+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Black racists have an advantage. They blame everyone for their failures on racism and whites cower for fear of being charged. We have Obama to thank for this Volcanic eruption. (See 1 below.)
Meanwhile, Mueller's investigation continues to provide Democrats their best opportunity to shoot themselves in their feet over baseless charges.
Their hatred of Trump continues to allow them to dredge up accusations that, were they actually investigated, would boomerang because Hillary and the DNC, as we now know, financed the Russian Collusion Shenanigan in order to defeat Trump.
If Hillary runs again maybe she will arrange/pay for a Chinese Collusion ?
Kudos to Kim! (See 1a and 1b below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Hard to believe. One day Democrats will regret their pusillanimous posture. (See 2 and 2a below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Avi Recap by Michael Walters. (See 3 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Israel and it's nuclear status. (See 4 below.)
___________________________________________
Dick
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1)
The Ungracious Mr. Gillum
The Democrat loses the recount for Florida Governor but still won’t concede.
The Editorial Board
Florida finished its machine recount of close election races on Thursday, and Republican candidate for Governor Ron DeSantis retained his lead outside the 0.25% threshold for a hand recount. That should mean the race is over. Yet Democrat Andrew Gillum refused to concede, in a display of ill-grace that won’t help his political future in Florida.
“A vote denied is justice denied—the State of Florida must count every legally cast vote,” Mr. Gillum said in a statement after the state’s 3 p.m. deadline for counties to finish counting had passed. “As today’s unofficial reports and recent court proceedings make clear, there are tens of thousands of votes that have yet to be counted.”
Mr. Gillum didn’t say it, but he’s counting on judicial intervention from the lawsuits filed by Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson to conjure more ballots from somewhere, anywhere to change the outcome. Mr. Nelson trails Republican Rick Scott by 0.154%, so that race will now proceed to a hand recount. But one of those legal Hail Marys failed Thursday when a judge denied a request to count ballots without matching signatures. Neither Democrat is likely to win, but in the name of “counting every vote” they want to overturn normal vote-counting practice.
1a) Doubling Down on Mueller
What will Democrats (and Jeff Flake) do if the probe finds no collusion evidence? By Kimberley A. Strassel
With the midterms over, Washington returns to its regular programming: Russia. Trump critics should consider the risk of betting their political fortunes on special counsel Robert Mueller.
The Mueller probe has lost its political potency, as Democrats acknowledged on the midterm trail. They didn’t win House seats by warning of Russian collusion. They didn’t even talk about it. Most voters don’t care, or don’t care to hear about it. A CNN exit poll found 54% of respondents think the Russia probe is “politically motivated”; a 46% plurality disapprove of Mr. Mueller’s handling of it.
That hasn’t stopped Democrats from fixating on it since the election, in particular when President Trump fired Attorney General Jeff Sessions and named Matthew Whitaker as a temporary replacement. The left now insists the appointment is unconstitutional or that because Mr. Whitaker once voiced skepticism on the Russia-collusion narrative, he is unfit to oversee the Mueller investigation and must recuse himself.
The joke here is that neither Mr. Whitaker nor anybody else is likely to exercise any authority over Mr. Mueller—and more’s the pity. The probe has meandered along for 18 months, notching records for leaks and derivative prosecutions, though all indications are it has accomplished little by way of its initial mandate.
As a practical matter, Mr. Mueller should have been brought to heel some time ago. As a political matter, that won’t happen. The administration has always understood that such a move would provoke bipartisan political blowback, ignite a new “coverup” scandal, and maybe trigger impeachment. It’s even more unlikely officials would risk those consequences now, as Mr. Mueller is said to be wrapping up.
Democrats know this, as does the grandstanding Sen. Jeff Flake. Yet they demand a Whitaker recusal and are again pushing legislation to “protect” the special counsel’s probe. Senate Republicans rightly blocked that bill this week, partly on grounds that it is likely unconstitutional. They also made the obvious point that if Mr. Trump intended to fire Mr. Mueller, he’d have done so months ago and wouldn’t need to ax Mr. Sessions to do it. And while the president tweets ceaseless criticism of the probe, he has never threatened to end it.
Democrats are nonetheless doubling down on the probe for political advantage. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer declared members of his caucus will demand that language making it more difficult to fire Mr. Mueller be included in a spending bill that needs to pass before the end of the current legislative session. Mr. Flake is offering an assist, saying that he will block any judicial nominees in committee until a Mueller protection bill gets a Senate floor vote. Over in the House, incoming Democratic committee chairmen, led by soon-to-be Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, are vowing an investigation blitz focused on collusion with Russia.
Mr. Schumer’s last shutdown—a year ago—was a bust even though it was waged over the emotionally compelling issue of Dreamers, illegal aliens brought to the U.S. as children. He now proposes shutting down the government over a probe few people outside of Washington care about. Mitch McConnell should be so lucky.
Mr. Flake, should he run for president, will struggle to explain to conservative voters his obstruction of Trump judicial nominees, who’ll be confirmed in 2019 anyway when the Republicans expand their Senate majority.
Democrats’ other problem is that this strategy hinges in large degree on an expectation that Mr. Mueller ultimately finds something. There’s no reason to believe he has turned up any evidence of Trump-Russia collusion.
Sure, he’s secured convictions against longtime Beltway bandits for long-ago lobbying. He’s squeezed the ole standby lying-to-investigators plea out of a few targets. He’s indicted a squad of Russian trolls, who will never be brought to trial and who even Mr. Mueller’s office admits had nothing to do with the Trump team. And while it seems likely his report to the Justice Department will criticize Mr. Trump, it’s improbable it will contain proof of collusion.
And then? The president will have a field day. He will claim vindication and mercilessly drive home that the investigation was a waste and a witch hunt. And he will have a point. Two years of Democratic hyperbole will be undercut by the special counsel they’ve held out as the ultimate sleuth. They’ll have to decide whether to deride Mr. Mueller’s findings as insufficient to justify continuing their own probes.
Maybe Mr. Mueller has something. We’ll see. But if the reporting is correct that he’s wound up high and dry, Democrats will end up there with him.
1b) FBI Clears Michael Flynn of Collusion
By TTN Staff
The FBI has cleared Michael Flynn of wrongdoing in regard to his possible involvement in Russian collusion. The FBI reviewed Flynn's phone calls that were intercepted between Flynn and the Russian ambassador.
The FBI has reviewed intercepted phone calls between national security adviser Michael Flynn and the Russian ambassador to the US and has found no evidence of wrongdoing, it was revealed Monday.
The calls were made in late December and picked up as part of routine electronic surveillance of Russian officials. They did not reveal any illicit ties between Flynn and Russia, according to the Washington Post.
The review of the calls was part of a wider probe into Russia’s interference in the presidential election and hacking of the Democratic National Committee.
Flynn still faces sentencing after pleading guilty to perjury during the Mueller investigation. Speculation has surrounded the plea as to its validity and this new information make bring that back into question.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2) It Is Official: Democrat Party EMBRACES Anti-Semitism as POLICY
By
Ilhan Omar is the new Democrat member of Congress from Minnesota. She is the candidate that was married for nine years—to her brother. At her victory speech she had a Palestinian flag for all to see. Her support of terrorism and opposition to Israel is legend. Yet, Pelosi, Schumer, Sanders, the Clintons—no Democrat denounced her for hating Jews and Israel. My conclusion? The Democrat Party has finally come out of the closet to promote anti-Semitism—just like Obama tried his best to kill off the State of Israel.“Ilhan Omar, one of the first of two Muslim women to be elected to Congress, is a new kind of politician. She’s telegenic. Ideologically progressive. Widely celebrated by a media that’s obsessed with identity politics. She’s the kind of politician who can openly side with Hamas against Israel or spread “Protocols of Zion”-style conspiracies on Twitter, claiming that Jews possess the supernatural ability to hypnotize the world as they unfurl their “evil.”It’s not surprising, then, that Omar also supports the “boycott, divestment and sanctions” movement (BDS). In a statement to the website Muslim Girl (later confirmed elsewhere), someone on Omar’s staff explains that, yes, “Ilhan believes in and supports the BDS movement, and has fought to make sure people’s right to support it isn’t criminalized. She does however, have reservations on the effectiveness of the movement in accomplishing a lasting solution.”This is the new Democrat Party—proud of hate, violence, bullying and using the media to lie to the public. It is only 723 days to the November, 2020 election.
Not one Democratic Party leader has condemned the growing hatred in their midst.
By David Harsanyi, The Federalist
Ilhan Omar, one of the first of two Muslim women to be elected to Congress, is a new kind of politician. She’s telegenic. Ideologically progressive. Widely celebrated by a media that’s obsessed with identity politics. She’s the kind of politician who can openly side with Hamas against Israel or spread “Protocols of Zion”-style conspiracies on Twitter, claiming that Jews possess the supernatural ability to hypnotize the world as they unfurl their “evil.”
It’s not surprising, then, that Omar also supports the “boycott, divestment and sanctions” movement (BDS). In a statement to the website Muslim Girl (later confirmed elsewhere), someone on Omar’s staff explains that, yes, “Ilhan believes in and supports the BDS movement, and has fought to make sure people’s right to support it isn’t criminalized. She does however, have reservations on the effectiveness of the movement in accomplishing a lasting solution.”
So, although Omar contends that BDS will be ineffective in getting the sides to “a lasting solution,” she stills “believes in and supports” a movement that smears the Jewish state as a racist endeavor and aims to destroy it economically. It’s a mystery, is it not, why some Jews might find that positioning offensive?
Omar has supported BDS for a while, even though she will now occasionally slip in some platitudes about the peace process. As Scott Johnson of Power Line (who’s been following this story from the beginning) points out, Omar misled Jewish voters in her district, obfuscating about her position and, as she still does, conflating her support for BDS with a bill that would have stopped continued taxpayer funding of the movement. No one is attempting to “criminalize” anti-Israel speech, although it’s heartening to see Omar is a free-speech absolutist. We’ll see if her position on the “criminalization” of speech will remain consistent moving forward, and not reserved for supporters of Hamas.
As far as I know, not even former congressman Keith Ellison, who once accused the shifty Jews of running American foreign policy, openly supported the BDS movement. Not even J-Street, the progressive front for hard-left activists posing as Israel supporters, openly backed BDS. Nor does George Soros, although he has intermittently funded BDS groups in the past and has been active against the Jewish state for years.
Of course, BDS proponents will tell you they are anti-Zionist, not anti-Semitic. But when you’re fixated on the only liberal state in the Middle East, and avoid criticism of any Islamic regimes that deny their own citizens the most basic of human rights, you, at the very least, betray a morally bankrupt position. Even as Hamas rains hundreds of rockets down on civilians—a nihilistic project that always takes precedent over investing in their own people in their own autonomous Palestinian territory—there is criticism from those who only see evil behind Jewish acts of self-defense.
It’s no mistake that Omar insists Israel is an “apartheid regime,” an ugly, simplistic, misleading, and irresponsible accusation. It’s not only the propellant for anti-Semitism on campuses across the country, it’s the foundational accusation of the BDS movement, which is attempting to recreate the campaign against racist South African apartheid in the 1980s.
Israel’s laws, of course, make absolutely no distinctions based on a person’s race. Every person in Israel has the ability to participate in the democratic process, and all have equal standing under the law. Muslims in Israel have more liberal rights than Muslims anywhere in the Arab world do. What we do have is a complex situation involving one-time Jewish land that once again fell under Israeli rule after a bunch of neighboring countries tried to destroy it.
Yet Democrats, who claim to hear anti-Semitism dog whistles from every porch in Red America, rarely see a problem with this kind of rhetoric. The FBI says that Jews were the victims of 60 percent of religiously motivated hate crimes in 2017, although they were just 2 percent of the population. Whatever inherent flaws exist in these self-reporting statistics, the disparity is real. Despite the horrific shooting in Pittsburgh and Jew hatred on the far Right, it’s almost certain that the average American Jew is more likely to encounter an aggressively “anti-Zionist” BDS activist on a campus (or a progressive march) than a white supremacist anywhere.
Just ask Tamika Mallory or Linda Sarsour or Sophie Ellman-Golan as they simultaneously infantilize and radicalize mainstream left-wing politics. Not a single Democratic Party leader has condemned their ugly rhetoric or relationship with hate-mongers or their insistence on singling out the one country that happens to be filled with Jews. Then again, not one Democrat has condemned Omar for comparing the Jewish state to a racist regime.
Put it this way, TV actress-turned activist Alyssa Milano has been more courageous than Sen. Chuck Schumer about standing up against anti-Semitism. Debra Messing is braver than Brian Schatz, Bernie Sanders, Dianne Feinstein, and Richard Blumenthal. Fortunately, not everyone is consumed by sheer political expediency.
David Harsanyi is a Senior Editor at The Federalist. He is the author of the new book, First Freedom: A Ride Through America’s Enduring History with the Gun, From the Revolution to Today.
2a) First Muslim Women in US Congress Misled Voters About Views on Israel
GatestoneInstitute.org, Soren Kern
“Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel.” — Ilhan Omar, in a tweet, November 2012.
Ilhan Abdullahi Omar (pictured) and Rashida Harbi Tlaib will be the first two Muslim women ever to serve in the US Congress. During her campaign, Omar criticized anti-Israel boycotts. Less than a week after being elected, however, Omar admitted that she supports the boycotts.
2a) First Muslim Women in US Congress Misled Voters About Views on Israel
GatestoneInstitute.org, Soren Kern
“Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel.” — Ilhan Omar, in a tweet, November 2012.
• “When a politician singles out Jewish allies as 'evil,' but ignores every brutal theocratic regime in the area, it's certainly noteworthy….” — David Harsanyi, New York Post.
• “With many Jews expressing distaste for an 'illiberal' Israel, it's little surprise that the bulk of American Jewry isn't overly bothered about the election of Socialists who are unsympathetic to the Jewish state or consider Zionism to be racist.” — Commentator Jonathan Tobin.
Ilhan Abdullahi Omar (pictured) and Rashida Harbi Tlaib will be the first two Muslim women ever to serve in the US Congress. During her campaign, Omar criticized anti-Israel boycotts. Less than a week after being elected, however, Omar admitted that she supports the boycotts.
Ilhan Abdullahi Omar of Minnesota and Rashida Harbi Tlaib of Michigan will be the first two Muslim women ever to serve in the US Congress. Most of the media coverage since their election on November 6 has been effusive in praise of their Muslim identity and personal history.
Less known is that both women deceived voters about their positions on Israel. Both women, at some point during their rise in electoral politics, led voters — especially Jewish voters — to believe that they held moderate views on Israel. After being elected, both women reversed their positions and now say they are committed to sanctioning the Jewish state.
America's first two Muslim congresswomen are now both on record as appearing to oppose Israel's right to exist. They both support the anti-Israel boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement. Both are also explicitly or implicitly opposed to continuing military aid to Israel, as well as to a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — an outcome that would establish a Palestinian state alongside Israel. Instead, they favor a one-state solution — an outcome that many analysts believe would, due to demographics over time, replace the Jewish state with a unitary Palestinian state.
Ilhan Omar, who will replace outgoing Rep. Keith Ellison (the first Muslim elected to Congress) in Minnesota's 5th congressional district, came to the United States as a 12-year-old refugee from Somalia and settled in the Twin Cities, Minneapolis and Saint Paul, in the late 1990s.
In her acceptance speech, delivered without an American flag, Congresswoman-elect Omar opened her speech in Arabic with the greeting, “As-Salam Alaikum, (peace be upon you), alhamdulillah (praise be to Allah), alhamdulillah, alhamdulillah.” She continued:
Omar faced some controversy during the campaign, including a disturbing report that she had married her own brother in 2009 for fraudulent purposes, as well as a tweet from May 2018 in which she refers to Israel as an “apartheid regime,” and another tweet from November 2012, in which she stated: “Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel.”
After the tweets came to light, Omar met with members of her congressional district's large Jewish population to address concerns over her position on Israel, as reported by Minneapolis's Star Tribune. During a Democratic Party candidates' forum at Beth El Synagogue in St. Louis Park on August 6 — one week before Omar defeated four other candidates in the party's primary — Omar publicly criticized the anti-Israel BDS movement. In front of an audience of more than a thousand people, Omar said she supported a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict and that the BDS movement aimed at pressuring Israel was not helpful in trying to achieve that goal.
Pressed by moderator Mary Lahammer to specify “exactly where you stand on that,” Omar replied that the BDS movement was “counteractive” because it stopped both sides from coming together for “a conversation about how that's going to be possible.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3) SIRC True Perspectives, November 13, 2018
Middle East expert Avi Jorisch summarized his latest book on innovation (Thou Shalt Innovate – How Israeli Ingenuity Repairs the World). It is really a sequel to 2009’s Start-Up Nation, the Story of Israel’s Economic Miracle, by Dan Senor and Saul Singer. Both books deal with why and how entrepreneurship is thriving in this small nation in the Middle East. Though the size of New Jersey, it is credited with having more startup businesses than any nation but the economic giants of US and China.
Jorisch is an American who has worked periodically in US Defense and Treasury Departments on key international issues. He studied Arabic and Islamic philosophy at several universities in Cairo Egypt. He also has a summer home in Israel where he brings his young family to study innovations and traditions there.
He has experienced first-hand the attempts of HAMAS, the Palestinian Islamist terrorist organization, to try to destroy Israel by launching missiles at the civilian population. While there in 2016 and hiding in a basement with his young family, he witnessed the tremendous technological capability of intercepting these missiles via Israel’s internally designed and implemented Iron Dome missile defense.
His thesis is that the Iron Dome technology is but one of many innovations that Israel has perfected with their passionate pursuit of technology that benefits mankind. In fact, part of their raison detre is just such endeavors from their philosophic and religious traditions. It is only now that Jewish peoples have a home and a nation that they can truly pursue this enrichment of mankind.
He ascribed three strong beliefs of this Jewish nation that promote and enable such goals:
1. Diversity – Israel is home to such diverse cultures as Islam, Christianity and Judaism.
2. Secular Values – making a better place on earth for efficient living for mankind.
3. Prophetic tradition – of morality and social justice, to “bring light to the world.”
These are embodied in three core values of Israeli Families: moral values, hard work and acts of charity.
Examples of Technological Innovations from Israel
While developed there, the intent was to make available to the rest of mankind to improve lives everywhere. The first one he described was a better Emergency Response System. A call to 911 in the U.S. generally produces a rescue vehicle within 20 minutes on average. Yet some emergencies need a much faster response, possibly even three minutes as a goal to actually save a life or reduce the damages. Using technology that gave rise to Uber as a transportation response from a smart phone user, Israel has identified and trained some 5000 emergency responders that can be on site in as little as 90 seconds! They often use mopeds to wind through traffic in cities to get there, with their medical equipment stored on their motorized vehicles. There are now 20 countries planning to implement this technology for very quick response.
Water Resources
Israel is now 100% water self-sufficient, despite having more than 50% of their land classified as desert. They do this through five technologies perfected by Israeli entrepreneurs.
1. Desalinization plants – first invented in 1960, Israel now gets 50% of its water by tapping into the Mediterranean Sea. They are also building similar plants for a number of other countries including China and India as well as California in the US.
2. Drip Irrigation – which saves over 60% or water needs for farmers, which is crucial in arid areas.
3. Recycling of waste water - For 80% of Israel, waste water, this separates out human waste, to reuse in fertilizer, but also cleans five times the remainder water to reuse in irrigation. The next user of this technology, Spain now does this for 18% of its waste water. The US is only doing it for 8% of its waste water.
4. Early detection of pipe failures – this uses internet signaling to get the repairs done in much shorter time to save water systems.
5. Dual flush systems on toilets – now universal in Israel, many countries have yet to install this obvious and effect saving of flush water.
Parkinson Disease Treatment
This medical research breakthrough can send stimulus signals to the right physiologic places in the body to ease the pain and discomfort. The innovation was discovering the deep brain stimulation locales to produce the right results, with no risk to adverse outcomes.
Back Surgery
Similar brain and cervical cord detection areas can allow delicate robotic surgery in the precise locales, with so far a zero failure rate, given the risk of more imprecise procedures done by the hand of surgeons. The innovators of this technology also made a nice profit when the technology company was sold recently for $1.4 billion.
Rehabilitation of Paraplegics/Quadriplegics
Robotic cages have allowed above patients previously consigned to a wheelchair to actually walk upright, propelled by impulses from the patient.
Protein Research
Some enzymes from newborn male foreskins have been used in treating multiple sclerosis patients. The ingenuity has also been in getting a supply of such, and still observing religious traditions.
Final Optimism?
To put these innovations into perspective, he characterized some of Israel’s present and past foes, Iran, Egypt and Syria as being dangerously short of water resources, possibly being in crisis mode in less than ten years. Perhaps Israel’s expertise and cooperation in water resources could be a key to ending hostilities and threats as together they tackle this crucial need for water.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
4) Would a Shift to Israel's Selective Nuclear Disclosure Enhance Strategic Deterrence?
For Israel, a principal component of national strategy has always been to keep military nuclear assets shrouded in the basement.[1] Arguably, at least until now, nuclear ambiguity or opacity has worked. Although this unique stance has apparently done little or nothing to deter various ordinary conventional enemy aggressions or acts of terror, it has plainly succeeded in keeping the country’s multiple enemies from mounting any determined existential aggressions. Significantly, these potentially catastrophic aggressions could, at some point, have been mounted without employing nuclear or biological weapons.
Conceptually, it's largely about the principle of mass. In short, Israel has no meaningful mass. However, for the moment of course, none of Israel’s frontline foes have a nuclear capability or, to put it colloquially, the bomb.
Still, together in a determined and calculated collaboration, these enemies could already have acquired the specific cumulative capacity needed to carry out substantial or fully overwhelming military assaults.
At least in principle, and acting collectively, these states and their assorted insurgent proxies could already have inflicted expressly intolerable harms upon the Jewish State, even without nuclear weapons.
In military nuclear matters, any national security strategy based only uponwhispered sotto voce threats has conspicuous limits. Accordingly, Israel’s longstanding policy of deliberate ambiguity will not work indefinitely. To be reliably deterred, a fully nuclear adversary (most plausibly a future Iran) would need readily verifiable assurances Israel’s nuclear weapons were both effectively invulnerable and penetration-capable. This expectation means Israel's nuclear weapons would not only need to be sufficiently protected from a first-strike, but that they would also be able to get through any prospective nuclear adversary's cumulative defenses.
Any adversary's judgments concerning Israel’s willingness to retaliate with nuclear weapons would depend in large measure upon its particular foreknowledge of these weapons and on their corollary operational capabilities.
Ironically, certain enemy perceptions of exclusively mega-destructive, high-yield Israeli nuclear weapons could effectively undermine the credibility of Israel’s nuclear deterrence. Expressed more formally, Israel’s strategic deterrence credibility could vary inversely with the perceived destructiveness of its nuclear arms. While seemingly counter-intuitive, this argument reasonably suggests not only that Israel should have available a usefully wide range of nuclear retaliatory options, but also that it take proper steps to ensure any such expansive range is widely and instantly recognizable.
Should an enemy state with nuclear capabilities ever decide to share some of its offensive nuclear assets with a surrogate anti-Israel terrorist group (e.g., Iran sharing with Hezbollah), Jerusalem would then also need to have prepared satisfactorily for the nuclear deterrence of non-state adversaries.
In all such conceivable scenarios, what will first need to be calculated is the precise subtlety with which Israel should communicate its nuclear positions, intentions, and capabilities to various potential adversaries.
Any rationale for Israeli nuclear disclosure would stem from the absolutely basic understanding that nuclear weapons can serve Israel's security in several different ways. Once faced with a nuclear fait accompli in Tehran or elsewhere, Israel would then need to convince its relevant enemy or enemies it possessed both the will and the capacity to make any intended nuclear aggression more costly than gainful. By definition,any Israeli move from ambiguity to disclosure could help in the case of a nuclear enemy, rational or irrational, Iran or some other.
To protect itself against enemy military strikes, particularly those attacks that could carry existential costs, Israel must quickly and correctly exploit every aspect and function of its still-opaque nuclear arsenal. The success of Israel's efforts will depend not only upon its carefully selected configuration of counterforce and counter value operations, but also upon the extent to which this choice is made known in advance to enemy states and their non-state surrogates.[2] However, it will not be enough for such enemies to know Israel has the bomb to ensure they are deterred from launching first strikes against Israel or from launching retaliatory attacks following an Israeli non-nuclear preemptive strike.
Removing the bomb from Israel's basement could enhance the Jewish State's strategic deterrence to the extent that it would heighten enemy perceptions of secure and capable Israeli nuclear forces. Any such calculated end to deliberate ambiguity could also underscore Israel’s willingness to use these nuclear forces in reprisal for assorted enemy first-strike and/or retaliatory attacks. But would an Israeli move from deliberate nuclear ambiguity or opacity be purposeful with regard to certain non-nuclear threats? This important question still lies latent among capable strategic analysts and theorists. In other words, it is never really asked
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No comments:
Post a Comment