramon's statement was the exception that proves the rule. Israel is playing along with Germany's attempt to pass off hugs as a substitute for effective action.

This fact is an indictment of Germany, but it is an even greater indictment of our own leadership.

It would be nice if we could expect Germany to lead on the Iranian issue without prompting - this is what moral Germans should be pressing for from their own government. But it is hardly surprising that Germany is acting as most governments do, which is to avoid actions that cause short-term domestic pressure and pain, even if they are reckless in the long term and blatantly contradict national values and interests.

WHAT IS impossible to fathom is why Olmert and his government, with the exception of Ramon, will not say to Germany: "We appreciate your support, but stopping Iran requires concrete action. We therefore have every confidence in your recognizing that your 'special responsibility' requires you to be leading, not resisting, a European-wide decision to impose draconian sanctions on Teheran."

Such frank talk is not pleasant for a national leader. It is much easier for Olmert to pretend that, behind closed doors, Germany is doing everything it should be doing, and that his own refusal to sound the slightest alarm is justified. Olmert would rather project complete agreement emerging from every meeting, as if every meeting were a success.

This is how Olmert operates across the board. He praises Hosni Mubarak while Egypt refuses to stop the arming of Hamas in Gaza. He praises George Bush and goes along with the charade of Annapolis, even though that "process" has become a substitute for a serious US policy toward Iran. Country after country seeks validation from the main victim of its inadequate or irresponsible policies, and Olmert is happy to oblige.

The refusal of Israel's leader to comprehensively spell out why and how Iran must be stopped is an abdication of leadership that puts this nation at risk. Success does not come from demanding nothing, but from a willingness to say the truth and to press for what is necessary, not just a minimalist estimate of what will fly.

Olmert must break out of his addiction to obsequiousness. He could start by helping Germany snap out of its post-Holocaust paralysis that risks ushering in a new holocaust. This requires honesty, and frank speaking. That's what leaders, and friends, are for.

5) Cheney: Hamas, with help from Syria and Iran, torpedoes peace

US Vice President Dick Cheney said Monday that Hamas, with support from Syria and Iran, is trying to "torpedo" peace talks between the Palestinians and Israel.

Meeting reporters after having breakfast with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Cheney said, "It is clearly a difficult situation, in part, because I think it's true, there's evidence that, Hamas is supported by Iran and Syria and that they're doing everything they can to torpedo the peace process."

Government spokesman Mark Regev said the two men had a good meeting. "They discussed a range of issues, including the peace process, terrorism, and threats to regional security," he said.

Cheney said in his meeting Sunday with Palestinian leaders that they talked about efforts under way in Yemen to encourage reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas.

"My conclusion after talking about this with the Palestinians is that they have established some preconditions before they would ever consider a reconciliation, including a complete reversal of the Hamas takeover of Gaza," he said.

Asked whether the US supports the Yemeni mediation effort to bridge differences between Hamas and Fatah, a senior administration official said that the United States has made it clear that it will not support working with Hamas unless there is a fundamental change in the group's current role, which the US describes as terrorist.

Israel has been conducting peace talks with President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah-led government in the West Bank, while simultaneously battling Hamas in Gaza. An Israeli official said a reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas would mean the end of peace talks.

"The Fatah leadership has to make a choice," the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the media. "They can have a peace process and dialogue with Israel or a coalition with Hamas. But it's clear that you can't have them both."

6) Report: Iranian, Syrian missiles to pound Israel in next war
By Itamar Eichner

Secret report paints grim picture: Thousands of casualties, nationwide power outages

Hundreds of dead, thousands of injured, missile barrages on central Israel, full paralysis at Ben-Gurion Airport, constantly bombed roads, nationwide power outages that last for long hours, and whole regions' water supply being cut off – this is what the next war could look like.


A secret report recently distributed among government ministries and local municipalities details various wartime scenarios. The report deals with very harsh possibilities, including some that are downright horrifying, formulated as part of the lessons drawn in the wake of the Second Lebanon War.


Notably, the document does not aim to predict future developments with certainty, but rather, only aims to serve as a guideline for civilian war preparations. The above assessment is characterized as a "severe reasonable scenario" – that is, it is not the gravest scenario, but also not the most favorable.


Air Force to be called upon to protect Israel's airspace (Photo: AP)



According to this scenario, the war will last for about a month and will include the participation of Syria (military operations on the Golan Heights front and the firing of many Scud missiles at the home front,) Lebanon (the firing of thousands of Hizbullah rockets at the Galilee and Haifa as well long-range missiles at central Israel,) and the Palestinian Authority (relatively limited conflict that would include short-range rockets fired from Gaza and the West Bank as well as terror attacks such as suicide bombings within Israel.)


Mass evacuation in case of chemical attack

According to this scenario, Iran will also get involved in the war, but will only fire a limited number of missiles rather than non-conventional weapons. In addition to missile barrages, the scenario includes aerial strikes on military and strategic targets, attacks on infrastructure facilities, and attempted abductions of civilians and soldiers.



Such hypothetical war, according to the assessment, will leave 100-230 civilians dead, and 1,900-3,200 Israelis wounded. However, should Israel be attacked with chemical weapons, the number of killed and wounded Israelis would skyrocket to 16,000.


Under such circumstances, as a result of missile damage, chemical contamination, and the razing of homes the State would have to evacuate as many as 227,000 Israelis from their homes. According to the assessment, about 100,000 people would seek to leave the country should such scenario materialize.