West Asia News and Discussions

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 17 Sep 2011 17:51

Yeah, the case is "very nearly cracked", but blasts will continue. This is not saffron terror, so the cases will be very very weak after "cracking". Moreover, since this is not directly connected to saffron, it is a much weaker and lesser threat. Which essentially means circling back to the next blast.

Any understanding with any ME gov that in actual implementation hurts flow of funds will stick? Any step that hurts nationally important secular portion of Kerala - sentiments - cannot be actually undertaken, can it?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 18 Sep 2011 17:06

Tw reports on the Palestinian anger at the US's po-Israel stand and are taking their recognition/statehood to the UN Gen. Assembly.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/se ... ty-council

Palestinian anger at US fuels diplomatic crisis over statehoodPresident Abbas takes case for UN recognition to the security council after negotiators say US response was 'final straw'

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 56505.html

Special report: Palestinian bid for statehood divides a people
And in taking his case to the UN, Abbas defies both the US and Israel
By Donald Macintyre in Nablus

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 18 Sep 2011 21:38

Source says the US opposition to the UN admission of Palestine is actually over domestic politics/elections. Democrats not doing well at all and lost a seat in NY?

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 18 Sep 2011 23:56

^^^
Dems lost a solid Democratic seat that they should have won. they've been wining that seat for decades now. it's a heavily Jewish populated district in NY that always voted Democratic but for first time in decades voted for Republicans....

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 20 Sep 2011 06:19

What Wikileaks Tells Us About Al Jazeera

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 20 Sep 2011 06:29

shyamd wrote: I find it quite hilarious that on the one hand she is saying that recognition at UN means nothing! Which is exactly right. So why get in the way? lol! Both sides will negotiate if it wants peace. Right now there is nothing on the table.
This UN vote won't change anything. It will actually make the Pali's feel better though, that they go in to speak with israel onan equal footing.

Only leaders like man Mohan Singh and intelligentia like JNu-wallahs want to give something to the opponent even before the talks start.

USA is making Palastine to earn every penny, every strand of grass. That is how it is done.

India need to learn a lot from these interactions. Magnanimity should be shown only after the enemy "completely" compromised and surrendered.

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 20 Sep 2011 08:39

Yemen protesters seize elite military base

(AP) SANAA, Yemen - Thousands of protesters backed by military defectors seized a base of the elite Republican Guards on Monday, weakening the control of Yemen's embattled president over this poor, fractured Arab nation. His forces fired on unarmed demonstrators elsewhere in the capital, killing scores, wounding hundreds and sparking international condemnation.
The protesters, joined by soldiers from the renegade 1st Armored Division, stormed the base without firing a single shot, according to witnesses and security officials. Some carried sticks and rocks. They used sandbags to erect barricades to protect their comrades from the possibility of weapons fire from inside the base, but none came and the Republican Guards eventually fled, leaving their weapons behind.

Although the base was not particularly large — the Republican Guards have bigger ones in the capital and elsewhere in Yemen — its capture buoyed the protesters' spirits and signaled what could be the start of the collapse of President Ali Abdullah Saleh's 33-year-old regime.

"It was unbelievable," said protester Ameen Ali Saleh of storming the base on the west side of the major al-Zubairy road, which runs through the heart of Sanaa. "We acted like it was us who had the weapons, not the soldiers."

"Now the remainder of the regime will finally crumble," said another demonstrator, Mohammed al-Wasaby. "Our will is more effective than weapons. The soldiers loyal to Saleh just ran away."

Saleh went to Saudi Arabia for medical treatment after a June attack on his Sanaa compound and has not returned to Yemen, but has resisted calls to resign.

A final showdown may well pit the Republican Guards, led by Saleh's son and heir apparent Ahmed, against the soldiers of the 1st Armored Division, another elite outfit that has fought in all of Yemen's wars over the past two decades, and their tribal allies in the capital.

The Republican Guards and the Special Forces, also led by the president's son, have long been thought to be the regime's last line of defense against the seven-month-old uprising.

The storming of the base capped two days of clashes in the capital that have left at least 50 people dead and nearly 1,000 injured, mostly demonstrators.

Government forces used snipers stationed on rooftops, anti-aircraft guns, rocket propelled grenades and mortars against the unarmed protesters. Witnesses and security officials described scenes of mutilated bodies, some torn apart. An infant girl, a 14-year-old boy and three rebel soldiers were among the at least 23 people killed on Monday.

"It is over," concluded protest leader Abdul-Hadi al-Azzai. "The Ali Abdullah Saleh regime is finished. How can you negotiate while massacres are ongoing? The world is silent."

The violence led authorities to close Sanaa's airport and order four flights to go instead to the southern port city of Aden, according to an airport official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the press.

But even Aden did not escape bloodshed. Three protesters were wounded in clashes with government forces, witnesses there said.

In the southern city of Taiz, at least four protesters were killed and 40 others were wounded Monday in clashes between anti-regime demonstrators and security forces, according to witnesses.

The latest violence was born partly out of frustration after Saleh shattered hopes raised by the U.S. last week that he was about to relinquish power. The United States once saw Saleh as a key ally in the battle against al Qaeda, but withdrew its support for him as the protests gained strength.

Much is at stake in Yemen for the United States, its Gulf Arab allies, particularly Saudi Arabia, and the West.

Yemen is close to the major oil fields of the Gulf region and overlooks key shipping lanes in the Red and Arabian seas. It is home to one of the world's most dangerous al Qaeda branches, whose militants have staged or inspired a series of attacks on U.S. territory. Already, the chaos in Yemen has allowed al Qaeda militants to capture and hold a string of towns in the nearly lawless south of the country.

Monday's events could significantly help the protesters' cause against the regime, but it is also likely to push Yemen toward civil war or to break up along tribal or regional lines.

The clashes coincided with a flurry of diplomatic activity designed to resolve the crisis.

U.N. envoy Gamal bin Omar and Abdullatif bin Rashid al-Zayani, secretary-general of a regional alliance that groups Yemen's six Gulf Arab neighbors, were in Yemen on Monday. Saleh and King Abdullah, the Saudi monarch, met in the Saudi capital of Riyadh.

"The situation is tense. It can't continue like this. This is a sign of deep crisis," bin Omar told The Associated Press.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon strongly condemned "the excessive use of force by government security forces against unarmed protesters" and called on all sides "to exercise utmost restraint and desist from provocative actions," U.N. spokesman Martin Nesirky said.

The U.S. Embassy said it regretted the bloodshed and called on all parties to "refrain from actions that provoke further violence."

"The United States believes that now is the time for an immediate, peaceful and orderly transition," Washington's envoy to the U.N. Human Rights Council, Eileen Chamberlain Donahoe, said in Geneva. Those responsible for abuses against civilians, she said, needed to be brought to justice as part of a reform process.

Yemen's foreign minister, Abubakr al-Qirbi, said the government was committed to political reforms, but rejected claims of excessive force by police and pro-government militia, accusing some opposition groups of terrorist activity.

Troops from the Republican Guards and the 1st Armored Division were engaged in skirmishes for most of Monday.

"I have been hearing heavy explosions and gunshots since morning," said Atiaf Alwazir, a 31-year-old blogger from Sanaa. Soldiers from the 1st Armored Division soldiers, she said, returned fire, giving pro-regime forces "an excuse to shoot at peaceful protesters."

The 1st Armored Division, along with its commander, mutinied and joined the protesters about six months ago. Its mutiny was followed by a series of high-profile defections that left the president largely isolated but did not weaken his resolve to stay in office.

Last Thursday, the U.S. State Department raised expectations by predicting Saleh would relinquish power within a week under a Gulf-mediated, U.S.-backed deal that would grant him immunity from prosecution in return for stepping down. But violence flared anew after Saleh said he had asked Vice President Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi to negotiate further.

Saleh has already backed away three times from signing the deal, and many believe this move is the latest of many delaying tactics.

His departure for Saudi Arabia in June left the country without an effective political leadership. Hadi took over the reins of power but his authority appeared to pale in comparison to that of the president's son, two powerful nephews as well as the tribal leaders who took the side of the protesters.

Here is what happened yesterday, leading upto this today:
Tensions escalated in Yemen capital, dozens killed

Over 26 protesters were killed and scores other wounded in confrontations between security forces and the anti regime protesters backed by the defected army soldiers and militias of the Islah Islamist party at the roundabout of Kentucky and al-Qa’a neighborhood on Sunday.

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 20 Sep 2011 13:02

Carl wrote:Yemen protesters seize elite military base
(AP) SANAA, Yemen - Thousands of protesters backed by military defectors seized a base of the elite Republican Guards on Monday, weakening the control of Yemen's embattled president over this poor, fractured Arab nation.
...

Over 26 protesters were killed and scores other wounded in confrontations between security forces and the anti regime protesters backed by the defected army soldiers and militias of the Islah Islamist party at the roundabout of Kentucky and al-Qa’a neighborhood on Sunday.

How is Yemen poor in spite of the fact that the oil is Islamic? How is no one talking about freedom of Yemenis, who are going all the way on their own alone here? What happened to U.N.?

abhischekcc · Post by **abhischekcc** » 20 Sep 2011 15:54

Yemen does not have much energy resources. It is the poorest state in the Arabian peninsula, so much so that the president over there encourages its citizens to ask Saudi king for financial support

Yemen is a strategic pivot in the Anti-jehadi game as well as the IOR/piracy game. It can be used to bottle up the red sea shipping, effectively killing Asian-European trade. It is close to Somalia, and hence is crucial in keeping alive the illegal trade between the pirates over the and legitimate global economy. Moreover, it is the birth place of the bin Laden clan, and is a hot bed of Islamic militancy in its own right.

Most importantly, it is the most unstable country in the peninsula where the fortunes of all the countries effects the stability of the Saudi regime. In other words, it is the soft underbelly of the Saudi kingdom.

Do not underestimate the importance of this poor country to the global economy.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 20 Sep 2011 23:23

RamaY wrote: Only leaders like man Mohan Singh and intelligentia like JNu-wallahs want to give something to the opponent even before the talks start.

USA is making Palastine to earn every penny, every strand of grass. That is how it is done.

India need to learn a lot from these interactions. Magnanimity should be shown only after the enemy "completely" compromised and surrendered.

Aahh... ideology over fact.

Obama was telling everyone in camera that there will be a Palestine in the UN next year (i.e. this year). Fast forward today - why the change? Why did Israel not say anything when the plan was proposed? Its because Israel knows it doesn't matter and its been on the table for over a year. It was only after the US turned their backs against it (after seeing that the Democrats were losing the jewish vote) - oh wait isn't this vote bank politics?

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 20 Sep 2011 23:25

Show me one international treaty based on magnanimity.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 20 Sep 2011 23:33

Lol... you don't get it... this has nothing to do with magnanimity. Its as simple as that.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 20 Sep 2011 23:55

The Jewish vote hypothesis is a dead goat being beaten again. Yes, yes, there are those around the Haaretz propaganda line - and others on the opposite side - who make this a big issue. I thought the total share of Jewish vote was estimated to be between 3-4% of the total electorate, and they do not show signs of block voting. In some states, on some occasions, their total strength could be of the order of the differences in exceptionally matched close ties/margins.

Just one replacement Rep elected in one constituency that already had a "Rep", would send shivers down Obama spine? What if even the in-camera statements were not sincere - and there was no deviation at all from the inner commitment!

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 21 Sep 2011 10:13

Turki al Faisal Interview (video)

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 21 Sep 2011 18:28

There is much flux in the Arab/Muslim world.Erdogan and Turkey see that the vacuum created by the downfall of both Mubarak and Gadhaffi has given it a great opportunity to revive Ottoman ambitions and past glory.Let's not forget that the Tuirkish empire ruled for centuries a large area of the region.As an above post put it well,Israel now has a potential three-front situ toi deal with.Turks,Arabs and Persians too! Both Sunnis and Shiites are striving to gain influence in the region in the aftermath of the Arab Spring and fundamentalist forces are bound to gain strength if the restoration of normal civilian life is delayed indefinitely as it has happened in the afternmath of the Iraq invasion years on!

The Palestinian quest for the Holy Grail of a fuctioning independent state is not yet within reach,but the door to the "chamber" has opened if but fleetingly.If they are able to swing a UN vote in their favour,it will be a huge moral victory over both Israel and the US,strangely reminiscient of that historic vote during the last century which brought the state of Israel into being.At that time it was the British who were firmly against the vote in favour of Jewish state.It is now the US who will use its veto against the Palestinians despite Obama saying the very opposite last year when he spoke out in favour of a Palestinian state!

The Israeli govt. of Bibi N. needs to step back and take a hard look at its unilateral policies.It should at this time swallow some pride and try and unite the various political factions and forces and make adjustments so that the country speaks with one voice.This needs to be done whatever happens as any final settlement with the Palestinians will require a majority vote in Israel perhaps at a referendum.The frustrations of the Arab street for swift change in their own systems,are nowhere on the horizon and are unfortunately now being directed against Israel,an opportune target for their combined frustrations and the ambitions of some nations like the Turks who wish to expand their spheres of influence.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 21 Sep 2011 19:28

Bji, The elected was a Republican in a long standing Democratic seat. So it shows abandonment of traditional voter base.

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 21 Sep 2011 23:35

Philip wrote:The Israeli govt. of Bibi N. needs to step back and take a hard look at its unilateral policies.It should at this time swallow some pride and try and unite the various political factions and forces and make adjustments so that the country speaks with one voice.This needs to be done whatever happens as any final settlement with the Palestinians will require a majority vote in Israel perhaps at a referendum.The frustrations of the Arab street for swift change in their own systems,are nowhere on the horizon and are unfortunately now being directed against Israel,an opportune target for their combined frustrations and the ambitions of some nations like the Turks who wish to expand their spheres of influence.

Why should only Israel be blamed for everything?

Don't Indians have to talk to N parties in paki for everything? What is the problem?

When it comes to Israel, Arabs want everything on platter. It is upto Arabs to satisfy different N parties in Israel or deal with whatever.

Mukesh.Kumar · Post by **Mukesh.Kumar** » 22 Sep 2011 01:30

Shyamd check e-chitthi

Hitesh · Post by **Hitesh** » 22 Sep 2011 02:53

The Palestinians are not Pakistanis and the Pakistanis are not Palestinians. Don't equate Palestine with Pakistan or Kashmir. The situation is far different from Kashmir and Pakistani terrorism. West Bank does not belong to Israel, period. It was never theirs to begin with, whereas Kashmir belonged to India right from the outset. Israel accepted West Bank belonging to a different entity and realized that it had no claim on West Bank for the first 20 years of its existence. It conquered West Bank and annexed it in a force of aggression in a war that Israel started. Don't believe the hype that Egypt or Syria was gonna attack first. It was posturing. Yes posturing but no means of an attack.

If we were gonna accept Israel's position, it meant that we should have kept Bangladesh and annex it to the detriment of its 100 million Muslims. India wisely decided not to go on that track and avoided a West Bank imbroglio that Israel finds itself in right now and unwilling to extricate itself out.

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 22 Sep 2011 08:27

brihaspati ji,

I wasn't generalizing on national trends of how Jews vote in US. I haven't looked into it. but I know that it is a very small portion of the population compared to the 320 million total population....so no, I don't believe in the CT's that Jews have massive effect on American politics.

I was specifically referring to that district which has "always" been Dem.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 22 Sep 2011 10:23

Why Obama's U.N. Speech Won't Raise U.S. Credibility in the Middle East

In a U.N. General Assembly address to which the world looked for a meaningful response on the stalled Israeli-Palestinian peace process, President Barack Obama delivered a pretty good domestic reelection campaign speech. Pro-Israel voters and donors in the U.S. will have been reassured by the President's passionate assertion of Israel's security needs, based on the real and bitter history of Jewish suffering, which he warned that the Palestinians and their friends ignore at their peril. And they will have appreciated Obama's echoing Israel's mantras about bilateral negotiations being the only route to peace.

But for the Palestinians and much of the wider international community, the things Obama left unsaid that will have reinforced a growing sense that U.S. domestic politics restrains Washington from playing the honest broker role it has claimed as its exclusive preserve since the Oslo agreements 18 years ago.

It was telling that Israel's far-right foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman said afterwards, "I congratulate President Obama. I am ready to sign on this speech with both hands," hailing the Obama's omission of issues such as settlements and the 1967 borders. Lieberman, of course, fiercely rejects the international consensus on parameters for a two-state solution. If Lieberman was happy with the speech, it's a safe bet that most of the Arab public was not.

Wednesday's U.N. address was a sharp contrast to the Cairo speech Obama made in 2009, where he had discussed both Israel's legitimate security fears and its creation as a response to a history of Jewish suffering as well as the dispossession of the Palestinians and the humiliation of living under Israeli occupation.

"The Jewish people have forged a successful state in their historic homeland," Obama said Wednesday. "Israel deserves recognition. It deserves normal relations with its neighbors. And friends of the Palestinians do them no favors by ignoring this truth, just as friends of Israel must recognize the need to pursue a two state solution with a secure Israel next to an independent Palestine."

The Cairo speech had noted that Israel's creation had displaced the Palestinians, and that peace required redress for their six decades of suffering. But in his U.N. address, Obama spoke only of Jewish suffering and Israeli security concerns, with not a word about the occupation, or about the settlements whose continuing expansion even Obama himself had tried and failed to stop. And the Arab countries have long made clear, in the 2002 Arab Peace Plan often cited by the U.S., that the price of normalization is Israel's agreement to a solution based on the 1967 borders.

Adopting a tone of scolding exasperation, Obama said that while the U.S. believes the Palestinians deserve a state of their own, that can't be achieved through U.N. action or imposed from outside.

"I know that many are frustrated by the lack of progress. So am I. But the question isn't the goal we seek – the question is how to reach it," Obama said. "Ultimately, it is Israelis and Palestinians – not us – who must reach agreement on the issues that divide them: on borders and security; on refugees and Jerusalem."

But the reason the issue is on the U.N.'s agenda at all, he seemed to tacitly acknowledge, is that "the two sides have not bridged their differences" on those key issues.

"Faced with this stalemate, I put forward a new basis for negotiations in May," Obama said. "That basis is clear, and well known to all of us here. Israelis must know that any agreement provides assurances for their security. Palestinians deserve to know the territorial basis of their state."

Snip....

Snip....

Perhaps aware that his message on Israel and the Palestinians -- no matter how popular at home -- was not going to win him many fans in the Arab world (where his approval rating is currently around 10%), Obama seemed more comfortable hailing the Arab spring and U.S. support for rebellions in Libya and Syria. The problem there, of course, is that focusing on the Arab Spring simply highlights what many will see as a double standard: Hailing the courage of ordinary men and women in Egypt, Syria and Libya standing up to demand universal human rights invites the question of the rights of Palestinians or Bahrainis to do the same.

Obama, in fact, seemed all too aware of the metric by which his -- and America's -- credibility in the Middle East will be judged. "I know that for many in this hall, one issue stands as a test for these principles – and for American foreign policy: the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians." And his speech is unlikely to have convinced many in that audience to give him a passing grade.

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 22 Sep 2011 13:04

Hitesh wrote:The Palestinians are not Pakistanis and the Pakistanis are not Palestinians. Don't equate Palestine with Pakistan or Kashmir. The situation is far different from Kashmir and Pakistani terrorism. West Bank does not belong to Israel, period. It was never theirs to begin with, whereas Kashmir belonged to India right from the outset. Israel accepted West Bank belonging to a different entity and realized that it had no claim on West Bank for the first 20 years of its existence. It conquered West Bank and annexed it in a force of aggression in a war that Israel started. Don't believe the hype that Egypt or Syria was gonna attack first. It was posturing. Yes posturing but no means of an attack.

If we were gonna accept Israel's position, it meant that we should have kept Bangladesh and annex it to the detriment of its 100 million Muslims. India wisely decided not to go on that track and avoided a West Bank imbroglio that Israel finds itself in right now and unwilling to extricate itself out.

Will these Arab nations cease to trouble Israel? I mean stop trade routes etc?
If tomorrow there is a skirmish, and Israel loses say 5 sq. km. of land, will Arabs give the land back to Israel?

The West Bank imbroglio is not something that Israel 'finds itself'. It is made against Israel.

To take Arabs as == to Israel is to the detriment to Israel, especially when Israel does not want to finish off Arabs for good.

To take Israel's non-aggressive posture of no-rights on Arab lands and at the same time take Arab aggression on Israel for granted is not too correct. Jews won't appreciate this. Once these things are taken for granted, only then the current Israel situation looks aggressive.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 22 Sep 2011 14:08

Tx.Hitesh.Well put.Israel has acknowledged that thre West Bank does not belong to it but wants secure boundaries/borders and adjustments made to former boundaries.It is Jordan who owned the West Bank and who have graciously acepted it as a future homeland for the Palestinians who have been also living in Palestine-the former name of the entire region before the state of Israel was formed.

Various peace talks,agreements between the two have enunciated the fact that a separate state for the Palestinians MUST be created for a lasting perace and Obama himself at last year's UN session was openly for it! One year later,he changes his mind because he wants to get re-elected and needs the Jewish vote!

One is not advocating the demand from Israel's extremist enemies that the Israeli state should be "thrown into the sea" as Hamas and the Hiz preach,but what is there to offfer the moderates in the Palestinian camp which they will accept? Creeping settlements eating into already shrinking Arab land ? A moth-eaten Pak what Jinnah described is nothing when compared to the isolated patches of desert linked to each other by heavily military-monitored corridors.Gaza is a Palestinian ghetto which survives because of the smuggling tunnels into Egypt.In such a fragmented state,a "peace" between the two is frankly impossible and sadly for Israel it is rapidly losing friends like Egypt and Turkey.Friends of Israel are very worried that the Palestinian quest for UN statehood will gather huge momentum and coupled with the "Arab Spring" have disastrous consequences for Israel diplomatically and on the ground.

There is a ferocious debate within Israel itself on the issue and many feel that the govt. of Bibi N. is too hardline and could bring disaster upon the Israeli state.Here is one article wiht the criticism of the current regime from the ex-Mossad Chief,MNeir dagan,which gives us an inside picture of the complexities of the situ.

http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showt ... or-Pinhead

The former head of Mossad has been challenging the current Israeli government publicly about several things, and he has garnered a lot of reaction world-wide.
Among other things, he criticizes Netanyahu for having no real peace agenda of his own and letting a dangerous dynamic take hold that will worsen Israel’s position, for not responding to and trying to work with the Saudi “peace plan” and for strategic incompetence when dealing with the Iranian threat.
This raises several issues, including these three:
First, it puts the lie to the canard that there is no internal debate in Israel and that senior members have no peaceful intentions, because clearly the head of Mossad, typically branded as an Elder of Zion level warmonger, has real peace on his mind and isn’t shy about his views and disagreements about being more aggressive in pursuing peace..
Second, it raises the issue, long disputed among supporters of Israel as whether it is a good idea to voice criticisms of Israeli policies in public where antisemites and antiisraelis can take those criticisms out of context to delegitimize Israel
And third, it brings Netanyahu’s policies and competence into question since the head of the Mossad’s competence is taken for granted.

Different media reported this differently, according to their bias, but I’ll show the one from The new York Times:

A Former Spy Chief Questions the Judgment of Israeli Leaders
By ETHAN BRONNER
Published: June 3, 2011

JERUSALEM — The man who ran Israel’s Mossad spy agency until January contends that Israel’s top leaders lack judgment and that the anticipated pressures of international isolation as the Palestinians campaign for statehood could lead to rash decisions — like an airstrike on Iran.
The former intelligence chief, Meir Dagan, who stepped down after eight years in the post, has made several unusual public appearances and statements in recent weeks. He made headlines a few weeks ago when he asserted at a Hebrew University conference that a military attack on Iran would be “a stupid idea.”
This week Mr. Dagan, speaking at Tel Aviv University, said that attacking Iran “would mean regional war, and in that case you would have given Iran the best possible reason to continue the nuclear program.” He added, “The regional challenge that Israel would face would be impossible.”
Mr. Dagan went on to complain that Israel had failed to put forward a peace initiative with the Palestinians and that it had foolishly ignored the Saudi peace initiative promising full diplomatic relations in exchange for a return to the 1967 border lines. He worried that Israel would soon be pushed into a corner.
On Thursday he got more specific, naming Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak, but this time through a leaked statement to journalists. The statement had to do with his belief that his retirement and the retirement of other top security chiefs had taken away a necessary alternative voice in decision making.
In recent months, the military chief of staff, Gabi Ashkenazi, and the director of the Shin Bet internal security agency, Yuval Diskin, have also stepped down. Mr. Dagan was quoted in several newspapers as saying that the three of them had served as a counterweight to Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Barak.
“I decided to speak out because when I was in office, Diskin, Ashkenazi and I could block any dangerous adventure,” he was quoted as saying. “Now I am afraid that there is no one to stop Bibi and Barak,” he added, using Mr. Netanyahu’s nickname.
Journalists recalled that Mr. Dagan, who had refused contact with the media during his time in office, called a news briefing the last week of his tenure and laid out his concerns about an attack on Iran. But military censorship prevented his words from being reported.
“Dagan wanted to send a message to the Israeli public, but the censors stopped him,” Ronen Bergman of the newspaper Yediot Aharonot said by telephone. “So now that he is out of office he is going over the heads of the censors by speaking publicly.”
Mr. Dagan’s public and critical comments, at the age of 66 and after a long and widely admired career, have shaken the political establishment. The prime minister’s office declined requests for a response, although ministers have attacked Mr. Dagan. He has also found an echo among the nation’s commentators who have been ringing similar alarms.
“It’s not the Iranians or the Palestinians who are keeping Dagan awake at night but Israel’s leadership,” Ari Shavit asserted on the front page of the newspaper Haaretz on Friday.
“He does not trust the judgment of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak.”
It was Mr. Shavit who interviewed Mr. Dagan on stage at Tel Aviv University this week. And while Haaretz is the home of the country’s left wing, Mr. Shavit is more of a centrist.
“Dagan is really worried about September,” Mr. Shavit said in a telephone interview, referring to the month when the Palestinians are expected to ask the United Nations General Assembly to recognize their state within the 1967 border lines. The resolution is expected to pass and to bring new forms of international pressure on Israel. “He is afraid that Israel’s isolation will cause its leaders to take reckless action against Iran,” he said.
Nahum Barnea, a commentator for Yediot Aharonot, wrote on Friday that Mr. Dagan was not alone. Naming the other retired security chiefs and adding Amos Yadlin, who recently retired as chief of military intelligence, Mr. Barnea said that they shared Mr. Dagan’s criticism.
“This is not a military junta that has conspired against the elected leadership,” Mr. Barnea wrote. “These are people who, through their positions, were exposed to the state’s most closely guarded secrets and participated in the most intimate discussions with the prime minister and the defense minister. It is not so much that their opinion is important as civilians; their testimony is important as people who were there. And their testimony is troubling.”
This concern was backed by a former Mossad official, Gad Shimron, who spoke Friday on Israel Radio.
Mr. Shimron said: “I want everyone to pay attention to the fact that the three tribal elders, Ashkenazi, Diskin and Dagan, within a very short time, are all telling the people of Israel: take note, something is going on that we couldn’t talk about until now, and now we are talking about it. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark, and that is the decision-making process. The leadership makes fiery statements, we stepped on the brakes, we are no longer there and we don’t know what will happen. And that’s why we are saying this aloud.”
Neither Mr. Ashkenazi nor Mr. Diskin has made any public statements, and one high-level military official said he did not believe that they shared Mr. Dagan’s views.
While in office, Mr. Dagan served three prime ministers, was reappointed twice and oversaw a number of reported operations that Israelis consider great successes — forcing delays in Iran’s nuclear program through sabotaging its computers and assassinating scientists; setting the groundwork for an attack on a nuclear reactor in Syria in 2007; and assassinating Imad Mughniyeh, a top Lebanese Hezbollah operative, in 2008.
When Ariel Sharon, the prime minister in 2002, appointed Mr. Dagan, he was reported to have told him he wanted “a Mossad with a knife between its teeth.” Mr. Dagan is widely thought to have complied and is not seen as a soft-hearted liberal.
Although Mr. Dagan is barred by law from elected office for three years, some suspect that he is laying the foundation for a political career. Others, like Yossi Peled, a government minister from the Likud party and a former military commander, think he is doing more harm than good.
“It damages state security,” Mr. Peled said on Israel Radio. “There is no need to give the other side directions of thought, activity or readiness. I am sure he is very worried and is acting out of good intentions, but I still think there are things that shouldn’t be declared in public.”

I do agree with many of his criticisms, and I think it was appropriate for him to go public given the dangerous course O’bama has set in motion that has strengthened Netanyahu and promoted even more intransigence, on both sides. I think this may be constructive, as long as his criticisms aren’t distorted in an unproductive fashion or used for propaganda, as opposed to furthering progress for peace, as the media and the enemies of Israel ( and some Israeli supporters) have a tendency to do.

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 22 Sep 2011 14:25

Philip wrote:Tx.Hitesh.Well put.Israel has acknowledged that thre West Bank does not belong to it but wants secure boundaries/borders and adjustments made to former boundaries.It is Jordan who owned the West Bank and who have graciously acepted it as a future homeland for the Palestinians who have been also living in Palestine-the former name of the entire region before the state of Israel was formed.

Various peace talks,agreements between the two have enunciated the fact that a separate state for the Palestinians MUST be created for a lasting perace and Obama himself at last year's UN session was openly for it! One year later,he changes his mind because he wants to get re-elected and needs the Jewish vote!

One is not advocating the demand from Israel's extremist enemies that the Israeli state should be "thrown into the sea" as Hamas and the Hiz preach,but what is there to offfer the moderates in the Palestinian camp which they will accept? Creeping settlements eating into already shrinking Arab land ? A moth-eaten Pak what Jinnah described is nothing when compared to the isolated patches of desert linked to each other by heavily military-monitored corridors.Gaza is a Palestinian ghetto which survives because of the smuggling tunnels into Egypt.In such a fragmented state,a "peace" between the two is frankly impossible and sadly for Israel it is rapidly losing friends like Egypt and Turkey.Friends of Israel are very worried that the Palestinian quest for UN statehood will gather huge momentum and coupled with the "Arab Spring" have disastrous consequences for Israel diplomatically and on the ground.

The blame lies on the doors of psuedo-peacemongers too.

Can these peacemongers guarantee that after palestine is formed, no one will trouble Israel? Can these peacemongers guarantee that Palestine won't turn into another Pakistan?
Why has these peacemongers waited till now for peace? There are no excuses for extremists taking over palestine, not even restrictions from Israel.
Can the peacemongers guarantee lasting peace and cultivating mutual trade, etc. in the region?

Without all these clearly well-defined and backed by sovereign guarantees, it is not called secularism or peacemongering. It is called Dhimmitude and throwing Jews to pack of wolves. And these pseudos will be the first to blame Israel even then and run for life as upholding peace for Jews is not too clear to these people now even.

I don't think that without Sovereign guarantees for Israel, this can be treated as civilized at all. What is then to discuss if it is not civilized?

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 22 Sep 2011 15:57

Any Arabic country, Turkey, Iran or some other Muslim country can make space for the few million Palestinians. Israelis came from elsewhere to Israel, same way Palestinians could theoretically move elsewhere. Gaza does need to be a congested area. West Bank needs not to be a fragmented area.

But it is an issue of homeland. Palestinians see the area as their homeland and do not want to move away. So if the Palestinians are made to suffer curfews, lack of basic amenities, etc. is because of their decision to stay in the area. It is their Homeland. But the hardships are their choice.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 22 Sep 2011 16:34

Any Arabic country, Turkey, Iran or some other Muslim country can make space for the few million Palestinians. Israelis came from elsewhere to Israel, same way Palestinians could theoretically move elsewhere.

Jordan

reason jordan never existed - it was created to give the defeated side in the battle for the kingdom of arabia a place to live.

Most of Jordan is already Palestinian

merge the WB with Jordan and kick out the hussein donkey

(although by marrying he is already ensuring a half palestinian blood line)

at the same time I hold no sympathy for the idiot settlers - they are the worst kind of leeches a state can have and they barely believe in the state.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 22 Sep 2011 16:40

Hitesh wrote:The Palestinians are not Pakistanis and the Pakistanis are not Palestinians. Don't equate Palestine with Pakistan or Kashmir. The situation is far different from Kashmir and Pakistani terrorism. West Bank does not belong to Israel, period. It was never theirs to begin with, whereas Kashmir belonged to India right from the outset. Israel accepted West Bank belonging to a different entity and realized that it had no claim on West Bank for the first 20 years of its existence. It conquered West Bank and annexed it in a force of aggression in a war that Israel started. Don't believe the hype that Egypt or Syria was gonna attack first. It was posturing. Yes posturing but no means of an attack.

If we were gonna accept Israel's position, it meant that we should have kept Bangladesh and annex it to the detriment of its 100 million Muslims. India wisely decided not to go on that track and avoided a West Bank imbroglio that Israel finds itself in right now and unwilling to extricate itself out.

Isnt it all contradictory? If Palestinians are unique and not relevant for subcontinental comparisons - why do you have to illustrate Israel's position with the issue of Bangladesh? At that time when the issue was relevant - it was not yet Bangladesh - but East Pakistan, and formally a province of Pakistan.

But you give it away - don't you, that subconsciously what is common is the "detriment of Muslims" argument? That "Muslim" bit is the common bit - the most important bit - that underlies thise overwhelming urge to provide another Islamic base in the ME?

It is not here to discuss the issue of BD - but since the comparisons have already been made, getting a free BD - simply provided an alternative face to Islamism on the subcontinent, where it can hide out and survive any storm that unleashes on Pakistan. As it has proved - BD society remains almost equally divided between two factions of Islamists one of which pretends to be more tolerant of the kaffir than the other - all the while the proportion of kaffir is steadily lowered in the population through continuing systematic genocide and conditions for expulsion. It is India helping to establish one faction of Islamists against another - but none actually abandoning the common Islamic agenda of ethnic cleanisng, land and women grabbing. Islamist consolidation has not been damaged and their "right" wing is getting steadily powerful. This is the immnsely friendly state we have created - that maintains parallel connections with China and the western world against Indian interests, and whose politicians openly now gloat in their projected ambitions of promoting more separatism in Indian NE as it would be in BD interests.

This is the pattern whenever, whereevr you allow the mullahcracy to survive and obtain an independent world-body recognized "state" - it will always, always be used for furthering Islamist agenda, Islamist ambition, and Islamist expansion. There will be no exception about West Bank.

By the way - contrary to the claims made here - historically, original "Palestine" was a small coastal strip and not the entire current Levant. It was a Roman colony and given this name by the Romans. Moreover, there are now good historical reasons to believe that Palestinians could be themselves descendants of colonizers from further west in the Med - who perhaps also indulged in langrabbing activities once their island domains were disturbed. There are no Bhumiputras thereon either side.

What matters for us Indians, is what is in our interest there. That interest is not served by another Islamist base, with Hamas and Hez intact, and now having international legal rights to build up their military capacity - and seek protection of interested parties in their Israel-cleansing long term project. Once Israel is gone, all that Jihadi testosterone will look for another already sympathetic Islamophile patch - the elite sections of India who fawn about the "deteriment" to "Muslim interests".

Throughout its history, Islamism has always carefully pretended neutrality or non-aggression with factions of kaffir to take out their enemies one by one. It has never, ever, made an exception in turning viciously around on ex-friends or pretended good-relations kaffirs, once it felt the opportune moment had arrived. This has been the xperience of the Jews -from the founding fathers of Islam. Therir political military strategy is based on a continuum of deception - and the Jews know that very well.

Some of the Jews suffer from the same disease that some Indian elite suffer - they have been pumped up to believe in the super-ominscience of their own intellectual capabilities, and then carefully fed the virus of self-appointed conscience keepers of the world. They now think of "natural justice" forgetting that this particular "natural justice" will lead to protection and further leigitimization of the Islamist project - and even if they themselves escape by converting - they carry the guilt of facilitating jihad on countless others.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 22 Sep 2011 16:42

Israel did not exist for a long time - true - but so did not Jordan, or Iraq, or Saudi Arabia - they were all created essentially within 30 years of the period prior to Israel's formation. For that matter no separate Palestinian state existed either.

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 22 Sep 2011 18:46

Iran calls out Turkey:

Iran says Turkey must adopt more responsible approach on Syria

TEHRAN (ISNA)-Iranian Parliament Speaker Ali Larijani called for Turkey on Monday to follow a more responsible behavior about Syria.

"Abdullah Gul and Turkey are our friends, but Turkish officials need to adopt more responsible approach on Syria," he told a press conference.

"We expect Turkey as a key regional country to act more responsible on Syrian issue. Some Turkish officials' behaviors on Syria are questionable. Turkish officials should act in a way which convinces Muslim states."

Also regarding regional developments, he said, "Regional revolutions were a response to measures aimed at humiliating Muslims."

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 22 Sep 2011 20:33

The survival of Israel is an absolute.It is a legally established democratic state in a region of mostly despots and Islamist fundoos.This is a matter of principle and not subjective .The same holds good for Taiwan too! Nevertheless,the longer is delayed the festering issue of a homeland for the stateless Palestinians ,who are also long-time natives in the same region,which should be one that is "sustainable" as a stable political and economic entity ,the wave of "eviltude" as Dubya Bush put it,will be upon us.It is in the interests of both the Israelis and their chief patron,the US,to resolve the issue speedily before the region gets completely out of hand, as these days,the writ of the US is getting weaker by the day.Afghanistan,Iraq,Pakistan,are getting to be even worse off than before the US/NATO's involvement and the US's growing weakness in resolving political disputes through its military force is encouraging extremists globally.The turmoil in the Arab world encompassing Israel is detablising the entire region,as there appears to be no clear leadership in the states whose dictators and despots have been overthrown and are extremely unstable at the moment,ripe for Islamist fundamentalists to exploit.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 22 Sep 2011 20:51

Philip, Westhpalian construct of nation state is failing here when it comes with non-Western states.

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 22 Sep 2011 20:59

Update on Yemen situ:
Anti-government forces are in control of the North and the West of Sana'a, while Saleh forces are only really in control of a small area in the South of the town, although they are present in the old city aswell. With opposition advance into Hadda district they are now right on the doorstep of the regime's last stronghold. Also as explained in the article below, they have now effictively cut the government forces in the old city off from the forces in the south of the city.

Pro-Saleh forces remain in control of all checkpoints surrounding the town (thus in control of all entrances to the town), however anti-regime tribes are in control of most of the territory surrounding the town.

Saleh is going down.

Sana’a: a Capital Divided by War

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 22 Sep 2011 22:33

Saleh was long gone. Key for everyone is the preservation of the same system to prevent a revolution. The problem is that the youth are being idealistic, its also a inter Al ahmar tribe issue. The population are watching Syria constantly and trying to do the same thing.

-------------
On Israel. There is no doubt that Israel MUST exist and it is absolutely in our interests to maintain their survival. We continue to build strong relations both economic and military. We have several mutually benefitial projects that will not only protect Indians but also Israeli's.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 23 Sep 2011 18:49

Ramanna,"comes into contact" with....?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 23 Sep 2011 20:49

You are right. When it comes into contact with non Western states.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 23 Sep 2011 22:38

Bill Clinton: Netanyahu killed the peace process

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 24 Sep 2011 19:05

What the PRC is telling the Israeli's.
'China will not stop Israel if it decides to attack Iran'

Chinese scholar says his government assumes Tehran is seeking nuclear weapons and considers this to be contrary to Beijing's interests, but China also needs oil, so its primary concern is Middle East stability.
By Yossi Melman
"Of course we understand that Iran aims to acquire nuclear weapons and we are concerned about this," said Prof. Yin Gang. "While it declares that its nuclear program is intended for peaceful purposes, the Chinese government and intelligence services believe that Iran wants to build a nuclear bomb." This clear statement was made by an independent Chinese expert on the Middle East who recently visited Israel at the invitation of Signal, an organization that furthers academic ties between Israel and China.

Gang, who was here to participate in a symposium at the Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya, is a professor at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. He defines himself as an independent scholar who is not affiliated with the Chinese Communist Party or the government, and his knowledge of Iran also stems from visits there. His insights offer a glimpse into Chinese foreign policy and its apparent contradictions, which Israel sometimes has difficulty understanding.

Like Russia, China has refused to join the United States and other Western countries in imposing new, tighter sanctions on Iran in response to the latter's refusal to obey UN Security Council resolutions demanding that it cease uranium enrichment. But on the other hand, China did vote for weaker sanctions against the ayatollahs' regime. China purchases oil from Iran, but has refused to build nuclear reactors there or sell it equipment for its nuclear program.

Nevertheless, Ying views China's policy on the Middle East in general, and Iran in particular, as clear and consistent. "It is a policy based on our philosophy of refraining from taking sides in conflicts," he said. "We try to remain neutral in the Middle East conflict. In the past, during the Cold War, we sided with the Arabs against Israel. But this has changed. Today we see ourselves as friends of Israel, and at the same time we attempt to maintain friendly relations with all countries. We are friends of Israel and the Turks and the Iranians and the Arabs."

In his estimation, "China cannot do much to influence developments in the region. We do not export revolution and we do not support democratic movements. We need oil for our economy, and for that we need a stable Middle East. Only when there is peace will oil flow."

A canceled sale

To prove his claim that China acts responsibly in the international arena, he cited the way relations between China and Iran have developed over the years. In 1993, the two countries signed an agreement under which China would sell Iran two relatively small nuclear reactors for producing electricity. But two years later, Russia offered it a larger reactor, whose construction in Bushehr has just been completed and is now being connected to Iran's national grid.

"Only then, in 1995, did America and Israel begin to understand that Iran's nuclear program would also allow it to produce nuclear weapons," Yin said. "Washington exerted heavy pressure on us, and we decided to cancel all our nuclear agreements with Iran. The Iranians were angry and imposed various embargoes on us, accusing us of caving in to American and Zionist pressure."

Ever since, he said, China has been working methodically to convince Iran to cooperate with the international community, demonstrate goodwill and prove that its nuclear program is really intended for peaceful purposes rather than to produce nuclear weapons. For this reason, China also supported Security Council decisions to sanction Iran. "It is not in China's interest for Iran to have nuclear weapons," he emphasized.

Now and then, there are reports of Chinese companies aiding Iran's nuclear effort.

"These are private rather than government firms. Whenever there are cases of illegal trade that violates international decisions, the government of China investigates. Perhaps this is not widely known, but in 2006, in the wake of a UN Security Council resolution, we stopped selling all weapons to Iran."

But you are not willing to be more aggressive to prevent them from reaching their goal - the acquisition of nuclear weapons.

"We definitely want to stop them. In our estimation, Iran has not yet made a final decision. They have the desire to obtain nuclear weapons, but they have not yet made a final decision on it.

"I recently met with the Iranian ambassador in Beijing and told him, 'You have missed the opportunity to produce nuclear weapons. If you build one now, you will have to fight the United States, Israel, the West and the Arab states, too.'

"I suggested taking Japan's route. Japan is a nuclear power. It has nuclear reactors and immense amounts of stockpiled plutonium and enriched uranium, but it has decided not to build nuclear weapons. Of course, it has the option to do so. If Japan wants to, it can build nuclear weapons within a very short time."

How did he respond?

"He simply listened and did not respond."

To underscore China's unique diplomatic policy, Yin made the following surprising statement: "China is opposed to any military action against Iran that would damage regional stability and interfere with the flow of oil. But China will not stop Israel if it decides to attack Iran. For all these reasons, Israel and the Middle East need a country like China. Israel needs China's power."

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 24 Sep 2011 19:41

This is a superb example of the great duplicity and utter self-interests of the "Middle Kingdom".The PRC know that the route to Middle Eastern oil wealth is through the states of the region.it is why it chose the Saudis with Paki help to deliver ballistic missiles in secret-to be fitted when the moment comes,with Paki made N-warheads.Iran and not Israel is the target.Shiite Iran,the great danger to the Saudi monopoly of Islam's holy sites and de-facto leadership of the Muslim (Sunni ) world by virtue of possession of the "two-holy places".

China will swoop into the region militarily,through Pak by land,when chaos occurs to "Protect" its oil supplies.It has built the railway into Tibet,a six-lane highway throughout the land and into Pak with the Karakorum Highway.It wants to extend the rail and road route all the way to Baluchistan,to the border of Iran.Ir aso hedges its bets by also supplying Iran with conventionala rms,playing both sides like a good vulture/dragon.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 24 Sep 2011 19:49

ramana wrote:You are right. When it comes into contact with non Western states.

ramana ji,

The failure, if any, is more function of an inability of the "non western" society to accept the supremacy of the state. Rather then a conceptual weakness of the Westphalian state it self.

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 25 Sep 2011 01:19

shyamd wrote:What the PRC is telling the Israeli's.
'China will not stop Israel if it decides to attack Iran'

I think the substance of the Chinese analyst's speech is not as unambiguous as the title. The article's last para says:

To underscore China's unique diplomatic policy, Yin made the following surprising statement: "China is opposed to any military action against Iran that would damage regional stability and interfere with the flow of oil. But China will not stop Israel if it decides to attack Iran. For all these reasons, Israel and the Middle East need a country like China. Israel needs China's power."

So the title just takes half a sentence and emblazons it.

Shyamd ji and other BR gurus, how does India's basic policy w.r.t Israel/Iran compare with the above? Similar?