Israeli court orders Netanyahu to appear for opening of trial

Source: New Europe

May 21 2020

By Elena Pavlosvka

An Israeli court has ordered prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu to appear for the opening of his May 24 criminal trial, shortly after his lawyer sought an exemption.

Netanyahu was earlier indicted on charges of bribery, fraud and breach of trust. He denies the allegations, saying the charges have been trumped up by a liberal media and a justice system looking to depose him. The trial was delayed because of the coronavirus pandemic.

Netanyahu had asked Jerusalem District Court to be excused from his arraignment, arguing that bringing his bodyguards would be a waste of public funds and a strain on the coronavirus pandemic restriction rules. Critics accuse Netanyahu of trying to avoid the prosecution.

After nearly 18 months of political crisis, Israel has last week sworn in Netanyahu and opposition leader Benny Gantz in a power-sharing deal, under which, Netanyahu will serve as prime minister for the first half, while Gantz will serve in the second half.

The leaders agreed the “national emergency” government in a bid to tackle the economic impact of the coronavirus crisis. Israel’s supreme court ruled that “there was no legal reason to prevent the formation of a government” led by Netanyahu. While Israeli law bars ministers from serving while under indictment, there is no such law for prime ministers.

Netanyahu’s criminal charges stem from three cases.

The first case alleges that Netanyahu granted regulatory favours worth approximately about $500 million to Israeli telecommunications company Bezeq Telecom Israel.

The second case alleges that Netanyahu and wife wrongfully received nearly $200,000 worth of gifts from Arnon Milchan, a Hollywood producer and Israeli citizen, and Australian billionaire businessman James Packer.

The third case alleges that Netanyahu negotiated a deal with Arnon Mozes, owner of Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth, for better coverage.

He denies wrongdoing in all cases.

Netanyahu fate at stake as coalition deal challenged in top court

A panel of judges of the Israeli Supreme Court wear face masks as they address a discussion on a petition asking whether Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu can form a government legally and publicly when indictments are filed against him on a charges of fraud, bribery, and breach of trust, at the Israeli Supreme Court in Jerusalem May 4, 2020. Abir Sultan/Pool via REUTERS

Source: Reuters
May 4 2020

The Supreme Court’s 11-justice panel convened for a second day after hearing separate petitions on Sunday against Netanyahu’s authority to form a government given his indictment on charges of bribery, fraud and breach of trust.

Rulings are expected by Thursday. Should the court find against Netanyahu on either front, it would likely trigger a snap election - the fourth since April 2019 - as the country grapples with the coronavirus crisis and its economic fallout.

Netanyahu and his main rival Benny Gantz signed an agreement last month to form a unity government under which they would take turns leading Israel after their three, inconclusive ballot runs. They cited the coronavirus crisis in forming the pact.

In power for more than a decade and currently head of a caretaker government, right-wing Netanyahu would serve as prime minister of a new administration for 18 months before handing the reins to centrist Gantz, according to the unity deal.

Netanyahu, 70, would then assume the role of “substitute prime minister”, which some analysts say would exempt him from a law that requires cabinet-level ministers to resign from public office if they are indicted on criminal charges.

Netanyahu’s trial is due to open on May 24. He has denied any wrongdoing and accused political rivals of a “witch-hunt”.

The coalition deal also grants Netanyahu influence over important judicial appointments, which critics argue gives the premier undue sway over the outcome of his own proceedings.

The pact has support from a majority in parliament. But several groups, including opposition parties and democracy watchdogs, petitioned the Supreme Court to nullify the deal, arguing in part that it shields Netanyahu from legal penalties.

Some analysts have said the court, though cast by Netanyahu loyalists as liberal and interventionist, was unlikely to strike down the deal or bar Netanyahu from forming a government.

Responding to the petitions, Israel’s Attorney-General Avichai Mandelblit said that while certain aspects of the deal “raise major difficulties”, there were no grounds to disqualify it.

Thousands protest Israel coalition deal on eve of court date

People keep social distance amid concerns over the country's coronavirus outbreak, during a protest against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Benny Gantz and government corruption, at Rabin square in Tel Aviv, Israel, Saturday, May 2, 2020. 

Source: AP
May 2 2020
By Ariel Schalit

TEL AVIV, Israel (AP) — Several thousand Israelis took to the streets in Tel Aviv on Saturday night, demonstrating against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's new coalition deal with his chief rival a day before the country's Supreme Court is to begin debating a series of legal challenges to the agreement.

Demonstrators gathered for the third consecutive weekend in Tel Aviv's Rabin Square, standing more than two meters (six feet) apart in organized rows to conform with social-distancing rules to protect against the spread of the coronavirus.

Netanyahu last month reached a power-sharing deal with his chief rival, Benny Gantz. Protesters are upset that the deal leaves Netanyahu in power as he prepares to go on trial for corruption charges.

“Shame! Shame!” chanted the protesters. One of the posters showed a picture of Netanyahu and Gantz with the slogan, “We Say No to a Corruption Government.”

Under the deal, Netanyahu and Gantz agreed to share the premiership, with Netanyahu serving as prime minister the first 18 months and Gantz serving the next 18 months. It also includes a clause to advance plans to annex parts of the occupied West Bank, including Israeli settlements, starting July 1.

Saturday's protest was organized by the Movement for Quality Government in Israel, one of the advocacy groups that has filed a legal challenge to the country's Supreme Court. Smaller protests were also taking place in other cities across Israel.

The groups are asking the high court to ban any indicted politician, including Netanyahu, from being allowed to form a new government. They also say that parts of the coalition deal are illegal.

If the court strikes down the coalition deal, Israel could be plunged into a fourth consecutive election in just over 12 months.

With apparently fabricated nuclear documents, Netanyahu pushed the US towards war with Iran

Source: The Grayzone
April 29 2020
By Gareth Porter

An investigation of supposed Iranian nuclear documents presented in a dramatically staged Netanyahu press conference indicates they were an Israeli fabrication designed to trigger US military conflict with Iran.

President Donald Trump scrapped the nuclear deal with Iran and continued to risk war with Iran based on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s claim to have proven definitively that Iran was determined to manufacture nuclear weapons. Netanyahu not only spun Trump but much of the corporate media as well, duping them with the public unveiling of what he claimed was the entire secret Iranian “nuclear archive.”

In early April 2018, Netanyahu briefed Trump privately on the supposed Iranian nuclear archive and secured his promise to leave the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). That April 30, Netanyahu took the briefing to the public in a characteristically dramatic live performance in which he claimed Israel’s Mossad intelligence services had stolen Iran’s entire nuclear archive from Tehran. “You may well know that Iran’s leaders repeatedly deny ever pursuing nuclear weapons…” Netanyahu declared. “Well, tonight, I’m here to tell you one thing: Iran lied. Big time.”

However, an investigation of the supposed Iranian nuclear documents by The Grayzone reveals them to be the product of an Israeli disinformation operation that helped trigger the most serious threat of war since the conflict with Iran began nearly four decades ago. This investigation found multiple indications that the story of Mossad’s heist of 50,000 pages of secret nuclear files from Tehran was very likely an elaborate fiction and that the documents were fabricated by the Mossad itself.

According to the official Israeli version of events, the Iranians had gathered the nuclear documents from various locations and moved them to what Netanyahu himself described as “a dilapidated warehouse” in southern Tehran. Even assuming that Iran had secret documents demonstrating the development of nuclear weapons, the claim that top secret documents would be held in a nondescript and unguarded warehouse in Central Tehran is so unlikely that it should have raised immediate alarm bells about the story’s legitimacy.

Even more problematic was the claim by a Mossad official to Israeli journalist Ronen Bergman that Mossad knew not only in what warehouse its commandos would find the documents but precisely which safes to break into with a blowtorch. The official told Bergman the Mossad team had been guided by an intelligence asset to the few safes in the warehouse contained the binders with the most important documents. Netanyahu bragged publicly that “very few” Iranians knew the location of the archive; the Mossad official told Bergman “only a handful of people” knew.

But two former senior CIA official, both of whom had served as the agency’s top Middle East analyst, dismissed Netanyahu’s claims as lacking credibility in responses to a query from The Grayzone.

According to Paul Pillar, who was National Intelligence Officer for the region from 2001 to 2005, “Any source on the inside of the Iranian national security apparatus would be extremely valuable in Israeli eyes, and Israeli deliberations about the handling of that source’s information presumably would be biased in favor long-term protection of the source.” The Israeli story of how its spies located the documents “does seem fishy,” Pillar said, especially considering Israel’s obvious effort to derive maximum “political-diplomatic mileage” out of the “supposed revelation” of such a well-placed source.

Graham Fuller, a 27-year veteran of the CIA who served as National Intelligence Officer for the Near East and South Asia as well as Vice-Chairman of the National Intelligence Council, offered a similar assessment of the Israeli claim. “If the Israelis had such a sensitive source in Tehran,” Fuller commented, “they would not want to risk him.” Fuller concluded that the Israelis’ claim that they had accurate knowledge of which safes to crack is “dubious, and the whole thing may be somewhat fabricated.”

No proof of authenticity

Netanyahu’s April 30 slide show presented a series of purported Iranian documents containing sensational revelations that he pointed to as proof of his insistence that Iran had lied about its interest in manufacturing nuclear weapons. The visual aides included a file supposedly dating back to early 2000 or before that detailed various ways to achieve a plan to build five nuclear weapons by mid-2003.

Another document that generated widespread media interest was an alleged report on a discussion among leading Iranian scientists of a purported mid-2003 decision by Iran’s Defense Minister to separate an existing secret nuclear weapons program into overt and covert parts.

Left out of the media coverage of these “nuclear archive” documents was a simple fact that was highly inconvenient to Netanyahu: nothing about them offered a scintilla of evidence that they were genuine. For example, not one contained the official markings of the relevant Iranian agency.

Tariq Rauf, who was head of the Verification and Security Policy Coordination Office at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) from 2001 to 2011, told The Grayzone that these markings were practically ubiquitous on official Iranian files.

“Iran is a highly bureaucratized system,” Rauf explained. “Hence, one would expect a proper book-keeping system that would record incoming correspondence, with date received, action officer, department, circulation to additional relevant officials, proper letterhead, etc.”

But as Rauf noted, the “nuclear archive” documents that were published by the Washington Post bore no such evidence of Iranian government origin. Nor did they contain other markings to indicate their creation under the auspices of an Iranian government agency.

What those documents do have in common is the mark of a rubber stamp for a filing system showing numbers for a “record”, a “file” and a “ledger binder” — like the black binders that Netanyahu flashed to the cameras during his slideshow. But these could have easily been created by the Mossad and stamped on to the documents along with the appropriate Persian numbers.

Forensic confirmation of the documents’ authenticity would have required access to the original documents. But as Netanyahu noted in his April 30, 2018 slide show, the “original Iranian materials” were kept “in a very safe place” – implying that no one would be allowed to have any such access. 

 

Withholding access to outside experts

In fact, even the most pro-Israeli visitors to Tel Aviv have been denied access to the original documents. David Albright of the Institute for Science and International Security and Olli Heinonen of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies – both stalwart defenders of the official Israeli line on Iranian nuclear policy – reported in October 2018 that they had been given only a “slide deck” showing reproductions or excerpts of the documents.

When a team of six specialists from Harvard Kennedy School’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs visited Israel in January 2019 for briefings on the archive, they too were offered only a cursory browse of the supposedly original documents. Harvard Professor Matthew Bunn recalled in an interview with this writer that the team had been shown one of the binders containing what were said to be original documents relating to Iran’s relations with the IAEA and had “paged through a bit of it.”

But they were shown no documents on Iran nuclear weapons work. As Bunn admitted, “We weren’t attempting to do any forensic analysis of these documents.”

Typically, it would be the job of the U.S. government and the IAEA to authenticate the documents. Oddly, the Belfer Center delegation reported that the U.S. government and the IAEA had each received only copies of the entire archive, not the original files. And the Israelis were in no hurry to provide the genuine articles: the IAEA did not receive a complete set of documents until November 2019, according to Bunn.

By then, Netanyahu had not only already accomplished the demolition of the Iran nuclear deal; he and Trump’s ferociously hawkish CIA-director Mike Pompeo had maneuvered the president into a policy of imminent confrontation with Tehran. 

The second coming of fake missile drawings

Among the documents Netanyahu flashed on the screen in his April 30, 2018 slide show was a schematic drawing of the missile reentry vehicle of an Iranian Shahab-3 missile, showing what was obviously supposed to represent a nuclear weapon inside.

  

Technical drawing from page 11 of David Albright, Olli Heinonen, and Andrea Stricker’s “Breaking Up and Reorienting Iran’s Nuclear Weapons Program,” published by the Institute for Science and International Security on October 28, 2018.

This drawing was part of a set of eighteen technical drawings of the Shahab-3 reentry vehicle. These were found in a collection of documents secured over the course of several years between the Bush II and Obama administrations by an Iranian spy working for Germany’s BND intelligence service. Or so the Israeli official story went.

In 2013, however, a former senior German Foreign Office official named Karsten Voigt revealed to this writer that the documents had been initially provided to German intelligence by a member of the Mujaheddin E-Khalq (MEK).

The MEK is an exiled Iranian armed opposition organization that had operated under Saddam Hussein’s regime as a proxy against Iran during the Iran-Iraq War. It went on to cooperate with the Israeli Mossad beginning in the 1990s, and enjoys a close relationship with Saudi Arabia as well. Today, numerous former US officials are on the MEK’s payroll, acting as de facto lobbyists for regime change in Iran.

Voigt recalled how senior BND officials warned him they did not consider the MEK source or the materials he provided to be credible. They were worried that the Bush administration intended to use the dodgy documents to justify an attack on Iran, just as it exploited the tall tales collected from Iraqi defector codenamed “Curveball” to justify the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

As this writer first reported in 2010, the appearance of the “dunce-cap” shape of the Shahab-3 reentry vehicle in the drawings was a tell-tale sign that the documents were fabricated. Whoever drew those schematic images in 2003 was clearly under the false impression that Iran was relying on the Shahab-3 as its main deterrent force. After all, Iran had announced publicly in 2001 that the Shahab-3 was going into “serial production” and in 2003 that it was “operational.”

But those official claims by Iran were a ruse aimed primarily at deceiving Israel, which had threatened air attacks on Iran’s nuclear and missile programs. In fact, Iran’s Defense Ministry was aware that the Shahab-3 did not have sufficient range to reach Israel.

According to Michael Elleman, the author of the most definitive account of the Iranian missile program, as early as 2000, Iran’s Defense Ministry had begun developing an improved version of the Shahab-3 with a reentry vehicle boasting a far more aerodynamic “triconic baby bottle” shape – not the “dunce-cap” of the original.

As Elleman told this writer, however, foreign intelligence agencies remained unaware of the new and improved Shahab missile with a very different shape until it took its first flight test in August 2004. Among the agencies kept in the dark about the new design was Israel’s Mossad. That explains why the false documents on redesigning the Shahab-3 – the earliest dates of which were in 2002, according to an unpublished internal IAEA document – showed a reentry vehicle design that Iran had already discarded.

The role of the MEK in passing the massive tranche of supposed secret Iranian nuclear documents to the BND and its hand-in-glove relationship with the Mossad leaves little room for doubt that the documents introduced to Western intelligence 2004 were, in fact, created by the Mossad.

For the Mossad, the MEK was a convenient unit for outsourcing negative press about Iran which it did not want attributed directly to Israeli intelligence. To enhance the MEK’S credibility in the eyes foreign media and intelligence agencies, Mossad passed the coordinates of Iran’s Natanz nuclear facility to the MEK in 2002. Later, it provided to the MEK personal information such as the passport number and home telephone number of Iranian physics professor Mohsen Fakhrizadh, whose name appeared in the nuclear documents, according to the co-authors of a best-selling Israeli book on the Mossad’s covert operations.

By trotting out the same discredited technical drawing depicting the wrong Iranian missile reentry vehicle – a trick he had previously deployed to create the original case for accusing Iran of covert nuclear weapons development – the Israeli prime minister showed how confident he was in his ability to hoodwink Washington and the Western corporate media.

Netanyahu’s multiple levels of deception have been remarkably successful, despite having relied on crude stunts that any diligent news organization should have seen through. Through his manipulation of foreign governments and media, he has been able to maneuver Donald Trump and the United States into a dangerous process of confrontation that has brought the US to the precipice of military conflict with Iran.

Gareth Porter is an independent investigative journalist who has covered national security policy since 2005 and was the recipient of Gellhorn Prize for Journalism in 2012.  His most recent book is The CIA Insider’s Guide to the Iran Crisis co-authored with John Kiriakou, just published in February.

Netanyahu: speech to US Congress about 'the very survival of my country'

 The Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, speaks to his Likud party members during a campaign event near Tel Aviv on Monday. Photograph: Ariel Schalit/AP

Πηγή: The Guardian
By Dan Roberts in Washington

Feb 10 2015

The diplomatic stand-off between Binyamin Netanyahu and US Democrats worsened on Tuesday as more congressmen threatened to boycott a speech by the Israeli prime minister that he claimed was about “the very survival of my country”.

Netanyahu repeatedly defended his decision to accept an invitation from Republican leaders to address a joint session of Congress that the White House has called a partisan breach of protocol.

“I am going to the United States not because I seek a confrontation with the President, but to speak up for very survival of my country,” said the prime minister in of one several English-language tweets seemingly aimed directly at the US public.
— בנימין נתניהו (@netanyahu) February 10, 2015

I am going to the United States not because I seek a confrontation with the President, but to speak up for very survival of my country.

“I intend to speak in the US Congress because Congress might have an important role on a nuclear deal with Iran,” he added, receiving over 4,000 retweets after asking followers if they supported his “determination” to speak in Congress.

Earlier, Patrick Leahy, the longest-serving Democrat in the Senate, became the latest senior figure to say he would not be attending next month’s address which was arranged by the House speaker, John Boehner, to highlight differences between Israel and Barack Obama over negotiations with Iran to prevent it developing nuclear weapons.

“The unfortunate way that House leaders have unilaterally arranged this, and then heavily politicised it, has demolished the potential constructive value of this Joint Meeting,” said Leahy in a statement. “They have orchestrated a tawdry and high-handed stunt that has embarrassed not only Israel but the Congress itself.”

Critics claim that by accepting the invitation just two weeks before Israeli elections and without seeking approval from the White House, Netayahu is overtly polarising relations between the two countries along partisan lines.

“It has long been an unwritten rule and practice through the decades that when it comes to American foreign policy, we speak and act thoughtfully, with one voice when we can, with the national interests of the United States as our uppermost consideration, and with caution about the unintended consequences of unilateral actions like this,” added Leahy. “They have diminished that valuable precedent.”

On Monday, independent Vermont senator Bernie Sanders, who normally votes with Democrats and once worked on a kibbutz, said it was wrong for Netanyahu not to have consulted more with Obama before accepting the invitation from Boehner.

A running tally of Democrats pledging to skip the speech collated by the Hill newspaper currently stands at 14 House representatives and three senators including Sanders and Leahy.

On Monday, the Washington-based Israeli-American lobby group J-Street, which also opposes the visit, wrote to all members of Congress asking them to urge Boehner to postpone it until after Israel’s election.

“One of the chief objections to the visit – and the reason so many supporters of Israel including prominent American Jewish leaders like Abe Foxman and Rabbi Rick Jacobs, the leader of the Reform Movement, have asked the Prime Minister to postpone his appearance – is the possibility that the speech will be used to advance the Netanyahu campaign,” says its letter.

“Our Congress should not be used as a prop in another nation’s election. One of the central elements that underpins the alliance between our two nations is our common commitment to democracy and elections. That means that both nations stay out of the other’s democratic process.

Israelis welcome revised Arab peace plan

Πηγή: The Globe and Mail
By PATRICK MARTIN
May 1 2013

A recently revised Arab peace initiative has received positive responses in many Israeli quarters this week, with remarks by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu even being interpreted as a sign of support for a proposal he previously rejected.

Politicians and commentators on the left and the right – including the Israeli President and the government’s chief negotiator with the Palestinians – welcomed the latest effort from the Arab League, shepherded by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry.

The initiative, presented to Mr. Kerry on Monday by a high-level Arab delegation, renews a 2002 call for a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace in which all Arab states normalize relations with Israel in exchange for Israeli withdrawal from territories captured in the 1967 Middle East War. But whereas previous versions of the proposal had been rejected in Israel for being an all-or-nothing ultimatum, the initiative has been amended to allow for negotiations to determine the exact location of a border between Israel and a Palestinian state.

This revision would allow Israel to keep certain occupied areas in which it has built large settlement blocs, in exchange for ceding to a Palestinian state Israeli lands commensurate in size and quality.

Israeli President Shimon Peres, speaking in Rome, embraced the development. “The ministers of the Arab League once again expressed their support for the two-state solution, which is also accepted by us, and a broad structure of support is being created for making progress.”

Justice Minister Tzipi Livni, who is the government’s chief negotiator with the Palestinians, applauded the new wording. “It is good news that should be welcomed,” she said.

It is important to note, Ms. Livni added, that “during days of turmoil in the Arab world, [the Arab states] are committed to normalization with Israel when an agreement is reached with the Palestinians.”

While Mr. Netanyahu has not yet formally commented on the Arab initiative, remarks he made Wednesday to senior Israeli Foreign Ministry officials indicate a surprising degree of commonality.

Speaking in his capacity as acting foreign minister, Mr. Netanyahu said: “The purpose of the future agreement with the Palestinians is to prevent the eventuality of a bi-national state and to guarantee stability and security.”

“It’s not about a Palestinian state,” he said. “It’s about a Jewish state.”

Israel, Mr. Netanyahu said, “has to make sure that, at the end of the negotiations … there is recognition for our nation state.”

In these lines, the Prime Minister said two things he has not said before, noted Ben-Dror Yemini, a columnist for the Maariv newspaper.

“When he said that recognition of Israel as a Jewish state should come ‘at the end of the negotiations,’ that was a positive signal on his behalf,” Mr. Yemini said. In recent years, Israel has made such recognition a condition for agreeing to negotiations on a Palestinian state.

“And he referred to the ‘eventuality of a bi-national state,’” Mr. Yemini noted. “That’s the first time he’s acknowledged that there’s a risk involved if there are no negotiations.” Most Israelis do not want a bi-national state.

He’s sending a very meaningful signal, Mr. Yemini said.

Mr. Yemini urged support of the Arab initiative in his column Wednesday, taking many readers by surprise. “We don’t have to accept all the terms right at the start,” he explained, but the approach “is a good way going forward.”

Opposition leader Shelly Yachimovich also called on Mr. Netanyahu to endorse the plan, and said she would even possibly join his government if right-wing parties pulled out of the coalition should he agree to the initiative.

For their part, the politicians on the right were uncharacteristically tight-lipped Wednesday, but the initiative will be criticized by several elements in the coalition, especially by many in the Prime Minister’s own Likud party, Mr. Yemini noted. The party moved far to the right in choosing those who would lead the Likud list in January’s national election.

Should members of the Jewish Home party, Yisrael Beitenu and the Likud bolt from the government, Ms. Yachimovich’s Labour party alone, with 15 seats in parliament, couldn’t save the coalition.

“We may see a situation much like Sharon faced in 2005,” Mr. Yemini conjectured, referring to the opposition then-prime minister Ariel Sharon faced when he decided to withdraw Israeli troops and settlers from the occupied Gaza Strip. The tension split the Likud party. But, with the Israeli public largely behind him, Mr. Sharon established Kadima, a makeshift group that led a coalition government for four more years.

“These days,” Mr. Yemini said, “anything’s possible.”

Barack Obama brokers Israel-Turkey rapprochement

Πηγή: NDTV
By Reuters
March 23 2013

Jerusalem: Israel apologised to Turkey on Friday for killing nine Turkish citizens in a 2010 naval raid on a Gaza-bound flotilla and the two feuding U.S. allies agreed to normalise relations in a surprise breakthrough announced by U.S. President Barack Obama.

The rapprochement could help regional coordination to contain spillover from the Syrian civil war and ease Israel's diplomatic isolation in the Middle East as it faces challenges posed by Iran's nuclear programme.

In a statement released by the White House only minutes before Obama ended a visit to Israel, the president said Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his Turkish counterpart Tayyip Erdogan had spoken by telephone.

"The United States deeply values our close partnerships with both Turkey and Israel, and we attach great importance to the restoration of positive relations between them in order to advance regional peace and security," Obama said.

The first conversation between the two leaders since 2011, when Netanyahu phoned to offer help after an earthquake struck Turkey, gave Obama a diplomatic triumph in a visit to Israel and the Palestinian Territories in which he offered no new plan to revive peace talks frozen for nearly three years.

The 30-minute call was made in a runway trailer at Tel Aviv airport, where Obama and Netanyahu huddled before the president boarded Air Force One for a flight to Jordan, U.S. officials said.

Israel bowed to a long-standing demand by Ankara, once a close strategic partner, to apologise formally for the deaths aboard the Turkish vessel Mavi Marmara, which was boarded by Israeli marines who intercepted a flotilla challenging Israel's naval blockade of the Palestinian-run Gaza Strip.

"In light of Israel's investigation into the incident which pointed to a number of operational mistakes, the prime minister expressed Israel's apology to the Turkish people for any mistakes that might have led to the loss of life or injury," Netanyahu's office said in a statement in English.

It added that he had agreed to conclude an agreement on compensation and said Netanyahu and Erdogan agreed to normalise ties between the two countries, including returning their ambassadors to their posts.

Erdogan's office said he had accepted the apology and had told Netanyahu that he valued centuries of "strong friendship and cooperation between the Turkish and Jewish nations".

Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said that, with the apology, all of Turkey's fundamental demands had been met.

FRAYED TIES

Ankara expelled Israel's ambassador and froze military cooperation after a U.N. report into the Mavi Marmara incident, released in September 2011, largely exonerated the Jewish state.

Before the diplomatic breakdown, Israel and Turkey shared intelligence information and carried out joint military exercises. Israeli pilots trained in Turkish skies, improving their capability to carry out long-range missions such as possible strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities.

Israel had balked at apologising to the Turks, saying this would be tantamount to admitting moral culpability and would invite lawsuits against its troops.

Voicing until now only "regret" over the incident, Israel has offered to pay into what it called a "humanitarian fund" through which casualties and their relatives could be compensated.

An Israeli political source said the way to a formal apology was paved by the sidelining of far-right ex-foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman, who opposed the move. He resigned in December after being indicted on fraud charges.

A source in Netanyahu's bureau said opening a new chapter with Turkey "can be very, very important for the future, regarding what happens with Syria but not just what happens with Syria".

Tzipi Livni, a minister in charge of regional diplomacy, praised what she saw as "restoration of a first-rate strategic dialogue" that could help Israel forge a "camp of more moderate elements" to confront Islamist radicals in Syria and Iran.

In Turkey, Erdogan's success in obtaining an Israeli apology was viewed as a diplomatic coup, although the deal fell short of meeting his earlier insistence that Israel remove a blockade on Gaza that it imposed when Hamas Islamists rose to power there.

"This is a diplomatic success," said Turkish political scientist Ufuk Ulutas.

In a statement, Hamas applauded Erdogan for having won an apology from Israel, and said he had told the group's leader Khaled Meshaal by telephone that Netanyahu also promised to "lift the siege on the Palestinian people".

Israel said, however, that it undertook to ease conditions in the Palestinian territories should the situation allow, and that Netanyahu and Erdogan had pledged to work together to improve the humanitarian situation in Palestinian areas, including Gaza.

A New Reality in U.S.-Israeli Relations

Πηγή: Stratfor
By George Friedman
March 19 2013

U.S. President Barack Obama is making his first visit to Israel as president. The visit comes in the wake of his re-election and inauguration to a second term and the formation of a new Israeli government under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Normally, summits between Israel and the United States are filled with foreign policy issues on both sides, and there will be many discussed at this meeting, including Iran, Syria and Egypt. But this summit takes place in an interesting climate, because both the Americans and Israelis are less interested in foreign and security matters than they are in their respective domestic issues.

In the United States, the political crisis over the federal budget and the struggle to grow the economy and reduce unemployment has dominated the president's and the country's attention. The Israeli elections turned on domestic issues, ranging from whether the ultra-Orthodox would be required to serve in Israel Defense Forces, as other citizens are, to a growing controversy over economic inequality in Israel.

Inwardness is a cyclic norm in most countries. Foreign policy does not always dominate the agenda and periodically it becomes less important. What is interesting is at this point, while Israelis continue to express concern about foreign policy, they are most passionate on divisive internal social issues. Similarly, although there continues to be a war in Afghanistan, the American public is heavily focused on economic issues. Under these circumstances the interesting question is not what Obama and Netanyahu will talk about but whether what they discuss will matter much.

Washington's New Strategy

For the United States, the focus on domestic affairs is compounded by an emerging strategic shift in how the United States deals with the world. After more than a decade of being focused on the Islamic world and moving aggressively to try to control threats in the region militarily, the United States is moving toward a different stance. The bar for military intervention has been raised. Therefore, the United States has, in spite of recent statements, not militarily committed itself to the Syrian crisis, and when the French intervened in Mali the United States played a supporting role. The intervention in Libya, where France and the United Kingdom drew the United States into the action, was the first manifestation of Washington's strategic re-evaluation. The desire to reduce military engagement in the region was not the result of Libya. That desire was there from the U.S. experience in Iraq and was the realization that the disposal of an unsavory regime does not necessarily -- or even very often -- result in a better regime. Even the relative success of the intervention in Libya drove home the point that every intervention has both unintended consequences and unanticipated costs.

The United States' new stance ought to frighten the Israelis. In Israel's grand strategy, the United States is the ultimate guarantor of its national security and underwrites a portion of its national defense. If the United States becomes less inclined to involve itself in regional adventures, the question is whether the guarantees implicit in the relationship still stand. The issue is not whether the United States would intervene to protect Israel's existence; save from a nuclear-armed Iran, there is no existential threat to Israel's national interest. Rather, the question is whether the United States is prepared to continue shaping the dynamics of the region in areas where Israel lacks political influence and is not able to exert military control. Israel wants a division of labor in the region, where it influences its immediate neighbors while the United States manages more distant issues. To put it differently, the Israelis' understanding of the American role is to control events that endanger Israel and American interests under the assumption that Israeli and American interests are identical. The idea that they are always identical has never been as true as politicians on both sides have claimed, but more important, the difficulties of controlling the environment have increased dramatically for both sides.

Israel's Difficulties

The problem for Israel at this point is that it is not able to do very much in the area that is its responsibility. For example, after the relationship with the United States, the second-most important strategic foundation for Israel is its relationship -- and peace treaty -- with Egypt. Following the fall of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, the fear was that Egypt might abrogate the peace treaty, reopening at some distant point the possibility of conventional war. But the most shocking thing to Israel was how little control it actually had over events in Egypt and the future of its ties to Egypt. With good relations between Israel and the Egyptian military and with the military still powerful, the treaty has thus far survived. But the power of the military will not be the sole factor in the long-term sustainability of the treaty. Whether it survives or not ultimately is not a matter that Israel has much control over.

The Israelis have always assumed that the United States can control areas where they lack control. And some Israelis have condemned the United States for not doing more to manage events in Egypt. But the fact is that the United States also has few tools to control the evolution of Egypt, apart from some aid to Egypt and its own relationship with the Egyptian military. The first Israeli response is that the United States should do something about problems confronting Israel. It may or may not be in the American interest to do something in any particular case, but the problem in this case is that although a hostile Egypt is not in the Americans' interest, there is actually little the United States can do to control events in Egypt.

The Syrian situation is even more complex, with Israel not even certain what outcome is more desirable. Syrian President Bashar al Assad is a known quantity to Israel. He is by no means a friend, but his actions and his father's have always been in the pursuit of their own interest and therefore have been predictable. The opposition is an amorphous entity whose ability to govern is questionable and that is shot through with Islamists who are at least organized and know what they want. It is not clear that Israel wants al Assad to fall or to survive, and in any case Israel is limited in what it could do even if it had a preference. Both outcomes frighten the Israelis. Indeed, the hints of American weapons shipments to the rebels at some point concern Israel as much as no weapons shipments.

The Iranian situation is equally complex. It is clear that the Israelis, despite rhetoric to the contrary, will not act unilaterally against Iran's nuclear weapons. The risks of failure are too high, and the consequences of Iranian retaliation against fundamental American interests, such as the flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz, are too substantial. The American view is that an Iranian nuclear weapon is not imminent and Iran's ultimate ability to build a deliverable weapon is questionable. Therefore, regardless of what Israel wants, and given the American doctrine of military involvement as a last resort when it significantly affects U.S. interests, the Israelis will not be able to move the United States to play its traditional role of assuming military burdens to shape the region.

The Changing Relationship

There has therefore been a very real if somewhat subtle shift in the U.S.-Israeli relationship. Israel has lost the ability, if it ever had it, to shape the behavior of countries on its frontier. Egypt and Syria will do what they will do. At the same time, the United States has lost the inclination to intervene militarily in the broader regional conflict and has limited political tools. Countries like Saudi Arabia, which might be inclined to align with U.S. strategy, find themselves in a position of creating their own strategy and assuming the risks.

For the United States, there are now more important issues than the Middle East, such as the domestic economy. The United States is looking inward both because it has to and because it has not done well in trying to shape the Islamic world. From the Israeli point of view, for the moment, its national security is not at risk, and its ability to control its security environment is limited, while its ability to shape American responses in the region has deteriorated due to the shifting American focus. It will continue to get aid that it no longer needs and will continue to have military relations with the United States, particularly in developing military technology. But for reasons having little to do with Israel, Washington's attention is not focused on the region or at least not as obsessively as it had been since 2001.

Therefore Israel has turned inward by default. Frightened by events on its border, it realizes that it has little control there and lacks clarity on what it wants. In the broader region, Israel's ability to rely on American control has declined. Like Israel, the United States has realized the limits and costs of such a strategy, and Israel will not talk the United States out of it, as the case of Iran shows. In addition, there is no immediate threat to Israel that it must respond to. It is, by default, in a position of watching and waiting without being clear as to what it wants to see. Therefore it should be no surprise that Israel, like the United States, is focused on domestic affairs.

It also puts Israel in a reactive position. The question of the Palestinians is always there. Israel's policy, like most of its strategic policy, is to watch and wait. It has no inclination to find a political solution because it cannot predict what the consequences of either a solution or an attempt to find one would be. Its policy is to cede the initiative to the Palestinians. Last month, there was speculation that increased demonstrations in the West Bank could spark a third intifada. There was not one. There might be another surge of rockets from Gaza, or there might not be. That is a decision that Hamas will make.

Israel has turned politically inward because its strategic environment has become not so much threatening as beyond its control. Enemies cannot overwhelm it, nor can it control what its enemies and potential enemies might do. Israel has lost the initiative and, more important, it now knows it has lost the initiative. It has looked to the United States to take the initiative, but on a much broader scale Washington faces the same reality as Israel with less at stake and therefore less urgency. Certainly, the Israelis would like to see the United States take more aggressive stands and more risks, but they fully understand that the price and dangers of aggressive stands in the region have grown out of control.

Therefore it is interesting to wonder what Obama and Netanyahu will discuss. Surely Iran will come up and Obama will say there is no present danger and no need to take risks. Netanyahu will try to find some way to convince him that the United States should undertake the burden at a time suitable to Israel. The United States will decline the invitation.

This is not a strain in the U.S.-Israeli relationship in the sense of anger and resentment, although those exist on both sides. Rather it is like a marriage that continues out of habit but whose foundation has withered. The foundation was the Israeli ability to control events in its region and the guarantee that where the Israelis fail, U.S. interests dictate that Washington will take action. Neither one has the ability, the appetite or the political basis to maintain that relationship on those terms. Obama has economics to worry about. Netanyahu has the conscription of the ultra-Orthodox on his mind. National security remains an issue for both, but their ability to manage it has declined dramatically.

In private I expect a sullen courtesy and in public an enthusiastic friendship, much as an old, bored married couple, not near a divorce, but far from where they were when they were young. Neither party is what it once was; each suspects that it is the other's fault. In the end, each has its own fate, linked by history to each other but no longer united.

Iran and Syria Discussed in Putin’s Visit to Israel

Πηγή: New York Times
By ISABEL KERSHNER
June 25 2012

JERUSALEM – President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia conferred with Israeli leaders on Monday during a 24-hour visit that juxtaposed the much improved ties between the two countries with their sharp differences, chief among them the Iranian nuclear program.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Defense Minister Ehud Barak and other senior Israeli officials held talks with Mr. Putin that focused on Iran as well as other regional issues, according to the prime minister’s office.

But there was little hope here that the visit would change Russian policy in the region.

Russia hosted the latest round of talks between the group of six world powers and Iran earlier this month that ended without the sides even committing to another high-level meeting Israeli leaders have argued that the talks merely give Iran more time to develop what they suspect is a military nuclear program. Iran insists its program is peaceful. Russia has been reluctant to support tougher sanctions against Iran.

Israeli leaders have also called for more international resolve to end the bloodshed in Syria, where President Bashar al-Assad's military is attempting to crush an armed uprising. Russia is viewed as Mr. Assad's principal foreign defender.

At a joint news conference after their meeting, Mr. Netanyahu said that he and Mr. Putin agreed that the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran “presents a grave danger first of all to Israel, and to the region and the world as a whole.”

Israel, Mr. Netanyahu said, wants to see the sanctions against Tehran expanded as well as a halt to all uranium enrichment by Iran, the removal of all enriched uranium from Iran, and the dismantling of an underground facility near the city of Qum.

Speaking in Russian, Mr. Putin said that he and Mr. Netanyahu had discussed Syria and the Iranian nuclear program and that the talks were detailed and very useful.

President Shimon Peres then hosted Mr. Putin for a state dinner.

Privately, officials expressed skepticism about being able to influence Russia.

“Let’s not exaggerate. It is a very brief visit,” said a senior Israeli official who also spoke on condition of anonymity for reasons of diplomacy. He added, “Do not expect any major breakthrough.”

The main reason for the visit by the Russian president, officials here noted, was the inauguration in the Israeli coastal city of Netanya of a national monument honoring those who fell in the ranks of the Red Army during the Second World War and their role in the victory over Nazi Germany. The visit had been scheduled around the completion of construction of the monument.

Mr. Peres used the highly symbolic occasion to address the contentious diplomatic issues.

“I am confident that Russia, which defeated fascism, will not allow today’s threats to continue. Not the Iranian threat. Not the bloodshed in Syria,” he said in a speech at the ceremony.

Israel also has reservations about Russia’s role in the long-stagnant Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Russia, a member of the so-called quartet of Middle East peace makers along with the United States, the United Nations and the European Union, has consistently sided with the Palestinians during disputes, one of the officials here said. Mr. Netanyahu called on Mr. Putin to urge the Palestinians to return to negotiations.

The leftist Meretz Party protested Mr. Putin’s visit, saying that it was “morally wrong and diplomatically unwise” for Mr. Netanyahu to meet with Mr. Putin while civilians were being killed in Syria.

Diplomatic disagreements aside, though, Israel was eager to cultivate its relations with such a major world and regional player.

Relations have grown since the fall of the Soviet Union, which was hostile to Israel, and has been cemented by the arrival of more than a million immigrants from the former Soviet Union to Israel, among them 10,000 Red Army veterans.

Mr. Netanyahu’s cabinet includes several Russian speakers, including Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman.

Trade between Israel and Russia has been increasing and the number of Russian tourists here is second to that from the United States, though many Russian tourists only come on a one-day Holy Land excursion as part of a cruise or a longer stay in nearby Turkey.

Mr. Netanyahu said he was sure that Mr. Putin’s visit would further upgrade ties in the fields of agriculture, science, technology and space, among others.

Mr. Putin arrived with an entourage of about 400 Russians including several ministers and deputy ministers, businesspeople and journalists.

On Tuesday Mr. Putin was scheduled to travel to Bethlehem in the West Bank, to inaugurate a Russian cultural center and meet with the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, before leaving for Jordan.

US steps up diplomacy to steer Israel away from attacking Iran

Gen Martin Dempsey

Πηγή: Belfast Telegraph
By Donald Macintyre
Feb 20 2012

America's top general yesterday gave his clearest public warning yet against a "destabilising" Israeli strike on Iran as a senior US security official arrived in Jerusalem amid expectations that he would urge Benjamin Netanyahu to give sanctions time to bite.

The Israeli Prime Minister met Tom Donilon, Washington's National Security Adviser, after General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff, declared that it was "not prudent at this point" for Israel to launch an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, which would not "achieve their long-term objectives".

The US-led calls on Israel to stay its hand came on a day when Tehran said it was halting oil exports to Britain and France in an apparently pre-emptive retaliation against the EU's decision to boycott Iranian oil from July. The terse announcement followed earlier contradictory signs over whether the regime would halt sales to up to six countries in the EU, which accounts for 18 per cent of Iranian oil exports.

The Mehr news agency later said crude exports to Britain and France had been halted and the National Iranian Oil Company had sent a written ultimatum to some European refineries, demanding that they sign long-term agreements of up to five years or be cut off altogether. No details were given of which countries had been threatened, but Spain, Italy and Greece are among its biggest European customers.

Meanwhile in an interview with CNN, General Dempsey said Israel recognised US "concerns" about unilateral military action against Iran, but "I wouldn't suggest, sitting here today, that we've persuaded them that our view is the correct view".

He said sanctions and diplomacy were both "having an effect" and that a military strike would be "premature". Asked about the mindset of Iran's leadership, he said: "We are of the opinion that the Iranian regime is a rational actor. And it's for that reason ... that we think the current path we're on is the most prudent path at this point."

His remarks were echoed by William Hague, Britain's Foreign Secretary, who repeated that a nuclear-armed Iran would result in another Cold War in the Middle East. But he said sanctions and negotiations needed to be given a "real chance" to convince Tehran not to pursue a military nuclear programme. He added: "I don't think a wise thing at this moment is for Israel to launch a military attack on Iran."

Mr Netanyahu is expected to hold talks next month with US President Barack Obama when he travels to Washington for the annual conference of the powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

Iran's foreign minister, Al Akbar Salehi, said yesterday that the next round of negotiations between Tehran and six world powers would be held in Istanbul. He gave no date for the talks and was adamant that Iran would continue with its nuclear programme, which it insists is for peaceful purposes. He said the country remained prepared "even in the worst case scenario" of an external attack.

Earlier Associated Press quoted unnamed diplomats at the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna as saying Tehran was now in a position for a major expansion of nuclear fuel enrichment at its heavily guarded underground Fordo plant to levels that could be quickly converted to produce weapons-grade material.

White House national security adviser in Israel

National Security Advisor Tom Donilon

Πηγή: AP
Feb 19 2012

JERUSALEM  — President Barack Obama's national security adviser huddled with Israeli leaders on Sunday to discuss Iran's nuclear program following growing speculation that Israel is planning military action against Tehran.

Tom Donilon was to meet with Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak before leaving on Monday.

Ahead of his visit, the White House said discussions would include Iran as well as the unrest in neighboring Syria. It gave no details on what message Donilon would bring, saying only that the visit was "the latest in a series of regular, high-level consultations" with Israel.

Last month, the U.S. military chief, Martin Dempsey, visited Israel to discuss the Iranian nuclear program. And next month, Netanyahu is expected at the White House.

U.S. officials have grown increasingly concerned that Israel is preparing to attack Iran's nuclear program.

Both countries, along with the West, believe Tehran is trying to develop a nuclear bomb. But their responses to the perceived threat appear to be diverging.

The U.S. says tough international sanctions against Iran must be given more time to work. Israel, while welcoming the sanctions, has warned that time is running out and all options, including military action, must be considered. Israeli officials have said Iran could be capable of building a bomb within a year.

In an interview to be aired Sunday on CNN, Dempsey said an attack on Iran at this point would be unwelcome.

"I think it would be premature to exclusively decide that the time for military action is upon us," he said, according to a transcript of the interview. Such a strike would be "destabilizing" and "not prudent," he added, and unable to achieve Israel's long-term objectives of neutralizing the Iranian nuclear threat.

Israeli experts believe an attack on Iran could set back, but not destroy, the Iranian nuclear program, which is scattered in heavily fortified bunkers across the country.

At the same time, it is widely believed an Israeli strike could set off a regionwide war, put U.S. forces in the region in danger, and cause global oil prices to spike.

Israel and Cyprus sign security pact

Netanyahu in historic Cyprus visit. Thursday, 16 February 2012

Πηγή: Globes
Feb 16 2012

Israel and Cyprus signed a military pact today, which will allow IDF combat planes and ships to utilize Cypriot airspace and territorial waters to protect Cypriot offshore gas fields.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Cypriot President Demetris Christofias signed what is called a search and rescue agreement in Nicosia today. The agreement will officially allow the Israel Air Force and Israel Navy to use Cypriot airspace and territorial waters.

Christofias condemned the terrorist attacks against Israeli embassies in India and Georgia, and he called on the EU to send a sharply worded message to Turkey in response to its threats to use all means if Cyprus distributed offshore oil and gas exploration licenses in its exclusive economic zone (EEZ). He added that he hopes that negotiations on energy projects would yield concrete proposals for collaboration.

Turkey is demanding ownership rights to Cyprus's offshore drill sites. Noble Energy Inc. (NYSE: NBL) and Delek Group Ltd. (TASE: DLEKG) own Cyprus's Block 12 concession, where natural gas has been discovered.

Christofias emphasized that Block 12 is in Cyprus's EEZ under international law. He said that Cyprus wanted to combine its gas discoveries with Israel's discoveries in the region for the benefit of its people.

In response to a question by a Cypriot correspondent about media reports that Israel wants to use Cypriot military bases, Netanyahu said, "Israel is interested in peaceful cooperation."

Turkey today reiterated that it would not allow foreign oil and gas exploration companies to drill in the region, and that it would take action against them.

Israel Seeking An Air Force Base in Greece

Πηγή: IMEMC
By Saed Bannoura
Feb 8 2012

The Israeli government of Benjamin Netanyahu is about to initiate talks with Cyprus in order to establish an Israeli Air Force base in the country, while affirming Israel’s “outstanding” relations with Nicosia.

Netanyahu will be heading to Cyprus later this month, and will be holding talks on a number of issues, including the possibility of allowing Israel, in the first stage, to park some of its war-jets at the “Andreas Papandreou” base.

The issue is still in its initial examination stage, and it remains unclear when or if it will be implemented.

Senior Israeli sources reported that establishing a military base outside of Israel’s borders is a valid possibility.

Israeli Yedioth Aharonoth reported that the bilateral relations between Israel and Cyprus are good, and that the two countries are conducting security coordination.

Israel is believed to be trying to boost its security and military cooperation with a number of countries in the region, especially due to tension with Iran and Turkey.

Obama to Israel: No US War on Iran

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey (left) with Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, Vice President Joe Biden, President Barack Obama and former JCS chairman Mike Mullen

Πηγή: OpEdNews
By Gareth Porter

Feb 3 2012

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey told Israeli leaders on Jan. 20 that the United States would not participate in a war against Iran begun by Israel without prior agreement from Washington, according to accounts from well-placed senior military officers.

Dempsey's warning, conveyed to both Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak, represents the strongest move yet by President Barack Obama to deter an Israeli attack and ensure that the United States is not caught up in a regional conflagration with Iran.

But the Israeli government remains defiant about maintaining its freedom of action to make war on Iran, and it is counting on the influence of right-wing extremist views in U.S. politics to bring pressure to bear on Obama to fall into line with a possible Israeli attack during the election campaign this fall.

Obama still appears reluctant to break publicly and explicitly with Israel over its threat of military aggression against Iran, even in the absence of evidence Iran has decided to build a nuclear weapon.

Dempsey's trip was highly unusual, in that there was neither a press conference by the chairman nor any public statement by either side about the substance of his meetings with Israeli leaders. Even more remarkable, no leak about what he said to the Israelis has appeared in either U.S. or Israeli news media, indicating that both sides have regarded what Dempsey said as extremely sensitive.

The substance of Dempsey's warning to the Israelis has become known, however, to active and retired senior flag officers with connections to the JCS, according to a military source who got it from those officers.

A spokesman for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Commander Patrick McNally, offered no comment Wednesday when IPS asked him about the above account of Dempsey's warning to the Israelis.

The message carried by Dempsey was the first explicit statement to the Netanyahu government that the United States would not defend Israel if it attacked Iran unilaterally. But Defense Secretary Leon Panetta had given a clear hint in an interview on "Face the Nation" on Jan. 8 that the Obama administration would not help defend Israel in a war against Iran that Israel had initiated.

Asked how the United States would react if Israel were to launch a unilateral attack on Iran, Panetta first emphasized the need for a coordinated policy toward Iran with Israel. But when host Bob Schieffer repeated the question, Panetta said, "If the Israelis made that decision, we would have to be prepared to protect our forces in that situation. And that's what we'd be concerned about."

Defense Minister Barak had sought to dampen media speculation before Dempsey's arrival that the chairman was coming to put pressure on Israel over its threat to attack Iran, but then proceeded to reiterate the Netanyahu-Barak position that they cannot give up their responsibility for the security of Israel "for anyone, including our American friends."

There has been no evidence since the Dempsey visit of any change in the Netanyahu government's insistence on maintaining its freedom of action to attack Iran.

Dempsey's meetings with Netanyahu and Barak also failed to resolve the issue of the joint U.S.-Israeli military exercise geared to a missile attack, "Austere Challenge '12," which had been scheduled for April 2012 but had been postponed abruptly a few days before Dempsey's arrival in Israel.

More than two weeks after Dempsey's meeting with Barak, the spokesman for the Pentagon, John Kirby, told IPS, "All I can say is that the exercise will be held later this year." That indicated that there has been no major change in the status of U.S.-Israeli discussions of the issue since the postponement of the exercise was leaked Jan. 15.

The postponement has been the subject of conflicting and unconvincing explanations from the Israeli side, suggesting disarray in the Netanyahu government over how to handle the issue. To add to the confusion, Israeli and U.S. statements left it unclear whether the decision had been unilateral or joint as well as the reasons for the decision.

Panetta asserted in a news conference on Jan. 18 that Barak himself had asked him to postpone the exercise. It now clear that both sides had an interest in postponing the exercise and very possibly letting it expire by failing to reach a decision on it.

The Israelis appear to have two distinct reasons for putting the exercise off, which reflect differences between the interests of Netanyahu and his defense minister. Netanyahu's primary interest in relation to the exercise was evidently to give the Republican candidate ammunition to fire at Obama during the fall campaign by insinuating that the postponement was decided at the behest of Obama to reduce tensions with Iran.

Thus Mark Regev, Netanyahu's spokesman, explained it as a "joint" decision with the United States, adding, "The thinking was it was not the right timing now to conduct such an exercise." Barak, however, had an entirely different concern, which was related to the Israeli Defence Forces' readiness to carry out an operation that would involve both attacking Iran's nuclear facilities and minimizing the Iranian retaliatory response.

A former U.S. intelligence analyst who followed the Israeli military closely told IPS he strongly suspects that the IDF has pressed Barak to insist that the Israeli force be at the peak of readiness if and when they are asked to attack Iran.

The analyst, who insisted on anonymity because of his continuing contacts with U.S. military and intelligence personnel, said the 2006 Lebanon War debacle continues to haunt the thinking of IDF leaders. In that war, it became clear that the IDF had not been ready to handle Hezbollah rocket attacks adequately, and the prestige of the Israeli military suffered a serious blow.

The insistence of IDF leaders that they never go to war before being fully prepared is a primary consideration for Barak, according to the analyst. "Austere Challenge '12" would inevitably involve a major consumption of military resources, he observes, which would reduce Israeli readiness for war in the short run.

The concern about a major military exercise actually reducing the IDF's readiness for war against Iran would explain why senior Israeli military officials were reported to have suggested that the reasons for the postponement were mostly "technical and logistical."

The Israeli military concern about expending scarce resources on the exercise would apply, of course, regardless of whether the exercise was planned for April or late 2012. That fact would help explain why the exercise has not been rescheduled, despite statements from the U.S. side that it will be.

The U.S. military, however, has its own reasons for being unenthusiastic about the exercise. IPS has learned from a knowledgeable source that, well before the Obama administration began distancing itself from Israel's Iran policy, U.S. Central Command chief James N. Mattis had expressed concern about the implications of an exercise so obviously based on a scenario involving Iranian retaliation for an Israeli attack.

U.S. officials have been quoted as suspecting that the Israeli request for a postponement of the exercise indicated that Israel wanted to leave its options open for conducting a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities in the spring. But a postponement to the fall would not change that problem. For that reason, the former U.S. intelligence analyst told IPS he doubts that "Austere Challenge '12" will ever be carried out.

But the White House has an obvious political interest in using the military exercise to demonstrate that the Obama administration has increased military cooperation with Israel to an unprecedented level. The Defense Department wants the exercise to be held in October, according to the military source in touch with senior flag officers connected to the Joint Chiefs.

Netanyahu to Become 1st Israeli PM to Visit Cyprus

PM Binyamin Netanyahu is about to become the first Israeli prime minister to make a state visit to Cyprus.

Πηγή: Arutz Sheva
By Chana Ya'ar

19 Jan 2012

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is about to become the first Israeli prime minister to make a state visit to Cyprus.Netanyahu is scheduled to visit theisland nation in February, according to a source in Jerusalem. Last week Cypriot Defense Minister Demetrius Eliades visited the Jewish State, and last November President Shimon Peres became the first Israeli president to visit Cyprus. Several other Cypriot leaders met with Jerusalem officials last week as well.

The two nations last week signed several defense agreements, the Lebanon-basedDaily Star reported, "including one on intelligence gathering."The visit, which has been under wraps, will focus on bilateral cooperation on security, especially in light of the recent search for natural gas in the eastern Mediterranean. Israel has made an effort to tighten its ties with both Cyprus and Greece over the past few years, particularly in light of Turkey's growing hostility and movement towards radical Muslim elements in the region.

Lebanon has expressed anger over Israel's drilling in wells that have, for the most part, produced abundant supplies of the precious resource off the northwestern coast of the Jewish State, contending the maritime boundaries of the field.Turkey has begun to hint it will do the same with Cyprus, which is participating with Israel in a similar exploration in the eastern Mediterranean between the island nation and the Jewish State. The island nation has been divided between Greek and Turkish ethnic boundaries since 1974, with Turkey taking over the northern part of the island.

Journalists Overhear Private Exchange Between Obama and Sarkozy, Report Says

Πηγή: NYT
By MARK LANDLER

Nov 7 2011

It marks another chapter in the close, if occasionally awkward, relationship between President Obama and President Nicolas Sarkozy of France. After the two leaders appeared together at a news conference during a G20 summit meeting in Cannes last Thursday, they retired to a room for what they thought was a private conversation.

Big mistake: According to a report posted Monday on the French Web site Arret sur Images, the exchange between Mr. Obama and Mr. Sarkozy was picked up by open microphones and overheard by half a dozen French journalists, who were still wearing headsets they had put on to hear simultaneous translation of Mr. Obama’s public remarks.

Mr. Obama, the Web site said, began by chiding Mr. Sarkozy for not warning him that France would vote to admit the Palestinians into UNESCO, a step the United States opposed. From there, the two men began discussing the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu.

“I cannot stand him,” Mr. Sarkozy was quoted as saying. “He is a liar.”

Mr. Obama is reported to have replied, “You’re fed up with him, but I have to deal with him every day!”

He then urged Mr. Sarkozy to try to persuade the Palestinian Authority to go easy in its campaign for membership in the United Nations.

The White House did not comment on the exchange, which the Web site said was not widely reported in France because the journalists who overheard it agreed to a request by Elysee Palace not to publish remarks that could embarrass the two leaders.

Iran warns US against collision

Πηγή: hindustantimes
By Nick Hopkins, Julian Borger & Ian Black, (The Guardian)

Nov 4 2011

Iran has warned the US not to set the two countries on a collision course over Tehran’s nuclear enrichment programme, as diplomatic tensions reflected growing concern that West Asia might be on the verge of new conflict.

The Iranian foreign minister, Ali Akbar Salehi, spoke amid reports that the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, has been trying to rally support within his country for an attack.

The Guardian revealed that the UK was advancing contingency plans for joining American forces in a possible air and sea campaign against military bases in Iran.

The revelations led to Nato insisting on Thursday that it would play no part in any military action, and provoked the rebuke from Salehi, who insisted that any attack by either Israel or the US would provoke immediate retaliation. He also accused Washington of recklessness.

“The US has unfortunately lost its wisdom and prudence in dealing with international issues,” he told reporters during a visit to Libya. “Of course we are prepared for the worst, but we hope that they think twice before they put themselves on a collision course with Iran.”

In a separate interview with a Turkish newspaper, Salehi claimed Tehran was ready for war with Israel. “We have been hearing threats from Israel for eight years. Our nation is a united nation … such threats are not new to us,” he said.

The International Atomic Energy Authority will next week deliver its latest bulletin on Iran’s nuclear programme and is expected to provide fresh evidence of covert plans to engineer warheads.

Nothing will satisfy Israel's social protest leaders

Πηγή: haaretz
By Nehemia Shtrasler

Nov 1 2011

If someone had told me two months ago that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was going to pass a cabinet resolution to increase income tax, increase corporate tax and impose higher capital gains tax, I would have laughed dismissively and said it was impossible.

After all, that's like an idol in the temple of Netanyahu. It's basically converting to a different religion, because Netanyahu's religion all these years has been lowering taxes. How could he suddenly support raising them?

But the leaders of this year's social protest are not impressed even by this surprising turnabout. Sure, they demanded that direct taxes be raised for those who could pay them and indirect taxes be lowered for the low and middle classes. But now that the Trajtenberg committee examining the country's cost of living has recommended just that and the cabinet adopted the proposal, the protesters are once again angry and dissatisfied. "It's nothing," they say.

The truth is that nothing will satisfy them. They fell in love with protest and got drunk on the power it gives them. Daphni Leef treats Netanyahu with overt contempt and gives him an ultimatum: "Bibi, this is the last time I'm going to you directly." Then she says: "We're great citizens, and all the prime ministers, ministers and [Bank of Israel] governors are scaredy-cats." If so, what do the great ones care what the scaredy-cat does?

In 2003, when Netanyahu was finance minister in the Sharon government, he initiated a process that included lowering taxes and reducing the budget in an effort to accelerate growth. In that program, marginal income tax was reduced from 51 percent to the current 45 percent, and corporate tax was reduced from 36 percent to the current 24 percent. These are some of the steps that extricated the economy from deep recession and put it on the path to rapid growth. As a result, unemployment dropped from 11 percent to 6 percent - clearly a victory for social welfare.

And now, within a scant 50 days since the Trajtenberg committee was formed, everything has been turned on its head. Instead of continuing to lower marginal income tax - say, a gradual decrease from 45 percent to 39 percent, as the prime minister had planned until two months ago - Netanyahu is increasing marginal income tax to 48 percent and is even imposing a 2 percent "rich tax" on anyone who earns more than NIS 83,000 a month. In other words, the marginal tax rate will rise to 50 percent for that bracket. Netanyahu is also raising corporate tax to 25 percent instead of continuing to lower it gradually to 18 percent, as he had planned until two months ago.

And if that's not enough, Netanyahu is also raising capital gains tax from dividends and the sale of stock and inflation-linked bonds from 20 percent to 25 percent. Controlling shareholders will pay even more: 30 percent of the dividends they receive. But for Leef and her friends, all that is nothing.

On the other side of the equation, the cabinet decided this week to lower a long list of indirect taxes in an effort to accede to the protesters' main demand: lowering the cost of living. This includes a cancellation of the planned 40-agorot increase in the excise tax on gasoline and giving fathers a two-point income tax deduction for every child under 3, meant to improve the income of young working parents. And then there's the main change: a gradual reduction of customs duties and sales tax on imported goods, meant to lower Israel's ridiculously high prices.

The high cost of living was the driving force behind the wave of social protest. It started with a protest against gas prices in January and expanded to a battle against overpriced cottage cheese. Only later did it expand to encompass housing and the country's overall social welfare policies. So we would do well to welcome the lowered customs duties on various manufactured goods, which will decrease gradually over four to six years until they are abolished, and to welcome the lowered sales tax on electronic goods.

Yes, the customs duties should have been canceled within a few months, not a few years, and the high customs duties on imported foods should also have been lowered. Still, a step is being taken in the right direction - a step that will lead to lower prices, increased consumer power and a greater supply of varied products.

But for the protest leaders, all this is nothing but sleight of hand. It's nothing much.