Europe quacks like a duck, ducks like a chicken!

Below is a bleak intelligence assessment of the continued decline of US influence and the rise of Iran's influence. Something Democrats are hastening as they trash GW for his efforts to stave of terrorism and keep it off shore. (See 1 below.)

Democratic nations are bereft of leadership. Is it because they are under pressure and have buckled, is it because their faith in their institutions was always shallow, is it because they have been too successful and their economic success makes their citizenry unwilling to defend their vested interests? Whatever the reason, the consequences of the dry rot of leadership seems to have set in and no one likely to reverse the slide is visibly on the horizon. (See 2 below.)

If GW was the leader I once thought he might be, he would meet with the Iranians and tell them they have two weeks to stop their nuclear experimentation and if they do not we will attack them. GW has nothing to lose. He cannot succeed himself, the Democrats are prepared to make his life miserable and seem to care not one whit about what happens if we lose in Iraq. He is down in the ratings, no one listens to, believes or respects him and I have to assume he would prefer not leaving the intractable problems he faces for his successor. Furthermore, if he truly cares about the future of our nation's freedom he must realize you cannot reason with religious fanatics. Certainly he should have learned this in dealing with the Far Right element in his own party.

If destroying Iran's nuclear capability, its air force and communication grid will inflame Iranian citizens pro-American, history is replete with instances where years after news accommodations are reached. Japan is one example but there are many.

My friend, reporter Khaled Toameh, discusses Abbas' lame plea for the international community not to judge the unity government nor abandon the Palestinians who are incapable of agreeing on the basic and civil demands of TRM, which the Saudis laid to rest at Mecca. Since Abbas cannot get his act together, GW asks Olmert to make further concessions which Olmert refused to do. So what are the three - Abbas, Olmert and Rice - meeting for? More friendly handshakes for the media?(See 3 below.)

Daniel Johnson asks whether Europe is capable of taking its head out of the sand? Yes, it is capable but it is unwilling. Consequently, it has left the heavy lifting, once again, to the US and Israel. (See 4 below.)

Dick

1)The dynamic activity - as so often these days - is in Tehran. Syrian ruler Bashar Assad made a point of starting two days of talks in the Iranian capital “to strengthen bilateral relations” on the day of Rice’s arrival in the region.

Both the Syrian and Iranian governments are heavily involved in thwarting US policy goals on both the Iraqi and the Israel-Palestinian fronts. The Tehran talks are expected to yield more of the same. Assad’s delegation to Tehran included Syria’s former ambassador to Washington, the current foreign minister Walid Moalam, who is reputed to be the most pro-American member of Assad’s government. This was meant as a Syrian-Iranian taunt to show the US, Israeli and Palestinian officials meeting Monday who is calling the shots in the Middle East.

In Beirut Friday, Hizballah’s Hassan Nasrallah declared bald-facedly that weapons are still flowing into Lebanon from Syria and his forces, in South Lebanon too, were rearming. This was another taunt, demonstrating the futility of the UN Security Council resolution 1701 which halted the Hizballah-Israeli hostilities of July-Aug 2006, expanded the UN peacekeepers force, banned the flow of arms to Hizballah and was supposed to demilitarize the south under Lebanese army and UNIFIL control.

A bare seven months after the Lebanon War’s end, Nasrallah stood up to expose the loss of American and Israeli deterrent leverage for affecting the situation in South Lebanon

Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wound up the effort to sabotage Rice’s mission. He goaded Washington by informing the outgoing Lebanese ambassador to Tehran Adnan Mansour Friday, Feb. 16, that “Iran and Lebanon are limbs of the same body, but unfortunately the Lebanese part is wounded.” His words were released by the Iranian national news agency IRNA.

Middle East sources note this was the first time a senior Iranian statesman has frankly included Lebanon in the area of influence to which Tehran aspires. Iran’s expansionist ambitions have already produced thrusting offensives with regard to the Palestinians and Iraq. Tehran is in the process of carving out a crescent of Iranian domination that aims at sweeping up Iraq after the American withdrawal, just like Lebanon after Israel’s defeat in the 2006 war. After that, the Palestinians will be sucked willy-nilly into the Iranian orbit.

The Rice-Olmert-Abbas conference does not provide any obstacle to Tehran’s driving ambition. In advance of the event, President George W. Bush phoned Olmert to ask about further Israeli concessions to the Palestinians as incentives to keep them moving along the diplomatic track. He himself had no new ideas. The prime minister replied Israel stood by the Middle East Quartet’s terms for recognizing any Palestinian government – renunciation of violence, acceptance of previous accords, including peace agreements and recognition of the Jewish state.

However, the Quartet’s Palestinian policy was in fact trashed in Mecca ten days ago, when the Saudi king forged a pact with the Hamas prime minister Ismail Haniyeh on terms that excluded all three of its conditions - a pact Washington was helpless to avert.

With these prospects in view, it is not surprising that many US policy-makers including State Department officials advised Condoleezza Rice to call off her Middle East trip and her date with the Israeli and Palestinian leaders.

2) Coalition Chairman: Leadership crisis is worst in Israel's history


Coalition Chairman Avigdor Yitzhaki of Kadima said Saturday that Israel's leadership crisis is the most difficult since the state's founding.

"Olmert was the most fitting person from among the gallery presented in the last elections," he said. "It will take time until we succeed in presenting leadership to the public that can be trusted and relied upon. The solution, however, lies not in bringing in those whom we have never liked - Netanyahu for example."

Yitzhaki also said that every beginning prime minister must know that he may have to undergo a police investigation.

Speaking in Be'er Sheva, Yitzhaki said that the Kadima leadership will convene shortly to determine the party's stance on the candidacy of Vice Premier Shimon Peres (Kadima) for president.

The coalition chairman said Peres is a man rich in virtues and well suited to the position of president, but that there is no reason to hasten his appointment through amending "personal" legislation that would change the selection of president to a secretive, rather than an open, process.

Yitzhaki added that the process of distributing cabinet posts would be carried out in cooperation with Labor and Yisrael Beiteinu.

3) Don't condemn us yet, Palestinians plead
By KHALED ABU TOAMEH


On the eve of the meeting between Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas and US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, PA leaders here stepped up their efforts to persuade the international community to accept the "national unity" Mecca agreement between Fatah and Hamas and lift the financial sanctions imposed on the Palestinians in the aftermath of Hamas's rise to power.

Warning that failure to deal with the new Hamas-led coalition would strengthen the extremists among the Palestinians at the expense of the "moderates," PA representatives expressed hope that Abbas would succeed in persuading Rice not to make a "hasty decision" regarding the unity government.

Sources close to Abbas expressed fear that a US decision to boycott the proposed coalition would be followed by a similar move on the part of the Europeans. They also warned that such a decision would play into the hands of Hamas and place Fatah in an embarrassing situation.

"Hamas will score many points on the Palestinian street if the international community continues to boycott the Palestinian government," the sources said. "All we are saying is that the international community should first wait to see the new government's policy. The unity government will certainly be better than the outgoing Hamas government."

Nabil Abu Rudaineh, a spokesman for Abbas, said the US administration must avoid making prejudgments regarding the unity government. "The Americans must give the new government a chance to prove that it will fulfill the demands of the Quartet and the requirements of the peace process," he said.

"If the Americans are serious about advancing the peace process, then they must give the new government a chance.

"The US and the rest of the international community should respect the will of the Palestinians. The unity government enjoys the backing of all Arab states and Palestinian factions. An American rejection [of the unity government] will be regarded as a challenge to all the Arabs. The Israeli position regarding the Mecca agreement hasn't been positive so far."

Abbas, who met in his office Saturday with US State Department envoy David Welch, said Washington and the international community should accept the Mecca agreement.

Abbas explained that he had no choice but to sign the agreement with the hope that it would prevent an all-out war between Fatah and Hamas.

PA official Saeb Erekat, who participated in the meeting, described the talks as "thorough and candid." He said Abbas stressed the importance of ending the financial sanctions and expressed his desire to resume peace talks with Israel on the basis of US President George W. Bush's two-state vision. "We want a meaningful peace process that will end the occupation," Erekat quoted Abbas as telling the US diplomat.

Erekat said Welch made it clear during the meeting that the US position regarding the unity government would depend on whether the new coalition meets the conditions of the Quartet - recognizing Israel, renouncing violence and abiding by previous agreements signed between the PLO and Israel.

"This is the American position and we heard it again today," Erekat added. "Anything else that was said in this regard does not reflect the official US stance." According to Erekat, Abbas also reassured the US diplomat that the PLO and the PA, and not the new government, would be in charge of future negotiations with Israel.

PLO executive member Yasser Abed Rabbo, who is closely associated with Abbas, appealed to the US to accept the Fatah-Hamas deal. "The PLO and Palestinian Authority are now trying to market the Mecca agreement to the international community with the hope that they will accept it," he said. "Our message to the world is that the new unity government will represent all Palestinian factions and is the fruit of national accord. The new government will respect the agreements and commitments made by the Palestinians. Therefore, it should be given the chance it deserves."

Nasser Laham, editor of the Bethlehem-based Maan news agency, expressed fear that Rice's visit to the region would lead to another round of internal strife in the PA-controlled territories. "Rice is coming to impose new conditions," he said. "My fear is that this woman's visit will lead to renewed fighting. Rice never came to the region with good news for any Arab and Palestinian."

In Gaza City, meanwhile, outgoing PA Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh launched coalition talks Saturday by meeting with leaders of the Islamic Jihad organization. Haniyeh, who has five weeks to form a unity government, is also expected to meet with representatives of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) and the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP) in a bid to convince them to join the coalition.

Islamic Jihad representative Khaled al-Batsh ruled out the possibility that his organization would join the Hamas-led coalition because of its opposition to the political aspect of the Mecca agreement. PFLP official Kayed al-Ghul said he was pessimistic regarding the prospects of the success of the Mecca agreement.

"Because this agreement is based on the principle of partnership, the power struggle between the two sides will continue and the government will be unable to function," he said. "On the other hand, external pressure on the Palestinians will disrupt the work of the government and probably bring it down."

In a separate development, unidentified gunmen fired at the home of outgoing PA Planning Minister Samir Abu Aisheh in Nablus late Friday night. No one was hurt, but some windows were broken.

There was no claim of responsibility, but Hamas issued a statement in which it accused "agents of the Israeli occupation" of being behind the attack in order to
derail the Mecca accord.•

4) Europe's Iran Problem. Problem? What problem?
by Daniel Johnson

The leaders of Europe can no longer pretend that they don't know what Iran is up to. A leaked internal document prepared for the European Union's foreign ministers warns that it is probably too late to prevent the Iranian government from acquiring nuclear weapons. "At some stage we must expect that Iran will acquire the capacity to enrich uranium on the scale required for a weapons programme." The document also admits that efforts to impede the Iranian nuclear program have failed. "In practice . . . the Iranians have pursued their programme at their own pace, the limiting factor being technical difficulties rather than resolutions by the U.N. or the [International Atomic Energy Agency]." Nor do the limited sanctions announced by the U.N. Security Council hold out any hope: "The problems with Iran will not be resolved through economic sanctions alone."

So now they know. Years of diplomacy have made virtually no difference. Carrots and sticks have been tried and failed. The regime in Tehran is determined to become a nuclear power--the first nuclear power with a yearning for martyrdom. Europe's strategy has hitherto been merely to play for time--but time is on Tehran's side.

Europe's reaction? Nil. By tacit agreement, it has been left to Israel and the United States to hint at possible military action to destroy the nuclear facilities that European companies have helped to create. Europe has done little to isolate Iran or put pressure on its leaders and its people. Germany and other European Union states
head the list of trading partners with Iran. As was the case with Iraq, the fact that so many Europeans are making so much money out of an evil regime has contributed to Europe's political paralysis.

Yet Europe has an overwhelming interest in preventing the emergence of an Islamist bomb. European territory would be directly threatened by a nuclear-armed Iran, equipped with long-range missiles. Europe would also be in greater danger than the United States from terrorist organizations armed with radioactive ("dirty") or even nuclear bombs from Tehran. Iranian terrorists have a history of setting off bombs in Europe. Nuclear blackmail is far more likely to be used against European states than against the United States, and European states are judged by Tehran to be far less likely to retaliate than Israel.

For these and many other practical reasons, Europe should be reacting far more vigorously than it is to the Iranian provocation. But there is an even more important reason Europe should be forcing the issue rather than appeasing the mullahs.

The moral case for stopping President Ahmadinejad and Supreme Leader Khamenei in their tracks is that both have vowed to annihilate Israel. Ahmadinejad's threat ("Israel must be wiped off the map"), repeated in different forms several times over the past two years, is well known. He was quoting Ayatollah Khomeini, whose successor as supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, set out his solution to the Middle East problem in 2000: "the annihilation and destruction of the Zionist state." The means to accomplish the eradication of Israel are now almost in their grasp.

Why, the political establishment of Europe implicitly asks, should we lift a finger for Israel? Well, Israel is Europe's orphaned offspring. It was Europe--specifically Britain--that conceived the Jewish National Home in Palestine with the Balfour Declaration in 1917. It was Europe--specifically Germany, but with help from collaborators in almost every nation on the Continent--that drove hundreds of thousands of Jews to emigrate, and then murdered six million who could not escape. It was Europe--specifically the E.U.--that gave the Holocaust a unique status in defining the values that Europe's institutions enshrine. Generations of children have been taught that the commemoration of the Holocaust is not only a moral imperative, but constitutive of European civilization.

Now that the threat of a second Holocaust is staring Europe in the face, however, its leaders are in denial. Worse: They seem insouciant. Why is the E.U., which makes so much of its humanitarian credentials, which sees itself as a creature of the Enlightenment, so seemingly indifferent? The answer, I fear, lies in the process that has deprived Israel of legitimacy and branded Zionism as a relic of European imperialism. That process has been grinding away for decades, but only now is it becoming plain that Europe's vast superstructure of collective atonement for the Holocaust has been hollowed out from within. The calumny that Israel--the most liberal and egalitarian country in the Middle East--is an "apartheid state" has hardened into a conviction. The mud has stuck.

Yet if Israel is attacked and--God forbid--destroyed by Iranian nuclear bombs, then European civilization will have perished, too. The destruction of Israel would signal the demise of the Judeo-Christian morality that ennobled Greco-Roman culture to create the only Europe that was ever worth preserving. I for one could not live in a society that could even contemplate such a second Shoah. I would turn my back on such a Europe, shake the dust from my feet, never to return.

A Cuckoo proposal from the Swiss?

This was sent by a friend and I have no way of verifying. You can judge for yourself. We do know politics is all about money. (See 1 below.)

A report suggests the Swiss are offering Iran a way out of the nuclear corner they have gotten themselves into and it appears to be Cuckoo one. (See 2 below.)

Meanwhile, Sec. Rice is using the leverage of a possible agreement with N Korea and extends a carrot to the Iranians. (See 3 below.)But then John Podhoretz has a different take on the proposed N Korean negotiations. (See 6 below.)

Ever helpful, Putin chimes in on the Palestinian Mecca deal. Putin states he is working within the Quartet but the agreement between Hamas and Fatah happens to ignore key demands of the Quartet and TRM, ie. recognition of Israel, prior agreements and end of violence and terrorism. What Putin and the EU appear eager for is a deal that, at best, can only create the appearance of honey while the killer bee's remain hidden. This would permit the EU to re-start aid in the mistaken belief this would buy calm and tranquility. But then the EU's Amb. to the U.N. warns the Palestinians to renounce terrorism.(See 4 below and 8.)

Caroline Glick points out the schism within the ranks of America's Jewish community, ie. apologists versus defenders. From my perspective the apologists fear defense of Israel brings attention to them and causes them angst among the power structure with which they would like to be connected. (See 5 below.)

George Friedman discusses Russia in terms of Putin's recent speech. Russia's involvemnent in the region and Putin's contention that we are the trouble maker takes a very convoluted course as Friedman demonstrates. (See 7 below.)

Dick


1)(This is an interesting bit of information that you don't hear much about.)

A. Enron's chairman did meet with the President and the Vice President in the Oval Office.
B. Enron gave $420,000.00 to the President's party over three
years.
C Enron donated $100,000.00 to the President's inauguration
festivities.
D. The Enron chairman stayed at the White House 11 times.
E. The Corporation had access to the administration at its highest level and even enlisted the Commerce and State Departments to grease deals for it.
F. The Taxpayer-supported Export-Import Bank subsidized Enron for more than $600 million in just one transaction.

Scandalous!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
But most interesting of all, the President under whom all this
happened WASN'T George W. Bush...............It was Bill Clinton!!!!!!!!!!!!!

But then Hillary is more ethical!

2) An intelligence source reveals a six-point proposal was delivered by Swiss Emissaries to the Iranian government ten days ago.

The six points are:

1. Iran will be allowed to produce a predetermined quota of enriched uranium against its pledge not to exceed this limit or produce it up to weapons grade.

2. International nuclear IAEA inspections will be expanded to encompass nuclear weaponization activity.

3. In return for Tehran’s acceptance of 1.and 2., the IAEA will supply Iran with advanced nuclear technology and Russia will release nuclear fuel rods to power its Bushehr atomic reactor.

4. UN Security Council sanctions against Iran will not be stiffened.

5. The US and Europe will promise to desist from any military attack on Iran.

6. America and Europe will close down their clandestine support programs for Iran’s disaffected minorities, such as the Arabs of Khuzistan and the Kurds.

Reportedly, Swiss go-betweens were received by aides of former president Hashem Rafsanjani, whose word as one of supreme ruler Ayatollah Ali Khamenei ‘s closest advisers counts for much in the Iranian capital. Those aides, according to Swiss sources, were “more than interested” in the proposal and intimated that if Washington could be won over, negotiations could go forward to solve the controversy over Iran’s nuclear program.

They also disclosed Swiss diplomats who brought the proposal to Tehran had involved themselves in mediation efforts in the past two years to persuade Syrian president Bashar Assad and Hamas leaders in Damascus to agree to talks with Israel. Israel rejected both initiatives.

Bush administration officials suspect the outgoing French president Jacques Chirac is quietly sponsoring the Bern government’s initiative.

Iranian sources disclose Tehran attaches high hopes to the Swiss plan. The two sides are working on a “non-paper” which European Union’s foreign policy executive Javier Solana will be asked to present in Washington.

3) Rice: Iran should see N. Korea as example in nuclear standoff.


Following a six-party deal on North Korea's nuclear program signed Tuesday, United States Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that Iran should see North Korea as an example when considering its own nuclear standoff with Western nations.

"Why should it not be seen as a message to Iran that the international community is able to bring together its resources?" she said at a news conference.

The White House on Tuesday said the deal on North Korea's nuclear program was an important first step, but warned that the international community could still impose international sanctions if North Korea reneged on the agreement.

"We think it's a very important first step toward the denuclearization of North Korea and the Korean peninsula," White House spokesman Tony Snow said, adding that if the deal was not adhered to, "There's still the possibility of sanctions through the international community."

North Korea agreed Tuesday to take first steps toward nuclear disarmament and shut down its main reactor within 60 days before eventually dismantling its atomic weapons program.

Under the deal, the North will receive initial aid equal to 50,000 tons heavy fuel oil for shutting down and sealing its main nuclear reactor and related facilities at Yongbyon, north of the capital, to be confirmed by international inspectors. For irreversibly disabling the reactor and declaring all nuclear programs, the North will eventually receive another 950,000 tons in aid.

But making sure that Pyongyang declares all its nuclear facilities and shuts them down is likely to prove arduous, nuclear experts have said.

North Korea has sidestepped previous agreements, allegedly running a uranium-based weapons program even as it froze a plutonium-based one - sparking the latest nuclear crisis in late 2002. The country is believed to have countless mountainside tunnels in which to hide projects.

The agreement was read to all delegates in a conference room at a Chinese state guesthouse and Chinese envoy Wu Dawei asked if there were any objections. When none were made, the officials all stood and applauded.

Under the agreement, North Korea and United States will also embark on talks aimed at resolving disputes and restarting diplomatic relations, Wu said. The Korean peninsula has remained in a state of war for more than a half-century since the Korean War ended in a 1953 cease-fire.

If Pyongyang goes through with its promises, they would be the first moves the communist nation has made to scale back its atomic development after more that three years of six-nation negotiations marked by delays, deadlock and the North's first nuclear test explosion in October.

Under the agreement reached Tuesday, the United States will also begin the process of removing North Korea from its designation as a terror-sponsoring state and also on ending U.S. trade sanctions, but no deadlines was set, according to the agreement. Japan and North Korea also will seek to normalize relations.

The North will be required to list all its nuclear program - including plutonium it has already extracted from the Yongbyon reactor, the agreement says.

After the initial 60 days, a meeting will be held of foreign ministers from all countries at the talks - China, Japan, Russia, the United States and the two Koreas.

Under the agreement, five working groups are to meet within 30 days: denuclearization; normalization of U.S.-North Korea relations; normalization of North Korea-Japan relations; economy and energy cooperation; and peace and security in northeast Asia.

Another meeting of the nuclear envoys was scheduled March 19 to check on the groups' progress.

In September 2005 during the six-nation talks, North Korea was promised energy aid and security guarantees in exchange for pledging to abandon its nuclear programs. But talks on implementing that agreement repeatedly stalled on other issues.

4) Putin: I hope Mecca deal brings end to blockade on Palestinians.


Russian President Vladimir Putin on Tuesday hailed the Palestinian unity government agreement that was concluded last week with Saudi brokerage in Mecca, and said he hoped the deal would set conditions for lifting the international boycott placed on Palestinians.

After meeting with Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas in Amman, Putin told reporters he hoped to see an end to the bloodshed that has resulted from the Palestinian infighting, adding, "We also hope that the agreement will lead to the formation of an efficient Palestinian government that creates the conditions for lifting the blockade imposed on the Palestinian people."

Putin spoke prior to his departure for home at the end of a regional tour that took him also to Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

He praised the Saudi role in brokering the Mecca deal, which he said should help "re-launch the peace process with a view to reaching a settlement with Israel."

The Russian president urged the release of Israel Defense Forces soldier Gilad Shalit, who was abducted by Palestinian militants in the Gaza Strip several last summer.

"The release of the Israeli soldier will be an important step," he said.

He pointed out that Russia was "working actively" within the framework of the Middle East Quartet for the sake of the Palestinian question.

Official: Palestinian PM to resign in two days to form new cabinet
Meanwhile, a Palestinian official said Tuesday that Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh and his Hamas-led cabinet would resign in the next two days to make way for a unity government with the rival Fatah faction.

Haniyeh is expected to lead the new government, according to the terms of a deal agreed between Hamas and Fatah in Saudi Arabia last week which aimed to end factional warfare in Gaza and ease an economic embargo on the Palestinian Authority.

"The prime minister will submit his cabinet's resignation within two days so that he can begin constitutional measures to form the unity government," the official, who declined to be named, told Reuters.

In Jordan, Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas told Russian President Vladimir Putin the step would take place in the next two or three days "if there are no unpleasant surprises".

Haniyeh earlier said it was too soon to say when he will resign, and officials said he and Abbas of Fatah still had to finalize issues from the Saudi-brokered deal including naming an interior minister and deputy prime minister.

Haniyeh met leaders of 13 Palestinian factions on Tuesday, seeking to win support for the power-sharing deal with Abbas.

"Constitutional measures will begin to implement the agreement on the ground," said Palestinian cabinet spokesman Ghazi Hamad after the meeting.

"There are consultations between President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh. We are working speedily and we do not want to waste any time," he said, adding the two men could meet in the next two days.

Abbas and Hamas have also still to settle their differences over the fate of Hamas's 5,600-member "executive" police force. Fatah is pushing for the force to be broken up, whereas Hamas wants to keep the force together.

Fighting between Hamas and Fatah killed more than 90 Palestinians between late December and early February.

The Quartet of Middle East mediators - the United States, the European Union, Russia and the United Nations - cut off direct funding of the Palestinian Authority after Hamas came to power last year.

Hamas, an Islamist movement, has rejected the Quartet's conditions for restoring aid: recognition of Israel, renunciation of violence and acceptance of existing interim peace agreements.

The unity agreement Hamas signed with the long-dominant Fatah faction in Mecca last Thursday made no explicit commitment to recognize Israel.

Russia and some EU countries have welcomed the Mecca agreement, but the United States has withheld judgment.

Israeli officials said the government was considering suspending contacts with Abbas if the unity government did not meet all three Quartet demands.

The move could increase pressure on Abbas and hinder U.S. efforts to revive long-stalled peace talks. U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice plans a three-way summit with Abbas and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in Jerusalem on February 19.

5) Telling friend from foe.
By Caroline B. Glick


One of the most difficult things in life is to draw the line between friend and foe. Take the Palestinian terror groups.

Last week in Mecca, the Fatah terror group, which mixes the murder of Israelis with negotiations with Israelis, officially joined forces with the Hamas terror group, which murders Israelis while refusing to negotiate with us.

Although the agreement makes it clear that both are at war with Israel, on Sunday the Olmert government decided to reserve judgment on the terror unity deal. And Monday morning Vice Premier Shimon Peres warned that saying bad things about the Mecca deal would only weaken Fatah terror boss Mahmoud Abbas, whom we should strengthen because he likes to negotiate while killing.

Given how hard it is for Israel to identify its Arab foes, it is little wonder that identifying Jewish foes is a near-Herculean task.

Last month the American Jewish Committee took an important first step in this direction by publishing a paper by Prof. Alvin Rosenfeld from the University of Indiana entitled, "'Progressive' Jewish Thought and the New Anti-Semitism." Explaining the difference between criticism of Israel and demonization of the Jewish state, Rosenfeld wrote, "To call Israel a Nazi state… as is commonly done today, or to accuse it of fostering South African-style apartheid or engaging in ethnic cleansing or wholesale genocide goes well beyond legitimate criticism." Rosenfeld noted that these descriptors of Israel, which aim to single out Israel "as a political entity unworthy of secure and sovereign existence" are today "part of a standard discourse among 'progressive' American Jews, who seem to take for granted that the historical record shows Israel to be an aggressor state guilty of sins comparable to Hendrik Verwoerd's South Africa and Hitler's Germany."


HAVING described the phenomenon, Rosenfeld proceeded to identify prominent American Jews, including New York University Prof. Tony Judt, playwright Tony Kushner, Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen, Noam Chomsky, and Adrienne Rich as leading Jewish lights in the leftist assault on the Jewish people's right to self-determination in our homeland.

Rosenfeld's paper evoked strong reactions in the American Jewish community. A New York Times write-up of the controversy entitled, "Essay Linking Liberal Jews and Anti-Semitism Sparks a Furor," described how the same "progressive" Jews and their supporters are up in arms over being painted as anti-Semites. Judt opined that the point of the article was to silence them.

This of course, is pure nonsense. All the Jews in America couldn't silence Judt and his colleagues even if they wished to. As anti-Israel Jews, they will never lack prestigious forums from which to propagate their hatred for Israel.

Far from seeking to silence these hostile Jewish voices, Rosenfeld's essay simply serves to draw lines between friend and foe where such lines are important. The views of Kushner, Judt and Cohen are no less anti-Jewish than similar statements by non-Jews.

Rosenfeld's efforts, while important, are insufficient. The likes of Judt and Kushner use their professed Jewishness as a tool to advance the cause of Israel's denunciation. Others hide behind protestations of Zionism to undermine Israel's right to defend itself against enemies actively working toward its destruction.


CASE IN point is the Union of Progressive Zionists. The UPZ is the US campus representative of the Labor and Meretz parties as well as of Hashomer Hatzair and Habonim Dror. In its mission statement, the UPZ claims to be "a network of student activists organizing on campuses across North America for social justice and peace in Israel/Palestine. The UPZ was created to provide guidance, education and resources to students who seek to impart a progressive voice into the campus debate on Israel."

Mission statement in hand, the UPZ joined the Israel on Campus Coalition (ICC) - a pro-Israel umbrella group established to build support for Israel and fight the rise in anti-Israel incitement on college campuses. Yet, while operating under the ICC umbrella, UPZ is actually promoting hostility toward Israel and so advancing the cause of those who maintain that Israel has no right to exist. In recent months, under the aegis of the ICC, the UPZ has hosted members of the radical leftist Israeli organization "Breaking the Silence" on a number of college campuses. "Breaking the Silence" was established by former IDF soldiers for the declared purpose of "exposing" the "irreversible corruption" of Israeli society by the IDF's counterterror operations in Judea and Samaria.

Armed with photographs which purposely present a distorted image of IDF operations, soldiers and Israeli civilians in Judea and Samaria, the group works to demonize and criminalize the IDF and so undermine Israel's right to defend itself against the Palestinian jihad. That is, it seeks to advance an aim which is diametrically opposed to the goals of the ICC.

Ilan Benjamin, an Israeli chemistry professor at University of California at Santa Cruz, attended the UPZ-sponsored "Breaking the Silence" event on his campus. In a letter to the ICC Benjamin wrote, "the presentation was neither fair nor balanced, but was rather unabashedly anti-Israel." He continued, "There was almost no mention of why the Israeli army is inside Arab towns. [The program's speaker] dismissed the notion that security checkpoints prevent a large percentage of the suicide bombers… [S]tudents who attended the event did not get a crucial point of information necessary for a critical understanding of the conflict, namely, that Israel is in a state of war with a terrorist organization imbedded in civilian neighborhoods."


THE CONTRADICTION between the UPZ and "Breaking the Silence's" protestations of Zionism and the aim of their programming is so blatant that even the Israeli Consulate in Los Angeles weighed in on the issue. In a report to the Foreign Ministry published in Yediot Aharonot, Ehud Danoch, the consul-general warned: "The willingness of Jewish communities to host these organizations and even sponsor them is unfortunate. This is a phenomenon that must not be ignored."

But the ICC has decided to ignore the phenomenon. Last month, the Zionist Organization of America, which is also an ICC member, requested that the ICC's Steering Committee expel the UPZ on the grounds that through its sponsorship of "Breaking the Silence" it contravened the ICC's explicit mission of defending Israel.

The Steering Committee, which includes representatives of the American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League, AIPAC, Aish HaTorah, the Jewish National Fund, Hillel, the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, and the Shusterman Foundation, voted unanimously to reject ZOA's request. (Aish HaTorah later renounced its vote and joined ZOA in calling for UPZ's eviction from the Coalition.) In their decision, the member organizations argued that there is no "cause under the ICC's membership criteria to remove UPZ from the Coalition."

Although unjustifiable, the ICC's refusal to expel the UPZ is understandable. Obviously, it is hard to get beyond labels. The UPZ's self-definition as a Zionist group makes it even harder to attack than self-professed Jews who declare their anti-Zionism. This is the case despite the fact that the damage the actions of both groups cause to Israel's position in the world is more or less the same.

There is also UPZ's "progressiveness" to consider. Given that for four generations, American Jews tied their fortunes almost solely to the Left, expelling leftist groups from Jewish umbrella groups involves openly recognizing the painful fact that today the Left makes little place for the pro-Israel community in its ranks.

As Rosenfeld put it, "Because... the ideological package that informs progressive politics today links anti-Zionism to anti-capitalism, anti-imperialism, anti-globalization, anti-racism, etc., one is expected as a matter of course to be against Zionism." Or as he quotes political scientist Andrei Markovits, "If one is not at least a serious doubter of the legitimacy of the State of Israel… one runs the risk of being excluded from the entity called 'the left.'"


THE LEFT'S abandonment of Israel is compounded by the fact that the Palestinian jihad, which is rooted in a Palestinian rejection of the notion of coexisting with Israel, has rendered irrelevant the "progressive Zionist" goal of forcing Israel to withdraw its forces and citizens from Judea and Samaria in order to establish a Palestinian state in the areas, as well as in Gaza and eastern Jerusalem. Instead of accepting this paradigm-shattering truth, "progressive Zionists" have chosen the path of radicalization.

Rather than calling on the Arabs to abandon jihad and accept Israel, they have turned to criminalizing Israel for defending itself from the jihadist forces bent on the wholesale slaughter of its citizens.

Like Israel, if American Jews are to have any chance of properly defending themselves, they must first openly identify the trends. As political loyalties and alliances shift, a small people like the Jews must be willing to distinguish friend from foe. This is true whether the friend or foe in question is an Arab or a Jew; a self-proclaimed progressive or a self-proclaimed conservative.

6) A PUTRID PAYOFF
By JOHN PODHORETZ

FOR decades, intelligence agencies have assured the world that Kim Jong Il, the dictator of North Korea, is a psychopathic lunatic with a massive collection of pornography and a habit of kidnapping people from Japan, Hong Kong and South Korea to serve his whims.

He has made decisions about where to spend his government's money in a time of government-made famine that has caused the deaths of at least 1 million of his countrymen and women. He has built giant skyscrapers that are so structurally unsound they cannot be inhabited.

Psychopathic monster he almost certainly is. Almost everyone who has spent time in North Korea reports that it is, without question, the most horrifying place on this planet - a world in which the totalitarian fantasy imagined by Madeline L'Engle in the great 1962 children's book "A Wrinkle in Time" has been made flesh and bone.

But a lunatic Kim is not. He is a master geopolitician. Though we don't yet know the terms of the tentative deal announced yesterday under which North Korea has supposedly agreed to end its nuclear program, chances are very good that once again Kim has forced the world's powers - including the United States - to pay him a massive bribe that will help him maintain his stranglehold on power.

Since 1985, North Korea has used its reputation for insanity to manipulate not only the United States, but even the Evil Empire to its West. In that year, the Soviet Union agreed to provide the North Koreans with light nuclear reactors if the Norks agreed to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Showing stunning sangfroid against the ruthless bunch in Moscow, Kim's father signed the treaty and then simply refused to abide by any of its provisions. He spent five years refusing to allow a single inspector into the country, and when he did finally allow their entry in 1990, he deceived them and lied to them.

And how did North Korea pay for its recalcitrance? It didn't. In 1991, the United States agreed to remove its short-range nuclear weapons from the Korean peninsula in exchange for a promise from North Korea (and South Korea) not to do anything nuclear.

Our weapons were pulled. The South abided by its word. The North Koreans continued to develop their nuclear program regardless - until 1993, when Kim the Elder announced his nation was pulling out of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Why? Because, in complete contravention of its deal with the Soviets in 1985 and its deal with us and South Korea in 1991, it had built a nuclear reaction in Yongbyon.

At this point the Clinton administration took over, and at the end of 1994 announced its bribe - the so-called "Agreed Framework." This time, there would be no reactor for peaceful purposes built by the Soviet Union. Instead, the United States would build two reactors! And provide fuel oil and food aid. All of this totaled a $4 billion payout to Kim Jong Il.

The deal was much celebrated, and remains so even now. But in 1998, Kim struck again. He fired an intercontinental missile - the sort that carries a nuclear payload - over Japan.

Bill Clinton, who had promised that "North Korea will freeze and then dismantle its nuclear program" in 1994, had egg on his face. Talking tough, his people demanded that North Korea admit inspectors to reveal just how far Kim had gotten with his nuclear ambitions.

Kim wouldn't agree unless he was paid off to the tune of $300 million. With tragically naive hopes of helping to stave off famine, the U.S. dispatched a huge food-aid package that did nothing to stem the death toll. For four years now, ever since the North Koreans confirmed that they had finally and at long last built nuclear weapons the world (and especially the U.S.) had been paying them not to build, the United States and four other nations have been involved in a diplomatic dance with Kim called the "six-party talks."

Those talks have now borne fruit, because it appears that the Bush administration has now gone down the same path as everybody else - paying Kim a bribe in exchange for promises of change. We'll hear a lot about how this deal will be enforced with great determination. But it probably won't be, because Kim has the whip hand. Everyone is sure he's crazy, and everyone is fearful he will start a regional war in Asia if he doesn't get his way.

Why on earth should Kim keep up his end of any bargain? He's running one of the most successful extortion rackets in the history of the world. Why would he give up now?


7) Russia's Great-Power Strategy
By George Friedman

Most speeches at diplomatic gatherings aren't worth the time it takes to listen to them. On rare occasion, a speech is delivered that needs to be listened to carefully. Russian President Vladimir Putin gave such a speech over the weekend in Munich, at a meeting on international security. The speech did not break new ground; it repeated things that the Russians have been saying for quite a while. But the venue in which it was given and the confidence with which it was asserted signify a new point in Russian history. The Cold War has not returned, but Russia is now officially asserting itself as a great power, and behaving accordingly.

At Munich, Putin launched a systematic attack on the role the United States is playing in the world. He said: "One state, the United States, has overstepped its national borders in every way ... This is nourishing an arms race with the desire of countries to get nuclear weapons." In other words, the United States has gone beyond its legitimate reach and is therefore responsible for attempts by other countries -- an obvious reference to Iran -- to acquire nuclear weapons.

Russia for some time has been in confrontation with the United States over U.S. actions in the former Soviet Union (FSU). What the Russians perceive as an American attempt to create a pro-U.S. regime in Ukraine triggered the confrontation. But now, the issue goes beyond U.S. actions in the FSU. The Russians are arguing that the unipolar world -- meaning that the United States is the only global power and is surrounded by lesser, regional powers -- is itself unacceptable. In other words, the United States sees itself as the solution when it is, actually, the problem.

In his speech, Putin reached out to European states -- particularly Germany, pointing out that it has close, but blunt, relations with Russia. The Central Europeans showed themselves to be extremely wary about Putin's speech, recognizing it for what it was -- a new level of assertiveness from an historical enemy. Some German leaders appeared more understanding, however: Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier made no mention of Putin's speech in his own presentation to the conference, while Ruprecht Polenz, chairman of the Bundestag Foreign Affairs Committee, praised Putin's stance on Iran. He also noted that the U.S. plans to deploy an anti-missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic was cause for concern -- and not only to Russia.

Putin now clearly wants to escalate the confrontations with the United States and likely wants to build a coalition to limit American power. The gross imbalance of global power in the current system makes such coalition-building inevitable -- and it makes sense that the Russians should be taking the lead. The Europeans are risk-averse, and the Chinese do not have much at risk in their dealings with the United States at the moment. The Russians, however, have everything at risk. The United States is intruding in the FSU, and an ideological success for the Americans in Ukraine would leave the Russians permanently on the defensive.

The Russians need allies but are not likely to find them among other great-power states. Fortunately for Moscow, the U.S. obsession with Iraq creates alternative opportunities. First, the focus on Iraq prevents the Americans from countering Russia elsewhere. Second, it gives the Russians serious leverage against the United States -- for example, by shipping weapons to key players in the region. Finally, there are Middle Eastern states that seek great-power patronage. It is therefore no accident that Putin's next stop, following the Munich conference, was in Saudi Arabia. Having stabilized the situation in the former Soviet region, the Russians now are constructing their follow-on strategy, and that concerns the Middle East.

The Russian Interests

The Middle East is the pressure point to which the United States is most sensitive. Its military commitment in Iraq, the confrontation with Iran, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and oil in the Arabian Peninsula create a situation such that pain in the region affects the United States intensely. Therefore, it makes sense for the Russians to use all available means of pressure in the Middle East in efforts to control U.S. behavior elsewhere, particularly in the former Soviet Union.

Like the Americans, the Russians also have direct interests in the Middle East. Energy is a primary one: Russia is not only a major exporter of energy supplies, it is currently the world's top oil producer. The Russians have a need to maintain robust energy prices, and working with the Iranians and Saudis in some way to achieve this is directly in line with Moscow's interest. To be more specific, the Russians do not want the Saudis increasing oil production.



There are strategic interests in the Middle East as well. For example, the Russians are still bogged down in Chechnya. It is Moscow's belief that if Chechnya were to secede from the Russian Federation, a precedent would be set that could lead to the dissolution of the Federation. Moscow will not allow this. The Russians consistently have claimed that the Chechen rebellion has been funded by "Wahhabis," by which they mean Saudis. Reaching an accommodation with the Saudis, therefore, would have not only economic, but also strategic, implications for the Russians.

On a broader level, the Russians retain important interests in the Caucasus and in Central Asia. In both cases, their needs intersect with forces originating in the Muslim world and trace, to some extent, back to the Middle East. If the Russian strategy is to reassert a sphere of influence in the former Soviet region, it follows that these regions must be secured. That, in turn, inevitably involves the Russians in the Middle East.

Therefore, even if Russia is not in a position to pursue some of the strategic goals that date back to the Soviet era and before -- such as control of the Bosporus and projection of naval power into the Mediterranean -- it nevertheless has a basic, ongoing interest in the region. Russia has a need both to limit American power and to achieve direct goals of its own. So it makes perfect sense for Putin to leave Munich and embark on a tour of Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf countries.

The Complexities

But the Russians also have a problem. The strategic interests of Middle Eastern states diverge, to say the least. The two main Islamic powers between the Levant and the Hindu Kush are Saudi Arabia and Iran. The Russians have things they want from each, but the Saudis and Iranians have dramatically different interests. Saudi Arabia -- an Arab and primarily Sunni kingdom -- is rich but militarily weak. The government's reliance on outside help for national defense generates intense opposition within the kingdom. Desert Storm, which established a basing arrangement for Western troops within Saudi Arabia, was one of the driving forces behind the creation of al Qaeda. Iran -- a predominantly Persian and Shiite power -- is not nearly as rich as Saudi Arabia but militarily much more powerful. Iran seeks to become the dominant power in the Persian Gulf -- out of both its need to defend itself against aggression, and for controlling and exploiting the oil wealth of the region.

Putting the split between Sunni and Shiite aside for the moment, there is tremendous geopolitical asymmetry between Saudi Arabia and Iran. Saudi Arabia wants to limit Iranian power, while keeping its own dependence on foreign powers at a minimum. That means that, though keeping energy prices high might make financial sense for the kingdom, the fact that high energy prices also strengthen the Iranians actually can be a more important consideration, depending on circumstances. There is some evidence that recent declines in oil prices are linked to decisions in Riyadh that are aimed at increasing production, reducing prices and hurting the Iranians.

This creates a problem for Russia. While Moscow has substantial room for maneuver, the fact is that lowered oil prices impact energy prices overall, and therefore hurt the Russians. The Saudis, moreover, need the Iranians blocked -- but without going so far as to permit foreign troops to be based in Saudi Arabia itself. In other words, they want to see the United States remain in Iraq, since the Americans serve as the perfect shield against the Iranians so long as they remain there. Putin's criticisms of the United States, as delivered in Munich, would have been applauded by Saudi Arabia prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. But in 2007, the results of that invasion are exactly what the Saudis feared -- a collapsed Iraq and a relatively powerful Iran. The Saudis now need the Americans to stay put in the region.

The interests of Russia and Iran align more closely, but there are points of divergence there as well. Both benefit from having the United States tied up, militarily and politically, in wars, but Tehran would be delighted to see a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq that leaves a power vacuum for Iran to fill. The Russians would rather not see this outcome. First, they are quite happy to have the United States bogged down in Iraq and would prefer that to having the U.S. military freed for operations elsewhere. Second, they are interested in a relationship with Iran but are not eager to drive the United States and Saudi Arabia into closer relations. Third, the Russians do not want to see Iran become the dominant power in the region. They want to use Iran, but within certain manageable limits.

Russia has been supplying Iran with weapons. Of particular significance is the supply of surface-to-air missiles that would raise the cost of U.S. air operations against Iran. It is not clear whether the advanced S300PMU surface-to-air missile has yet been delivered, although there has been some discussion of this lately. If it were delivered, this would present significant challenges for U.S. air operation over Iran. The Russians would find this particularly advantageous, as the Iranians would absorb U.S. attentions and, as in Vietnam, the Russians would benefit from extended, fruitless commitments of U.S. military forces in regions not vital to Russia.

Meanwhile, there are energy matters: The Russians, as we have said, are interested in working with Iran to manage world oil prices. But at the same time, they would not be averse to a U.S. attack that takes Iran's oil off the market, spikes prices and enriches Russia.

Finally, it must be remembered that behind this complex relationship with Iran, there historically has been animosity and rivalry between the two countries. The Caucasus has been their battleground. For the moment, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, there is a buffer there, but it is a buffer in which Russians and Iranians are already dueling. So long as both states are relatively weak, the buffer will maintain itself. But as they get stronger, the Caucasus will become a battleground again. When Russian and Iranian territories border each other, the two powers are rarely at peace. Indeed, Iran frequently needs outside help to contain the Russians.

A Complicated Strategy

In sum, the Russian position in the Middle East is at least as complex as the American one. Or perhaps even more so, since the Americans can leave and the Russians always will live on the doorstep of the Middle East. Historically, once the Russians start fishing in Middle Eastern waters, they find themselves in a greater trap than the Americans. The opening moves are easy. The duel between Saudi Arabia and Iran seems manageable. But as time goes on, Putin's Soviet predecessors learned, the Middle East is a graveyard of ambitions -- and not just American ambitions.

Russia wants to contain U.S. power, and manipulating the situation in the Middle East certainly will cause the Americans substantial pain. But whatever short-term advantages the Russians may be able to find and exploit in the region, there is an order of complexity in Putin's maneuver that might transcend any advantage they gain from boxing the Americans in.

In returning to "great power" status, Russia is using an obvious opening gambit. But being obvious does not make it optimum.

8) EU warns Palestinians over terror
By Yitzhak Benhorin

EU's ambassador to UN urges Palestinian Authority to spare no effort to stop terrorism.

WASHINGTON - The European Union reissued calls for the unconditional cessation of violence and terror by Palestinian groups against Israel , German Ambassador to the United Nations Thomas Matussek said Tuesday in a speech to the Security Council.


The EU condemned the terror attack in Eilat and urged the Palestinian leadership to do everything to stop terrorism and bring those responsible for terror attacks to justice.


At the Security Council’s monthly conference on the situation in the Middle East and “the Palestinian question”, the German ambassador
said the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was the greatest threat to the Mideast, and possibly the entire world.


Speaking on behalf of the EU, Matussek said the Europeans were determined to be involved in the peace process. He called on Israel to immediately transfer withheld tax monies to the Palestinian Authority and boost the Palestinian economy by opening border crossings.



While praising Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas for their confidence-building moves, the EU expressed its concern over “settlement activity” and construction around Jerusalem which violates international law and the Road Map plan for peace.



Muslims slam Israel
The EU will not recognize any changes to the 1967 borders except those approved by both sides, Matussek declared, referring to Israel's borders before the Six-day War during which the Jewish state captured the West Bank.


UN representatives of Muslim and non-aligned nations attacked Israel for the exchange of fire with the Lebanese army along the border, as well as for the construction work at the Mugrabi Gate area in Jerusalem.



Alvaro de Soto, the UN special envoy for the Middle East, said during his monthly report to the council on development in the region, expressed concern over Israel’s construction and archeological excavations by the Mugrabi Gate. He drew attention to the extreme reaction in the Arab and Muslim world, noting that “even the Israeli defense minister said it constituted a security threat.”



Israel's UN Ambassador Dan Gillerman, however, said the Mugrabi Gate works were totally blown out of proportion. Gillerman warned, however, that contrary to Jerusalem, the situation in Lebanon poses a true cause of concern and obligates immediate action. Hizbullah’s rearmament and the Tuesday morning bus bombing in Lebanon represent “the true situation in the Middle East,” Gillerman said.



Turning his attention to the Mecca Agreement between the rival Palestinian factions Hamas and Fatah, Gillerman said, "The international community ruled clearly that any Palestinian government should fully adopt the tree conditions: recognizing Israel, stopping and denouncing terror attacks, accepting and implementing all agreements signed with Israel."

We continue to repeat the tragic mistakes of history!

This is a letter which was published in a Pa. newspaper and was sent to me by a local friend and former resident near Allentown. (See 1 below.)

Elliot Chodoff was the initial speaker in the inaugural Speaker Series, I started and which began last night. Elliot is currently a visiting professor teaching two simultaneous courses at the University of Memphis. The meeting began at 7:30 and at 9:30 the audience of 162 were still asking questions. I decided to tell everyone that wanted to leave to do so and those who wanted to stay could regroup and Elliot would continue his conversation. About 50 remained and Elliot answered questions past 10 PM. To say the initial speech was a success would be an understatement.

Some highlights of Chodoff's comments:

The speech was devoted to answering the critics of the recent Lebanese War and in doing so he took his audience back to 1980 to give them some historical background of how South Lebanon and Hezballah's occupation came to evolve.

Elliot took exception to those who thought the war a total failure but acknowledged, from the git go, the idea of air warfare carrying the day would not work. When I picked him up at the airport before I gave him a quick tour of the city we stopped at The Mighty Eigth Airforce Museum and toured it for about an hour. Elliot noted later that evening that air war fare takes a back seat to land warfare and feet on the ground in terms of winning in a military sense and the former's impact has always been overstated.

In every instance where the IDF's ground forces engaged Hezballah the IDF was overwhelmingly victorious and the Hezballah casualty rate far exceeds what was reported and this is why Nasrallah is not yet able to bring down Siniora's government.

The problem was that a planned response developed in 2002 was not implemented and for this he blames both the Olmert government and eventually Halutz, an airman who ultimately was in control but had not operational experience.

Since the war an intense self-examination has been underway at the corps and small unit level and vast improvement should be expected but he still questions the competency of the most senior officership level.

In terms of the tank losses they were mainly caused by lack of funds for purchasing and training tank commanders in smoke warfare. Budget cuts cost the tank brigades canisters of smoke. Furthermore, the tanks failed to keep going making them harder to hit.

The IAF accomplished its objectives in terms of military targets and dealt Hezballah and Iran a serious weapons and cost set back but were not able to stop all the Kaytusha rockets. This the IDF ground forces could and should have been allowed to do and were not because of Olmert's fear of an increased casualty rate. Elliot, in an aside comment, pointed out Israelis are wiling to accept casualties if there is progress and victory but not one death if there is no progress and he made the same observation about our efforts in Iraq. He further stated, tragic as any death may be , we had suffered very light casualties in Iraq but because the public had concluded no progress was being achieved they have come to conclude even the low casualty rate as senseless.

In terms of the press, and most particularly CNN and the New York Times, he stated Eisenhower would have been discharged within less than a week of The Invasion had he been subjected to today's level of reporting.

In answer to questions from the audience Chodoff suggested we would be better to contain the fighting in Iraq by taking up a perimeter stance and let the Iraqis kill each other in the cities in a controlled way and use most of our forces to contain entry by foreigners into the country. It would cut down on the casualty rate for our forces as well as Iraqi forces and eventually the terrorists in the city would exhaust themselves.

In terms of the "civil war" evolving between Hamas and Fatah it too was to Israel's advantage not to get involved.

High tech has taken over the military but he remains low tech and thus explained the cost equivalency of being able to stop sophisticated missiles but the difficulty in stopping crude Qassam type rockets which, militarily, have little consequence but psychologically disrupt life and spread fear.

In terms of Iran he believes, and has written, that Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs are in control and that student upsurge is overblown in terms of its impact as well as the recent elections. Therefore, it is incumbent upon our nation to respond and stop Iran. Whether this will be the case remains the question. He explained the technical difficulty for Israel and thus stated that eventually if Israel perceived Iran was going to carry out its existential threat Israel should make clear they would take offensive action of a nuclear nature. Deterrence, in the case of Israel's small and concentrated size, is not effective because Israel could not survive both a nuclear attack nor probably be able to respond subsequent to one.

The US has the force capability to level Iran's military, air force, communication infrastructure, nuclear facilities as well as their oil facilities because we have the sustained ability to continue pummeling them for whatever time it takes whereas Israel, though its planes can hit Tehran and return, does not have the manpower to maintain a sustained attacks. In the recent Lebanese War Chodoff pointed out that after four concentrated bombings on Nasrallah's concrete hiding place, though Nasrallah was trapped and could not leave for days, he was not killed. It takes repeated bombings to destroy embedded facilities. Furthermore, Israel would have to traverse Jordan and Iraq air space and the element of surprise would have thus been neutralized. The US can launch from bases surrounding Iran and from off shore carriers etc. We are notr constrained.

In terms of Iraq, though he would not get into a discussion of domestic politics, he pointed our that our involvement in Iraq was not causing an increase in terrorists but should be viewed more as a magnet that was drawing them there and that was a positive and we should recognize and accept that as fact. That said, he did not believe we quite understood the factional nature of Arab society and that Iraq was, at best, only a series of states within a nation and we did not fully comprehend the mentality of various loyalty levels.

In a personal conversation with Elliot he does believe, should GW decide to attack Iraq, that it is within the realm of reasonable expectation we would be joined by Germany, Britain and even France. He and I concur on many things and most particularly that, at some point, the French are going to have it up to their wine sotted brain and will lash back at the growing Muslim population and in a very typically French way, read that to mean - extremely harsh. The French Foreign Legion were never pussy cats.

Chodoff also believes should GW make the decision to attack Iran he might well do it late enough in his term in office so the political implications and fall out will be truncated.

We live in dangerous times. Both Elliot and myself believe the foundation for WW 3 is being laid and history, sadly enough, repeats itself with extreme consistency and we have learned nothing from it.

(Elliot Chodoff is a Maj. in the IDF Reserves. Has a BA and BS degree from SUNNY, a Masters in Sociology from The Univ. of Chicago, is completing his doctoral work for his PHD, is a small weapons and small unit tactical expert. He is married, has four children and lives in the Gallilee.)

Dick
1) The Morning Call, Allentown, PA (a Chicago Tribune newspaper)

Logic says we must stay, fight and win in Iraq

Plato wrote, ''Only the dead have seen the end of war,'' and in the 2,400
years since, many people have seen his prophecy fulfilled. Human nature is
the cause, of course, and as long as evil people try to force their will on
others, others will fight back, and that's the short explanation of why
there is war. The only way to avoid war is to let evil men have whatever
they want.

Which brings us to the current war against Islamist terrorists across the
globe, and to the battle of Iraq. What is our objective in Iraq? President
Bush has stated our objective loudly and clearly on numerous occasions: to
help the Iraqi people build a democracy that can sustain and defend itself.
That is proving a difficult task, because terrorists want to rule by the
sword, and will kill anyone to achieve their goal.

Why do most Americans want to pull out of Iraq? Is it because of U.S.
casualties? Is it the economic cost? The mission was/or is wrong? We
want the rest of the world to like us? I believe that it's a combination of
these, which are based on emotion, rather than logic. Let's examine them
briefly:

First, our forces are all volunteers who are there because they believe in
the mission, and our losses have been very low. If we are really concerned
about saving innocent lives, we should ban drinking and driving. That alone
would save almost 20,000 lives, 80,000 injuries, and $50 billion per year!

Second, the economic cost has been very low, especially because most of the
money flows directly or indirectly into the U.S. economy, which has absorbed
the war cost without a blink. (We spend more on Medicaid, free health
insurance for ''the poor'' than on the entire national defense budget.)

Third, the mission is essential to stopping the growth of Islamist
dictatorships whose leaders promise death to America. The mission has been
obscured by the anti-war drumbeat focused on weapons of mass destruction in
Iraq, false accusations of lying and spying and torture, and other issues
to inflame anti-war passions. But, the mission trumps everything.

Fourth, world opinion does not matter at all, unless the world stops buying
from us, and it certainly won't do that. They may envy us and dislike us,
but they need us. Actually, most of the world today is free because of the
United States. Our constitution, written when there were no free people
anywhere on earth, has been the guiding light for others so that today most
humans live in some degree of freedom, many with great individual freedom
and opportunity.

The framers of our Constitution were wise and gifted men who recognized that
the future would include war. They also knew that wars cannot be won by
committees. Thus, they did not provide for the Congress to command our armed
forces, or for the Congress to decide on strategy and tactics. Article I
Section 1 of the Constitution grants all legislative powers to the Congress,
but no executive powers. That power belongs to the president alone under
Article II Section 2.

Now we have a self-annointed committee of 535 senators and congressmen
attempting to exercise non-existent oversight rights over the
commander-in-chief of the armed forces in time of war. Worse yet, they are
publicly damning the president, his staff, and his generals, claiming
superior knowledge and ability.

Such criticism is appropriate and even helpful if done in private, but not
in full view of the whole world, and in full view of the enemy. Such
behavior by the Congress provides encouragement for the enemy, who see us
as cowardly, and divided. The enemy think that if they can hang on, we will
cut and run.

The Senate Armed Services Committee hearings this week were the most
outrageous I have ever seen. Several Democratic and Republican senators are
using their committee positions to broadcast the most egregious bombast to
the world, criticizing everything we're doing to win this war. Worse yet,
they are doing this for their own personal political ambitions. So, in the
midst of a war, our new commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, has to sit
before the Senators and explain what he intends to do.

Finally, consider this: If we win the battle of Iraq, the anti-war
politicians will likely be crushed at the polls in 2008. Thus, they want us
to lose.

John F. Brinson of Weisenberg Township is chairman of the Lehigh Valley Tax
Limitation Committee and producer of ''Pennsylvania Crossfire,'' which
appears weekly on local cable TV.

''Most of the world today is free because of the United States.''

Playing the Gotcha Game-Nero did it!

Brig. Gen. Yossi Kuperwasser is the outgoing head of the IDF Intelligence Research Department. I thought a few quotes of his would be of interest. They are in response to an interview he gave when he was a visiting Fellow at The Brooking's Institute's Saban Center for Middle East Policy. (See 1 below.)

Tomorrow, GW will try, once again, to give Americans a wake-up lesson in future Iranian intentions and ambitions but, as H.L Mencken once wrote, Boobus Americanus will probably not grasp the enormity of the challenge. Certainly most Democrats understand the threat but winning and controlling power, by pointing out GW's mistakes, is far more politically productive and inticeing. Playing the "Gotcha Game" is a convenient way to wile away time. Nero did it, so there is plenty of precedence.

Olmert finally succumbs to Peretz's choice of Gabi Ashkenazi as head of Israel's Military. So who is Gabi? (See 2 below.)

We are from the EU and we are here to help! My advice, count your fingers if you shake their hands! (See 3 below.)

Lest we forget, Qassams still fall daily. Some terrorists were obviously out to lunch recently when their unsuccessful launch effort killed them instead. (See 4 below.)

What is this all about? A blip from Janes'. (See 5 below.)

Meanwhile, the Swiss suggest Syria was serious and secret talks did take place. Terry Newman says negotiate with Syria now and Zalman Zhoval disagrees. (See 6 and 7 below.)

Satloff, at Herzliya, shocks the audience, by suggesting Israel in an enviable position. Satloff believes this to be the case because so many Arab nations want to talk to Israel. That is true. The Palestinians want to talk so they can get money released. The Syrians want to talk so they can get The Golan back. The Jordanians and the Egyptians want to talk because that is all they ever do. The terrorists continue to talk with their rocket attacks. Lebanon would like to talk but Hezballah won't let them. The Saudis would talk but they are afraid it would be the end of Mecca if they did and the Iranians are too busy building nuclear weapons to destroy Israel, so they have no time to talk. (See 8 below.)

Dick

1) Question: What happens if Hezballah gains more power in Lebanon?

Response: "The struggle between the Siniora government and Hezballah is a microcosm of the region-wide struggle between reformists and anti-Western radicals. If Siniora is toppled, the radicals would win a significant regional victory. And its even bigger than that. Iran is leading the Islamist radical camp in an effort to change the entire world order, which it believes is under Western control...A Hezballah victory would have worldwide repercussions."

Question: Why should the United States be concerned about [Iran]?"


Response: Wiping Israel off the map for Ahmadinjad is just a step toward changing the world order. For him, that order is not just based on the wrong values-namely ,Western values- but it was built to serve Western hegemony. And he and his ilk want to end this hegemony. They are trying to weaken and then destroy all the elements that in their mind undergird the prevailing order.

That's why they defy the UN and its resolutions on Lebanon and Iran; it is part of the world order. In their mind that order is based on the results of WW 2. They question the Holocaust not just because they hate Jews, but because if you say 'There was no Holocaust,' you say there shouldn't be an Israel, which is an important part of the post-WW 2 order. Another part of the order is the superpower's near monopoly over nuclear weapons. We want arms too, say the radicals. North Korea is already there, and Iran is getting close. Since they defy the code of war fighting and look at civilians as legitimate targets, this development is extremely dangerous."

Question: Is Syria's president serious in his calls for peace talks with Israel?

Response: "Assad knows exactly what it takes to show he's serious, but he is doing just the opposite. He supports Hezballah and destabilizes Lebanon. He continues to host the Palestinian terror groups. He continues to let terrorists go through Syria to Iraq. He continues to produce chemical arms.

These are his deeds. Does he know what he has to do? Yes, he does. Can he change? Yes, he can.Is he? No, he isn't."


2) Ashkenazi quit the armed forces eighteen months ago as deputy chief of staff after serving four years as OC Northern Command and 30 years in uniform. Six months ago, he was appointed director general of the defense ministry by Peretz. From 1972, Ashkenazi served in the Golani Brigade. He climbed the ranks to take over its command in 1986. The new chief of staff has a distinguished record as a specialist in large-scale ground and armored battles - in sharp contrast to the general he replaces, Lt. Gen Dan Halutz, who came to the job from command of the air force.


3) EU leaders meet to seek ways to bolster Mideast negotiations

European Union foreign ministers sought ways to bolster the Middle East peace process Monday and were set to push Israeli and Palestinian leaders to live up to commitments to resume negotiations after six years of violence and stalemate.

German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said ministers were considering how the EU, United States and the UN "can support contacts" between Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas.

A draft statement to be issued by the EU ministers at the end of their talks welcomed the Israel's partial transfer of Palestinian tax and customs revenues worth $100 million to Abbas. Israel froze the transfer of the money after the militant group Hamas, which refuses to recognize Israel, won elections a year ago.

The EU ministers were also to call for more bilateral talks between Olmert and Abbas "which should lead to meaningful negotiations on the final status" of ties.

However, EU officials readily acknowledge that failure so far between Abbas' Fatah party and Hamas to set up a so-called unity government to head the PA hampers any lasting peace in the region.

The EU aims to step up mediation efforts at a February 2 meeting in Washington of the Quartet of peace makers comprising the EU, U.S., UN and Russia. The Quartet backs a "road map" for Israeli-Palestinian peace which envisions the creation of a Palestinian state.

Separately, the EU foreign ministers said they "stand ready to support" Lebanon at an international donors' conference planned Thursday in Paris. Donors are expected to give around $5 billion in money and loans at the meeting.

The EU also called on Lebanese political factions to find a solution to the current deadlock, which threatens to further destabilize the country after last summer's war with Israel.

Following a tour of the region Sunday, EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana urged Israel to freeze West Bank settlements and stop constructing the security fence. He hoped "the realities on the ground" brought about by Israeli settlement building would not "prevent a two-state solution from happening."

Solana said he was struck by the growth of settlements and the separation fence cutting into land that Palestinians want for a state.

"I had the opportunity to make a tour along the eastern part of Jerusalem and go to Abu Dis and its surroundings. You get really very shocked every time you go and you see the situation worse, the wall is more extended and settlements are more extended," Solana told reporters in Amman.

The EU official said there was a "window of opportunity" that the international community and the parties to the conflict should seize to revive talks that collapsed in 2001 and have remained deadlocked since Hamas took power.

"We think there is an opportunity now, an opportunity that should not be let go by to open the political process that should end up with the resolution of the conflict," he said.

Earlier on Sunday, Solana said the time was opportune for relaunching peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians, thanks to the existence of "political will" on the part of all players he met recently.

Judging by "the talks I have had with different actors in the United States and in the region, I think the political will is there for moving the peace process," Solana told a press conference before leaving for Israel on the last leg of a regional tour.

4) A Qassam rocket fired from the northern Gaza Strip landed Monday afternoon
near a strategic facility in the Ashkelon industrial zone. No injuries or
damage were reported.

The al-Quds Brigades, Islamic Jihad's military wing, claimed responsibility
for the attack.

An Islamic Jihad source told Ynet, "The fire is part of operation 'Red
Rose,' in the course of which we plan to launch hundreds of rockets, most of
them improved Quds-3 type, in response to the Israeli violations of the calm
in Gaza, and the continued arrests and assassinations in the West Bank."

Shortly before noon, a rocket landed near a kibbutz in the western Negev.
There were no injuries or damage.

Three rockets were fired from Gaza Sunday. One landed in an open field
outside the town of Sderot, and the two others fell in open areas in the
northern Negev. No injuries or damage were reported in any of the incidents.

The al-Quds Brigades said they were behind the attacks.

In light of the escalation in Qassam attacks on Ashkelon, Finance Minister
Abraham Hirchson pledged Sunday that a fortified emergency room will be
built at the local Barzilay Hospital.


5) USAF eyes world's largest bomb for B-2A Spirit
By Stephen Trimble

The US Air Force (USAF) may prepare the world's largest bomb - the Boeing Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) - for action aboard the Northrop Grumman B-2A Spirit by the end of 2007.

The Air Armament Center said on 17 January that it is "contemplating a quick-reaction capability" to integrate the 20 ft (6 m)-long, 30,000 lb-class (13,600 kg) weapon on the B-2A in a nine-month period starting after contract award.

In July 2006, the Air Force Research Laboratory announced a plan to have Boeing demonstrate the bomb's ability to destroy hard and deeply buried targets before August 2007 and to use the data to inform a decision on whether to launch an acquisition programme in Fiscal Year 2008. Boeing is also developing a special carriage release system for the weapon.

6) Switzerland admits mediating Syria-Israel talks

Swiss President Micheline Calmy-Rey divulges that her country arbitrated secret peace talks between Israel and Syria, at special press conference for the occasion of her election.


Switzerland mediated the secret peace talks between Israel and Syria which were exposed in the media last week, Swiss President Micheline Calmy-Rey admitted Monday.


The recently elected Federal Council president revealed her country’s role in the Damascus-Jerusalem contacts during a press conference held for the occasion of her presidential appointment, Swiss media reported.


Making Contact
Ex-diplomat: Israeli officials don't want Syrian talks / Moran Zelikovich
Former Foreign Ministry director who was involved in talks with Syrian officials, slams gov't officials for denying knowledge of talks, attempt to downplay significance: 'There was a chance, the Syrians were interested – but Israel wouldn't meet with them'
Full Story
“The secret talks, which are no longer secret after being made known in the media last week, were in fact arbitrated by a Swiss mediator,” she revealed.



Former Foreign Ministry Director General Dr. Alon Liel was the Israeli representative at the unofficial talks, opposite Ibrahim Soliman , a Syrian American with close ties to Damascus.



Speaking to reporters at the Netanya Academic College last week, Dr. Liel admitted that the talks were mediated by a European country, whose identity he refused to divulge.



“Our only way of ascertaining that our counterparts were serious was sending someone to Damascus nearly every month to verify this,” Liel explained. He described the mediator as “a super-professional, super responsible European dignitary.”



Confirming Liel’s statements, Calmy-Rey said Monday that the mediator was in Syria at present, adding that Switzerland’s foreign affairs secretary would depart for Damascus next week.


Calmy-Rey served as Switzerland’s foreign minister last year and made multiple visits to Israel . She was known to make frequent non-neutral, activist comments which were not always well-received in Israel, and which contradicted the neutral stance of previous Swiss foreign ministers.


She made particular efforts to advance the recognition of Magen David Adom by the International Red Cross.



Her activism earned criticism within Switzerland as well, as her activism was often perceived as deviated from her country’s traditional policy of neutrality. She currently holds the topmost position in Switzerland’s political system.



The Swiss government, which represents the state’s various cantons, comprises a multi-party coalition, making up a seven-member executive council which is newly elected each year.



'Syria sincere about peace'
In a rare interview with Ynet from his home in a Washington suburb this weekend, Syrian representative in the talks Ibrahim Soliman said that talks were held with the knowledge and support of the administrations in both Jerusalem and Damascus.



"Syria wanted to make peace with Israel, Syria wanted to build relations with the United States; President Assad said time and again that he wanted to have good relations with the United States. He extended his hand in friendship and peace to Israel and the US, and they turned him down,” Suleiman said.



Soliman was scheduled to address the Israeli public for the first time next week, in a speech at the Herzliya conference, as the special guest of Dr. Uzi Arad, chief diplomatic consultant to the prime minister during Benjamin Netanyahu’s term. However, when his efforts were publicized, Soliman, who believes strongly that media exposure sabotages diplomatic negotiations, decided to cancel his visit.

7) Engage Syria; Isolate Iran
Western dialogue with Syria could benefit both sides
by Terry Newman

The West wants to isolate Iran, weaken Hamas and Hizbullah. Syria wants to be brought in from international isolation. The time is right for Western engagement with Syria.



Assad’s cards are the strongest they have been since his ascent to power. He maintains close contacts with Iran, Hamas, and Hizbullah - and is often the glue between Iran and the latter. As Western pressure on Iran increases, Assad knows his strategic value to the West increases. But this is a fragile position.



As soon as Iran acts it will be too late. Assad will be forced to go with Iran and the West will be more interested in combating the effects of Iran rather than preventing its threat. So Assad is trapped into a corner. He must push for peace or for war. He has a window in which to determine the future of Syria.


Another Opinion
Syria hallucinations / Zalman Shoval


Assad knows the probable price of peace – the end of his support for Iran, Hamas, and Hizbullah, limited democratization, recognition of Lebanese sovereignty and full relations with Israel. And, he knows the gains – strategic alliance with the West and Western-leaning Arab states, and the return of the Golan Heights to Syrian sovereignty. He is weighing these two and appears to be showing willingness to pay the price.



Is Assad a Jeffersonian democrat? No. A Machiavellian realist comparing the fates of Saddam and Gaddafi? Perhaps.



Benefits to the West

From the Western perspective, the prime benefit of engaging Syria is isolating Iran. The Iranians are threatening to go nuclear and remake the Middle East in their image. They have spent the last 27 years sending their emissaries throughout the Middle East - spreading their vision of Islamic revolution.



Much of this has been possible due to the acquiescence and sometimes overt support of the Syrian regime. As the US-led coalition plans its withdrawal from Iraq, the threat of Iran filling the vacuum is all too real. A pre-emptive attempt to confine Iran to its borders is the most sensible and realistic strategy to check the spread of Shiite radicalism and instability throughout the region.



Further, Syria’s eastern border with Iraq is the key entry point for Sunni fighters to enter Iraq and spread instability. Assad is the only power with the ability to control and limit this movement. Again, only engagement of Syria will achieve this essential Western goal.



The end of Syrian support for Hizbullah would have a devastating impact on the organization – resulting in a two-fold benefit: First it would give Lebanese democracy a better chance to stabilize. And second, it would remove Hizbullah’s capability to act with impunity in South Lebanon, which ignited the summer war.



The expulsion of Hamas' leadership from Damascus will effect a strategic realignment within the Hamas movement – strengthening its more moderate leadership in the Palestinian territories. This would encourage the moderates within Hamas to embrace the demands of the international community and reinvigorate the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.



A Syrian rejection of Iran and Hamas would also strengthen the role of Egypt in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. This is a strategic interest of both sides of the conflict and the West. Israelis and Palestinians know that the mediation provided primarily in the past through Egyptian intelligence chief Omar Suleiman has been successful. And, from a Western perspective, the Egyptian government remains a key ally in checking Iran and the fight against extremism throughout the Middle East.



From a pro-democracy perspective, engaging Assad is also preferable. The continued bloodshed in Iraq has shown that democracy is best promoted in fractious Middle Eastern societies through pressurising existing regimes rather than sudden regime change. Assad can be squeezed at present.



I remember on a visit to Lithuania meeting with then Prime Minister Brazauskas. He had been head of the Communist Party but following the fall of the Berlin Wall he reinvented himself as head of the Social-Democratic Party. He was a leader. And the policies of the party he led were less important than the leadership itself.



Similarly, Assad has slowly absorbed the leadership principle. His key aim is to maintain his leadership rather than impose a dictatorship. Gradual reform through the pressurising of Assad from above and encouraging free-speech from below is the best means to get the democratic message through. So ironically, the best way to support democracy in Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine and Syria will be through the engagement of a dictator in Syria.



The UK, US and Israel – democracies committed to combating terrorism – are most effective when acting together. Current UK-US policy in the Middle East is primarily focussed on stabilizing Iraq. Israel should act now or it could be left in a worse-case scenario where the West engage Syria as Israel watches from the sidelines and is forced into a less beneficial peace treaty.



Benefits to Syria

For Syria, the West and western-supporting Arab states are its natural sphere of activities. The ruling Baathist party drew its influence from Western political ideology. Syria borders western-looking Lebanon and Turkey. The French language is spoken by many. And, only 50 years ago, Syria was part of a single country with Egypt.



The realignment to Iran was more circumstantial than ideological. Following Syria’s implication in the assassination of Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri in 2005, Arab nations withdrew further support from Syria forcing her further into the hands of Iran. So, Syria is looking for an "extended hand" from the West.



Assad’s promises of reform - economic and political – have failed to bear fruit. The frustrated population of Damascus is desperate for legal versions of Microsoft Windows and for high-speed internet, for good hamburgers and chips with a crunch, for decent cars and disposable income. A strategic realignment with the West would provide Syria with these goods, satisfy the population and give Assad a quick fix to his failed policies



Syrians are also well aware of the price they paid for their Cold War misalignment. It has set them back decades. Assad knows the pros and cons of Western alignment. He studied in London – not Moscow! And Syrians look in envy at the Egyptian development that resulted from their realignment to the West in the 1970s. The world is drawing up lines again, and the thought of sitting on the anti-Western bench again is chilling for many.



Finally, Syria will regain the Golan Heights. This is a high price to extract from Israel. But Assad knows that with world pressure he can achieve this goal which eluded his father.



Assad needs a place to land in the West. The West needs Assad to isolate Iran, weaken Hamas and Hizbullah. Would engagement definitely succeed? Maybe. Would Assad be able to deliver? Perhaps. But, it is worth testing his intentions? Definitely. So engage Syria and isolate Iran.

8) Analyst says Israel 'in enviable position'
US academic: For first time in history, all Arabs want to talk to you
By Yaakov Lappin


Israel is in "an enviable position" due to the unprecedented number of Arab states and organizations who wish to speak with it, according to US analyst Dr. Robert Satloff, who made the comment Monday evening at the Herzliya Conference.


Opinion
Academic: Israeli-Arabs want end of Jewish state / Yaakov Lappin
There is no way to accommodate demands of Israeli-Arabs, short of replacing Israel with an Arab state, says Dr. Dan Schueftan
Full Story

His view would likely surprise many Israelis, but Satloff, who is the executive director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said he could not remember a time when Israel was in a more enviable position.



"It's my view that Israel does not know what an enviable position it has found itself in," Satloff said, adding: "For the first time in which I can recall, all Arabs want to talk to you. Arabs who like you, and those who don't like you, want talk to you. Those with malicious intentions, and those who do not have malicious intentions. All of them want to talk to you. You have the choice of who you want to speak to, and in which order. That is an enviable position."



Addressing the recent controversies created by US public figures that have come out against Israel, such as Jimmy Carter and John Mearsheimer, Satloff said: "Israel remains deeply supported by American people. On a popular level that foundation is strong. On an elite level it's weakening."



Arabs 'begging US to deal with Iran'

The American analyst said he has surveyed Arab opinion from North Africa to the Persian Gulf, and found that although the Iraq invasion was unpopular, "they are begging us not to leave."



"They are begging us to stop Iran. To prevent an Iranian nuclear acquisition, and stemming Iranian influence. We remain the most powerful player in region."



Satloff's view was contradicted by Dr. Richard N. Haass, President of the Council on Foreign Relations, who said: "The US era in the Middle East is over." He cited US policies such as the Iraq war, and the "unwise emphasis on elections" as leading to the end of American dominance in the region.



Haass, who was former head of policy planning at the US State Department, also criticized Israel for not negotiating with Syria, saying: "I don't understand the reticence of diplomacy." He added that negotiations were non-binding, and that it was pointless to place preconditions on talks.



The United States should engage in direct negotiations with Iran over stabilizing Iraq and Tehran's nuclear program, he added.