Augusta Alternative -> U.S.-Israel relations/issues

U.S.-Israel relations/issues

Track this topic | Email this topic | Print this topic

synergy

Posted: Apr 26 2012, 01:05 PM

Advanced Member

Group: Admin
Posts: 98,105
Member No.: 3
Joined: 20-November 07

Bill Clinton: Netanyahu killed the peace process

QUOTE

Foreign Policy "The Cable"

Posted By Josh Rogin Thursday, September 22, 2011 - 2:22 PM Share

Who's to blame for the continued failure of the Middle East peace process? Former President Bill Clinton said today that it is Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu -- whose government moved the goalposts upon taking power, and whose rise represents a key reason there has been no Israeli-Palestinian peace deal.

Clinton, in a roundtable with bloggers today on the sidelines of the Clinton Global Initiative in New York, gave an extensive recounting of the deterioration in the Middle East peace process since he pressed both parties to agree to a final settlement at Camp David in 2000. He said there are two main reasons for the lack of a comprehensive peace today: the reluctance of the Netanyahu administration to accept the terms of the Camp David deal and a demographic shift in Israel that is making the Israeli public less amenable to peace.

"The two great tragedies in modern Middle Eastern politics, which make you wonder if God wants Middle East peace or not, were [Yitzhak] Rabin's assassination and [Ariel] Sharon's stroke," Clinton said.

Sharon had decided he needed to build a new centrist coalition, so he created the Kadima party and gained the support of leaders like Tzipi Livni and Ehud Olmert. He was working toward a consensus for a peace deal before he fell ill, Clinton said. But that effort was scuttled when the Likud party returned to power.

"The Israelis always wanted two things that once it turned out they had, it didn't seem so appealing to Mr. Netanyahu. They wanted to believe they had a partner for peace in a Palestinian government, and there's no question -- and the Netanyahu government has said -- that this is the finest Palestinian government they've ever had in the West Bank," Clinton said.

"[Palestinian leaders] have explicitly said on more than one occasion that if [Netanyahu] put up the deal that was offered to them before -- my deal -- that they would take it," Clinton said, referring to the 2000 Camp David deal that Yasser Arafat rejected.

But the Israeli government has drifted a long way from the Ehud Barak-led government that came so close to peace in 2000, Clinton said, and any new negotiations with the Netanyahu government are now on starkly different terms -- terms that the Palestinians are unlikely to accept.

"For reasons that even after all these years I still don't know for sure, Arafat turned down the deal I put together that Barak accepted," he said. "But they also had an Israeli government that was willing to give them East Jerusalem as the capital of the new state of Palestine."

Israel also wants a normalization of relations with its Arab neighbors to accompany a peace deal. Clinton said that the Saudi-inspired Arab Peace Initiative put forth in 2002 represented an answer to that Israeli demand.

"The King of Saudi Arabia started lining up all the Arab countries to say to the Israelis, �if you work it out with the Palestinians ... we will give you immediately not only recognition but a political, economic, and security partnership,'" Clinton said. "This is huge.... It's a heck of a deal."

The Netanyahu government has received all of the assurances previous Israeli governments said they wanted but now won't accept those terms to make peace, Clinton said.

"Now that they have those things, they don't seem so important to this current Israeli government, partly because it's a different country," said Clinton. "In the interim, you've had all these immigrants coming in from the former Soviet Union, and they have no history in Israel proper, so the traditional claims of the Palestinians have less weight with them."

Clinton then repeated his assertions made at last year's conference that Israeli society can be divided into demographic groups that have various levels of enthusiasm for making peace.

"The most pro-peace Israelis are the Arabs; second the Sabras, the Jewish Israelis that were born there; third, the Ashkenazi of long-standing, the European Jews who came there around the time of Israel's founding," Clinton said. "The most anti-peace are the ultra-religious, who believe they're supposed to keep Judea and Samaria, and the settler groups, and what you might call the territorialists, the people who just showed up lately and they're not encumbered by the historical record."

Clinton affirmed that the United States should veto the Palestinian resolution at the U.N. Security Council for member-state status, because the Israelis need security guarantees before agreeing to the creation of a Palestinian state. But the Netanyahu government has moved away from the consensus for peace, making a final status agreement more difficult, Clinton said.

"That's what happened. Every American needs to know this. That's how we got to where we are," Clinton said. "The real cynics believe that the Netanyahu's government's continued call for negotiations over borders and such means that he's just not going to give up the West Bank."

synergy	Posted: May 12 2012, 08:10 PM
Advanced Member Group: Admin Posts: 98,105 Member No.: 3 Joined: 20-November 07	Video: Stephen Walt � Questioning U.S.-Israel relations - by News Sources on May 11, 2012 \| via War in Context

synergy

Posted: May 14 2012, 10:21 AM

Advanced Member

Group: Admin
Posts: 98,105
Member No.: 3
Joined: 20-November 07

Gearing up for an Israeli attack on Iran/

Panetta, Barak to Announce More US Military Aid to Israel

QUOTE

'Special Package' of $680 Million to Be Announced in DC[/b]

by Jason Ditz, May 13, 2012

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak is headed to Washington DC on Monday, with plans for him and his US counterpart Leon Panetta to officially announce $680 million in additional US military aid to Israel.

The Pentagon initially cooked up this most recent plan to increase aid to Israel, pushing for the House Armed Services Committee to authorize the funding for the �Iron Dome� missile defense program in late March. The committee quickly did so.

Officials pushed for the new funding to increase the number of such defensive missiles along the border with the Gaza Strip, after Israel�s March bombardment of the strip and subsequent return-fire ended with a �malfunction� and rockets causing minor damage.

The Pentagon insists that the Iron Dome �saved many lives,� despite it failing to stop a good portion of the rockets and those rockets not being particularly deadly at any rate (mostly doing minor damage to buildings or landing harmlessly in fields). The Iron Dome program was initially defunded by the Israeli military in 2010 for being a waste of money, and the US has since picked up 100% of the costs.

Last 5 posts by Jason Ditz

* Netanyahu Ordered Hebron Evacuation Over Fear of Ending Up in the Hague - May 13th, 2012
* US Denies Plans to Scrap Massive Iraqi Police Training Program - May 13th, 2012
* At Least 42 Killed in Army Offensive in Southern Yemen - May 13th, 2012
* Israeli High Court Slams Govt. 'Zigzagging' on Settlements - May 13th, 2012
* Reports: Israeli Officials Agree on Deal to End Hunger Strikes - May 13th, 2012

synergy

Posted: May 25 2012, 11:03 AM

Advanced Member

Group: Admin
Posts: 98,105
Member No.: 3
Joined: 20-November 07

U.S. Hard Line in Failed Iran Talks Driven by Israel

QUOTE

Analysis by Gareth Porter*

WASHINGTON, May 25, 2012 (IPS) - Negotiations between Iran and the United States and other members of the P5+1 group in Baghdad ended in fundamental disagreement Thursday over the position of the P5+1 offering no relief from sanctions against Iran.

The two sides agreed to meet again in Moscow Jun. 18 and 19, but only after Iran had threatened not to schedule another meeting, because the P5+1 had originally failed to respond properly to its five-point plan.

The prospects for agreement are not likely to improve before that meeting, however, mainly because of an inflexible U.S. diplomatic posture that reflects President Barack Obama's need to bow to the demands of Israel and the U.S. Congress on Iran policy.

The U.S. hard line in the Baghdad talks and the failure to set the stage for an early agreement with Iran means that Iran will not only increase but accelerate its accumulation of 20-percent enriched uranium, which has been the ostensible reason for wanting to get Iran to the negotiating table quickly.

Iran's enrichment to 20 percent, which Tehran has justified over the past two years as needed by its Tehran Research Reactor to produce medical isotopes, can be turned into high enriched uranium more quickly than the 3.5 percent enriched uranium for Iran's nuclear power programme.

But although Iran has let it be known that it is open to making a deal to end its 20 percent enrichment and even to let go of its stockpile if offered the right incentive, the Obama administration has opted not to go for such a deal by refusing to offer any corresponding reduction in sanctions.

The U.S. demand for the closure of the Fordow facility, which is now under surveillance by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), was a direct response to pressure from Israel. Prime Minister Benjamen Netanyahu declared that demand one of his "benchmarks" for the talks on Mar. 2.

In discussions with the U.S. in late March, Defence Minister Ehud Barak insisted on the closure of Fordow as one of the Israeli demands, as he revealed Apr. 4. That was a quid pro quo for Israeli acceptance of a focus in the first stage on halting Iran's uranium enrichment to 20 percent rather than demanding an end to all uranium enrichment, as Reuters reported Apr. 4.

That agreement clearly implied that the Obama administration would do nothing to dismantle any sanctions against Iran unless Iran ended all uranium enrichment.

The administration�s refusal to entertain any removal of sanctions as part of its diplomatic strategy with Iran also recognised the fact that it would have to pay a steep political price merely to request any change in sanctions legislation and would be unlikely to prevail over the deeply entrenched interests of Israel in both houses.

After being lobbied by 12,000 activists attending the conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in March, the House of Representatives passed a resolution demanding a policy of preventing Iran from having a "nuclear weapons capability" by a vote of 401-11.

The U.S. understandings with Israel were sharply at odds with a deal with Iran based on a "step by step" approach which had been proposed by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. Under that approach, each move by Iran to satisfy Western concerns about its nuclear programme should be rewarded by a relaxation of sanctions.

As Michael Adler revealed in The Daily Beast Mar. 7, however, the Obama administration was unwilling to reduce sanctions gradually as the Russians wanted. Adler's account implied that it could only come at the end of the process in response to a complete suspension of all uranium enrichment by Iran as a "confidence building measure".

For Iran, 20 percent enrichment has been largely an exercise in increasing its bargaining leverage with the United States by creating a level of enrichment that the U.S has said is threatening.

Iran has made a series of policy statements since it began that enrichment suggesting that the objective has been to trade those bargaining chips for negotiating concessions that would benefit Iran � mainly moves to reduce sanctions and the recognition of its right to enrich.

The demand that the 20 percent enrichment be ended and that Fordow facility be closed without any easing of economic sanctions would represent a double diplomatic defeat which Iran has strenuously rejected.

"Giving up 20 percent enrichment levels in return for plane spare parts is a joke," Iranian analyst Hasan Abadini was quoted as saying.

There was some discussion before the Baghdad meeting, initiated by Europeans, of at least offering to suspend a European ban on insuring oil tankers, which threatens some of Iran's oil trade with Asian countries, in conjunction with a deal, according to the New York Times May 18. But that was evidently rejected by Washington.

The U.S. rejection of the "step by step" approach in favour of a stance that leans heavily toward Israeli preferences leads to apparent contradictions in U.S. policy.

That stance is sharply at odds with the official U.S. stance suggesting ending Iran's 20 percent enrichment is an urgent requirement. A senior U.S. official was quoted by Associated Press Thursday as saying, "We are urgent about this, because every day we don't figure this out, they keep going forward with a nuclear program."

The contradiction was further highlighted by reports that Iran is further increasing its capability for 20 percent enrichment at the Fordow facility. A Reuters story from Vienna Thursday said that Iran may have already put 350 more centrifuges into Fordow since February, on top of the almost 700 already operating there.

Associated Press reported a senior U.S. official in Baghdad explaining that sanctions were likely to increase the pressure on Iran to agree to U.S. terms in the next round of talks. "Maximum pressure is not yet being felt by Iran," the official was quoted as saying.

But few diplomatic observers believe that Iran's Supreme Leader, who makes the crucial decisions, could afford to bow to the U.S. demands as presented in Baghdad.

Meanwhile, the U.S. strategy of drawing out the talks to wait for the impact of sanctions to work on the Iranians allows Iran to continue adding "facts on the ground".

Ironically, U.S. strategists have argued publicly in the past that Iran was using negotiations to "play for time" while it increased its nuclear capabilities.

In another seeming contradiction between U.S. diplomatic posture and its declared interest in ensuring that Iran prove the non-military character of its nuclear programme, U.S. officials dismissed as irrelevant the news that Iran and IAEA Director General Yukia Amano are close to an agreement on the terms of Iranian cooperation in clarifying allegations of past nuclear weapons work.

A "senior U.S. official" said the United States welcomed the signs of progress, but then carefully differentiated the purpose of the P5+1 negotiations and those of the IAEA, according to Al-monitor May 22.

"The IAEA is about accounting for the past and for naming what is," the official explained. "It is not about what is the nature of Iran's nuclear program and what will Iran's nuclear program look like going forward, and will it be peaceful."

That statement abruptly reversed previous U.S. insistence that Iran's cooperation with the IAEA represented a central element in a diplomatic settlement of the conflict over Iran's nuclear programme.

The idea that U.S. negotiations with Iran would not be affected by whatever it did to prove allegations of past nuclear weapons work wrong implies that Washington is firmly committed to its present diplomatic course mainly in order to placate Israel and the U.S. Congress.

*Gareth Porter is an investigative historian and journalist specialising in U.S. national security policy. The paperback edition of his latest book, "Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam", was published in 2006.

(END)

synergy

Posted: May 27 2012, 12:34 PM

Advanced Member

Group: Admin
Posts: 98,105
Member No.: 3
Joined: 20-November 07

The Disturbing, Ludicrous Legislation Which Would Give Unknown Amount of Military Aid to Israel

QUOTE

By Madison Ruppert
theintelhub.com
May 26, 2012

I never cease to be amazed by the fact that our so-called representatives so blatantly work against the American people while actively working for foreign nations that not only support and train terrorists but are also egregious violators of human rights and flouters of international law.

Of course, I am referring to none other than the state of Israel, which has become what some call the 51st state. I would disagree with this characterization, as it would imply that Israel is viewed as equal to any of the other 50 states, which is clearly not the case.

Israel is placed on a special level far above all of America, evidenced by the fact that �our� government continues to pour funds into Israel while countless people in the United States are homeless, hungry, jobless and completely ignored by the suits in Washington D.C.

Even more ludicrous is the fact that we do not even have the money that they continue to give and guarantee to Israel. Our nation is wracked by more debt and a larger deficit than any time before and yet our government believes a foreign state should be given higher priority than our own country.

The latest incarnation of the completely nonsensical American support of Israel is the United States-Israel Enhanced Security Cooperation Act of 2012, which has already passed Congress.

H.R. 4133, or the United States-Israel Enhanced Security Cooperation Act of 2012, sponsored by Representative Eric Cantor (R-VA) along with 304 others, passed the house on May 9, 2012 with a disturbingly large margin.

Indeed, only two of our so-called representatives actually voted against the legislation, further proving that the vast majority of politicians couldn�t care less about America or the people of the United States.

Having passed through Congress, Senate is next in line to pass the legislation, which is designated as S. 2165.

Personally, I think it is highly probable that it will pass the Senate, if not in this specific incarnation, then a nearly identical one. After all, a whopping 50 Senators co-sponsored the bill, representing 50% of the entire Senate.

As of March 6, 2012, S. 2165 was referred to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, where it remains to this day, although on May 10 H.R. 4133 was referred to the Senate.

While our so-called representatives squabble over anything and everything based on petty partisan politics and pandering, they never fail to agree on one thing: blind, unwavering support of the terrorist state of Israel.

The legislation is much more than a ceremonial reaffirmation of American support for Israel and their war on Palestinian civilians and anyone who disagrees with their apartheid policies.

If you can believe it, the bill is actually going to expand the military ties between the United States and Israel beyond the $3+ billion already given to what is often pointedly referred to as �the Jewish state of Israel,� in order to the majority of the native population from the farcical �democracy.�

In fact, under Section 3, Statement of United States Policy, the legislation specifically states that it is the policy of the United States, �To reaffirm our unwavering commitment to the security of the State of Israel as a Jewish state.�

This is no minor issue, as it is specifically included in order to show America�s support for the racist, backwards Israeli policies such as segregated roads and theft of Palestinian land.

The legislation also extends the �War Reserves and Stockpile Authority� in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2005 � Section 12001(d) (Public Law 108-287; 118 Stat. 1011) and the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 � Section 514(

(2)(A) (22 U.S.C. 2321h(

(2)(A)).

Furthermore, it extends loan guarantees to Israel under Chapter 5 of title I of the Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2003 (Public Law 108-11; 117 Stat. 576), which is especially troublesome given that the United States has absolutely no money to loan. Every cent we�re spending is borrowed, so lending borrowed money we can�t afford to pay back makes no sense whatsoever.

This legislation is not only aimed at funneling more money into Israel�s coffers. When one reads the legislation, which is far from lengthy, it becomes abundantly clear that this bill is squarely aimed at Iran and Syria.

It doesn�t take a genius to see this, as we plainly see in the following sub-sections from Section 2, Findings:

(4) The Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran is continuing its decades-long pattern of seeking to foment instability in the Middle East, particularly in this time of dramatic political transition.

(5) At the same time, the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran continues to enrich uranium in defiance of international law.

(6) A nuclear-weapons capable Iran would fundamentally threaten vital United States interests, encourage regional nuclear proliferation, further empower Iran, the world�s leading state sponsor of terror, and pose a serious and destabilizing threat to Israel and the region.

(7) Over the past several years, with the assistance of the Governments of the Islamic Republic of Iran and Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas have increased their stockpile of rockets, with more than 60,000 now ready to be fired at Israel. The Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran continues to develop its missile technology as well, including cruise missiles.

However, the most problematic aspect of this legislation is that it is wildly open-ended and vague as evidenced by the following sub-sections of Section 3, statement of United States Policy which states that it is the policy of the United States:

(2) To provide the Government of Israel the military capabilities necessary to deter and defend itself against any threat or possible combination of threats.

(3) To assist the Government of Israel with its ongoing efforts to forge a peaceful, negotiated settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that results in two states living side-by-side in peace and security, and to encourage Israel�s neighbors to recognize Israel�s right to exist as a Jewish state.

(4) To veto any one-sided anti-Israel resolutions at the United Nations Security Council.

(5) To support Israel�s inherent right to self-defense.

(6) To pursue every opportunity to expand cooperation with the Government of Israel on defense and national security matters and across the spectrum of civilian sectors, including advanced technology, agriculture, medicine, health, pharmaceuticals, and energy.

Obviously this is left wide open for a reason: to be able to provide Israel with as much funding and military hardware as possible.

Some of the most interesting aspects of this legislation appear in Section 4, Sense of Congress, which states that it is the sense of Congress that the United States Government should take the following actions to assist in the defense of Israel:

(1) Seek to enhance the capabilities of the Governments of the United States and Israel to address emerging common threats, increase security cooperation, and expand joint military exercises.

(2) Work to encourage an expanded role for Israel within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), including an enhanced presence at NATO headquarters and exercises.

(3) Expand already-close intelligence cooperation, including satellite intelligence, with the Government of Israel.

(4) Examine ways to strengthen existing and ongoing efforts, including the Gaza Counter Arms Smuggling Initiative, aimed at preventing weapons smuggling into Gaza pursuant to the 2009 agreement following the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, as well as measures to protect against weapons smuggling and terrorist threats from the Sinai Peninsula.

(5) Provide the Government of Israel with necessary support to increase development and production of joint missile defense systems, particularly such systems that defend the urgent threat posed to Israel and United States forces in the region.

(6) Make every effort to assure the provision to the Government of Israel of defensive equipment through such mechanisms as lend-lease, to include air refueling tankers, missile defense capabilities, and specialized munitions.

(7) Undertake efforts to make available for purchase by the Government of Israel surplus defense items, particularly those resulting from the end of United States combat operations in Iraq.

(8) Offer the Air Force of Israel additional training and exercise opportunities in the United States to compensate for Israel�s limited air space.

Here we see that the U.S. seeks to further integrate Israel into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which is a hot button issue for Turkey, to put it lightly.

Also quite interesting is the expansion of intelligence sharing, especially the sharing of satellite intelligence.

Thoroughly unsurprising, however, is the pledge to provide Israel with support for increased development and production of their missile defense systems, which the U.S. has been pouring massive sums into despite the fact that we do not have the money to do so.

The mention of �air refueling tankers� is also not too surprising, as Israel lacks sufficient numbers of these aircraft to enable long range assaults on nations like Iran.

There is also mention of improving �the acquisition process for the purchase of F-35 aircraft by Israel, particularly with respect to cost efficiency and on-time delivery, taking into account the urgent need of the Government of Israel for such aircraft,� under Section 6, Reports Required.

This section mandates reports no later than 180 days after the enactment of the Act dealing with Israel�s Qualitative Military Edge (QME) as defined in section 36(h)(2) of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2776(h)(2)) as well as a report on F-35 acquisition and �Efforts to expand cooperation between the United States Government and the Government of Israel in homeland security, counter-terrorism, maritime security, energy, cyber-security, and other related areas.�

Also mandated is a report on �Actions to integrate Israel into the defense of the Eastern Mediterranean,� likely meaning closer integration in NATO activities in the region.

According to one anonymous source cited by Globes Online, an Israeli business news site, in an article entitled �US seen awarding Israel largest ever aid package,� the Obama administration has already expressed support for the legislation.

�This bill has received the blessing of the Obama administration, which sees it as a conciliatory gesture towards Israel in advance of the agreement with Iran, about which Israel has already begun to express reservations,� the unnamed source said.

Indeed, Israeli officials have been quite unhappy about these talks with Iran, with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu calling the talks a �trap� and others fearing that it could prevent the unilateral military strike on Iran so many have been talking about.

Yet this goes far beyond a conciliatory gesture and should not be treated as such.

Representative Ron Paul, one of only two people to vote against H.R. 4133, called it �another piece of one-sided and counter-productive foreign policy legislation.�

�This bill will not help the United States, it will not help Israel, and it will not help the Middle East,� Paul said. �It will implicitly authorize much more US interventionism in the region at a time when we cannot afford the foreign commitments we already have. It more likely will lead to war against Syria, Iran, or both.�

Meanwhile, House Minority representative Steny Hoyer nonsensically claimed it will increase cooperation between the U.S. and Israel so that Israel �can further deter Iran from developing nuclear weapons capability and work together to combat terrorism that threatens both of our countries.�

This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever given that it is Israel and the United States who are creating and openly advocating terrorism and destabilizing the Middle East, but of course these facts are just glossed over or ignored entirely.

Furthermore, both nations have shared interests with terrorist organizations which many prominent Americans openly support with no repercussions.

All in all, this legislation should be nothing short of infuriating for any American who believes that this nation should have a future without a mountain of debt which can never be paid off. It should also be deeply upsetting to anyone who thinks that the people of the United States should have homes, food, healthcare and other necessities.

Legislation like this actively works against us and as some have argued, it actually works against Israel as well, not to mention failing to bring peace to the Middle East.

Did I forget anything or miss any errors? Would you like to make me aware of a story or subject to cover? Or perhaps you want to bring your writing to a wider audience? Feel free to contact me at admin@EndtheLie.com with your concerns, tips, questions, original writings, insults or just about anything that may strike your fancy.

Note from End the Lie:Please support our work and help us start to pay contributors by doing your shopping through our Amazon link or check out some must-have products at our store.

This article originally appeared on End the Lie

synergy

Posted: Jun 1 2012, 06:07 PM

Advanced Member

Group: Admin
Posts: 98,105
Member No.: 3
Joined: 20-November 07

Israeli and Palestinian killed in Gaza border clash

QUOTE

Friday 1 June 2012 Last updated at 09:17 ET - BBC News

photo caption: Israeli tanks reportedly fired into Gaza after the firefight

An Israeli soldier and a Palestinian have been killed during an exchange of fire along the Gaza border.

The Israeli army said that a Palestinian militant cut through the boundary fence and opened fire on Israeli troops, who then shot back killing him.

Separately, at least three suspected militants were hurt in an Israeli air strike on Gaza.

The suspects had fired a rocket into Israel, the army said.

'Terrorist squad'

According to Israeli media, the exchange of fire between the Palestinian and Israeli soldiers happened near the Kissufim crossing early on Friday.

Reports say there was heavy mist in the area making it easier to approach the fence undetected early on Friday.

"A terrorist who was identified infiltrating Israel from the southern Gaza Strip opened fire at Israeli soldiers, who responded with fire. During the exchange of fire, the terrorist was killed," the Israeli army said in a statement.

It is not uncommon for the Israeli army to open fire on Palestinians who approach the fence.

But it is rare for a Palestinian to break through and for an Israeli soldier to be killed in such an exchange, the BBC's Jon Donnison reports.
BBC Map

The Israeli military maintains an exclusion zone on the Gaza side of the boundary between Gaza and Israel, and troops regularly carry out military activity in the area and fire on Palestinians who approach the fence.

Residents of southern Israel, quoted by the Associated Press, said they heard gunfire in the early morning and heard Israeli helicopters circling in the air.

They also said tank shells were fired into Gaza that set fire to fields.

Just hours later, Israel carried out an air strike on suspected militants travelling on a motorbike in southern Gaza.

"Israeli aircraft targeted a terrorist squad that fired a rocket at Israeli soldiers," army said.

At least three suspects were injured, one of them seriously. They are believed to be members of the Popular Resistance Committee.

Sources in Gaza say Hamas, which runs the territory, is now making efforts to restore calm, the BBC's Jon Donnison in Ramallah reports.

Recently the movement has not usually been directly involved in firing rockets into Israel. But Israel says Hamas - as the ruling power - should be held responsible, our correspondent says.
More on This Story
Israel and the Palestinians

� � *
� � � Battir village terrace agriculture Barrier threat

� � � Israel is being urged to reroute its controversial West Bank barrier away from the lands of an ancient Palestinian village with a unique agricultural system, reports the BBC's Wyre Davies.
� � *
� � � Netanyahu's power play
� � *
� � � Nuns in barrier battle
� � *
� � � Gazans 'inured'
� � *
� � � Israel's Iron Dome defence
� � *
� � � Palestinians' geographic divide
� � *
� � � The world's most expensive lemons

Guides

� � *
� � � Q&A: Bid explained
� � *
� � � Talks: Where they stand
� � *
� � � History of peace talks
� � *
� � � Eased Gaza blockade

Watch/Listen

� � *
� � � Helicopter tour of Israel and West Bank Watch
� � *
� � � Israeli navy storms Gaza aid ship Watch

Related Internet links

� � * Israel Prison Service
� � * Palestinian Prisoners' Club

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external Internet sites
Share this page

synergy

Posted: Jun 6 2012, 04:35 PM

Advanced Member

Group: Admin
Posts: 98,105
Member No.: 3
Joined: 20-November 07

Israeli PM orders 300 new homes at West Bank settlement

QUOTE

Wednesday 6 June 2012 Last updated at 12:23 ET - BBC News

photo caption: Settlers insist on their right to live on what they say is historically Jewish land

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has ordered the construction of 300 new homes at the Jewish settlement of Beit El in the West Bank.

The announcement came hours after Israel's parliament rejected a bill to legalise settlement outposts.

Mr Netanyahu, who opposed the bill, said he would honour a Supreme Court order to demolish homes on private Palestinian land at the Ulpana outpost.

The issue has been a source of tension between settlers and the government.

All settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem are considered illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this.

The settler outposts are also illegal under Israeli law and the government agreed to remove them under the 2003 Road Map peace plan.

Buildings transferred

Last year, the Israeli government committed to remove all or part of six illegal outposts following a Supreme Court ruling.

Continue reading the main story
�Start Quote

I am obligated to preserve the law and preserve the settlements, and I say here that there is no contradiction between the two�

End Quote Benjamin Netanyahu Israeli Prime Minister

Five buildings which are home to 30 families at Ulpana, also known as Jabal Artis or Pisgat Yaakov, were built entirely on private Palestinian land, the court found.

Before Wednesday's vote in the Knesset, Mr Netanyahu had warned that he would sack anyone in his government who supported the bill to bypass the court ruling and, in effect, legalise the buildings at Ulpana, because it would have prompted international criticism.

Ahead of the vote, hundreds of settlers marched on the Knesset, insisting on their right to live on what they said was historically Jewish land.

Ulpana is part of the bigger settlement of Beit El, which is built on land captured by Israel in the 1967 Middle East war. Palestinians say it should be part of their future state.

Hours after the legalisation of outposts was rejected, Mr Netanyahu sought to placate settlers and right-wing critics in his own Likud party by ordering the transfer of the buildings at Ulpana to a nearby former army base in another part of Beit El and the construction next to them of 300 new housing units, reports the BBC Wyre Davies in Jerusalem.

"Israel is a democracy that observes the law, and as prime minister I am obligated to preserve the law and preserve the settlements, and I say here that there is no contradiction between the two," Mr Netanyahu said.

"This formula strengthens settlements," he added. "The court ruled what it did, and we respect its decision. In parallel, Beit El will be expanded."

Mr Netanyahu's decision will infuriate Palestinians and pro-peace groups who say the Israeli government is expanding the settlements at the expense of a peace deal with the Palestinians, our correspondent adds.

More on This Story
Israel and the Palestinians

*
Battir village terrace agriculture Barrier threat

Israel is being urged to reroute its controversial West Bank barrier away from the lands of an ancient Palestinian village with a unique agricultural system, reports the BBC's Wyre Davies.
*
Netanyahu's power play
*
Nuns in barrier battle
*
Gazans 'inured'
*
Israel's Iron Dome defence
*
Palestinians' geographic divide
*
The world's most expensive lemons

Guides

*
Q&A: Bid explained
*
Talks: Where they stand
*
History of peace talks
*
Eased Gaza blockade

Watch/Listen

*
Helicopter tour of Israel and West Bank Watch
*
Israeli navy storms Gaza aid ship Watch

From other news sites

*
Yahoo! UK and Ireland Israel announces plans for new settler 32 mins ago
*
CTV.ca Israeli parliament rejects attempt to save outpost 2 hrs ago
*
FOXNews.com Israel's Netanyahu announces construction of 300 new settler homes in West Bank 4 hrs ago
*
Austin American Statesman Israel to build 300 new West Bank settlement homes 5 hrs ago
*
Sky News West Bank Settler Law Defeated 5 hrs ago
* About these results

Related Internet links

* Israel Prime Minister's Office
* PLO Negotiations Unit
* Peace Now

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external Internet sites
Share this page

synergy

Posted: Jun 12 2012, 09:42 AM

Advanced Member

Group: Admin
Posts: 98,105
Member No.: 3
Joined: 20-November 07

[URL=Rising Costs Are Driving More Americans To Go Without Needed Health Care]Despite Domestic Cuts, U.S. Aid To Israel Up By $25 Million In Proposed Budget[/URL]

QUOTE

International Middle East Media Center

Wednesday February 15, 2012 18:53 by Saed Bannoura - IMEMC News

An examination of the proposed U.S. budget submitted by President Barack Obama to the U.S. Congress this week shows that although billions of dollars will be cut from domestic programs and the U.S. military, annual aid to Israel remains intact, and includes an increase of $25 million from last year.

US Capitol building (image by IEEE)

Last year, the U.S. government gave $3.075 billion in unrestricted aid to Israel, and this year�s proposed budget includes $3.1 billion. This aid is given in addition to around $3 billion in loan guarantees which, unlike other loans, do not have to be paid back.

The cuts in this Congressional budget include an 18% cut in aid to former Soviet republics in Eastern Europe, all of which have much lower GDPs than Israel. In fact, Israel is the only country receiving US aid to be above the 50th percentile economically � Israel is ranked in the richest one-third of countries in the world.

The U.S. State Department will receive a 10% decrease in funding for its programs in Iraq, despite the increased role of the State Department following the withdrawal of the U.S. military. U.S. combat operations overseas will be cut 23%, largely due to the military pullout from Iraq.

President Obama proposed the budget, which equals $3.8 trillion and includes over $1 trillion in cuts, in order to address the massive deficit left by former President George W. Bush. A bi-partisan committee, known as the �budget supercommittee�, tasked with recommending cuts last October failed to reach an agreement on what to cut, leaving it up to the President to propose a budget that would significantly reduce the deficit.

U.S. aid to Israel has been a part of each annual Congressional budget since 1967, and the amount has increased over time. Upon taking office, Obama recommended that U.S. aid to Israel continue at the $3 billion a year rate for the next ten years, totaling at least $30 billion (without counting loan guarantees and gifts of weaponry). The U.S. Congress overwhelmingly agreed with this assessment.

synergy

Posted: Jun 20 2012, 02:40 PM

Advanced Member

Group: Admin
Posts: 98,105
Member No.: 3
Joined: 20-November 07

Blame Israel and AIPAC for a U.S. war in Iran

QUOTE

by News Sources on June 20, 2012 | War in Context

Larry Derfner writes: I never went along with the argument that the Israel lobby, taking its directions from Jerusalem, pushed the United States to invade Iraq in 2003. Israel wanted the U.S. to knock over Saddam, of course, but it didn�t make a lot of noise about it, and neither did its Washington lobbyists because Israel and AIPAC knew they didn�t have to push against an open door. The Bush administration wanted to go to war against Saddam as soon as 9/11 happened, and while I�m sure the administration saw the benefit to Israel as one more reason to invade, that was never the main reason. The Bush team fought that war because of its misbegotten notion of America�s national security, and they would have fought it even if there had been no Israel lobby � even if there had been no Israel.

But Iran is different. Israel and AIPAC have been leading the charge on this one for years, and they�re hardly hiding it � the Israeli campaign for America to get tough, tougher, toughest on Iran has been as bombastic as could possibly be. If America ends up bombing Iran first (unlikely), or being drawn into a war as a result of Israel�s bombing Iran first (much more likely), that American war will be stamped �Made In Israel� � not by Walt and Mearsheimer, but by everyone with eyes and ears in his or her head.

This is new. For all the Israel lobby�s power over U.S. policy in the Middle East, it has never led the U.S. into a war the White House and Pentagon clearly did not want to fight. And that�s what�s happening, that�s what�s been happening for nearly four years � the Obama administration and U.S. military establishment don�t want to fight in Iran, and Israel and AIPAC have been dragging them toward it with all their might.

Again, this is unprecedented. And it is quite a responsibility for Israel and the American Jewish leadership to assume � one they don�t want to face, though, because if they did, they might have to restrain their war-mongering, and for the AIPAC crowd, war-mongering on Israel�s behalf is just too much fun. But here�s the deal: If Israel hits Iran and Iran hits back at American targets and draws the U.S. into a war, and that war doesn�t go well for the U.S. � if American troops start getting killed, if the U.S. economy suffers, if the U.S. finds itself stuck in a war it doesn�t want and doesn�t know how to get out of � then not only Israel, but American Jews, too, are likely to be blamed by the U.S. public at large.

And for the first time in history, blaming the Jews for getting America into a war would not be anti-Semitic lunacy, it would be a logical reaction. I want to stress here that blaming American Jews in general for �wagging the dog� would be totally wrong and unfair � most of them are liberal doves. However, blaming AIPAC, the rest of the Israel lobby and, above all, Israel for wagging the dog would be like adding two and two.

For some Israelis, the risk of American Jews ending up getting blamed for a war against Iran might look less like a risk than potentially part of the upside. From this vantage point a backlash against Jews would not demonstrate the recklessness of the Israel lobby; it would demonstrate the recklessness of belonging to the diaspora and the necessity of �returning� to Israel. The irony is that the ranks of the lobby are filled with Jews whose choice is to love Israel from afar. For those for whom home is really New York or Miami, such a return would in truth be a form of exile.

synergy

Posted: Jun 26 2012, 10:53 PM

Advanced Member

Group: Admin
Posts: 98,105
Member No.: 3
Joined: 20-November 07

Massive US-Israeli Military Drill Set for October

QUOTE

AntiWar.com

The exercise is meant as a show of force and a threatening posture towards Syria and Iran

by John Glaser, June 25, 2012

Israel and the US are set to hold their largest ever joint military exercise in October, which will include thousands of soldiers and advanced weaponry as well as a simulation of simultaneous fire from Iran and Syria.

About 3,000 US soldiers will participate in the highly militarized, highly provocative, highly unnecessary drill, alongside thousands of Israeli troops.

The exercise will simulate missiles being fired at Israel from Iran and Syria simultaneously, despite how thoroughly unrealistic such a scenario is. Israel will test its upgraded �Arrow 2″ missile defense system, while the US will deploy the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System and PAC-3 Patriot air defense platforms.

Some military analysts have referred the exercise as a �dress rehearsal� for a potential military conflict, emphasizing that it will send a clear � and threatening � message to Iran at a time when the Islamic Republic has been needlessly targeted in a harsh set of economic sanctions for what everyone agrees is currently a civilian nuclear program.

These ostentatious military exercises are a common way to threaten adversaries like Iran. Just last month, the US completed a massive military exercise called Operation Eager Lion in Jordan that included 18 other nations and served as a very provocative show of force in a very unstable region.

Michael Eisenstadt, director of the Military and Security Studies program at the Washington Institute for Near East Studies, said the drill �puts more pressure on the regime in Syria,� even though it �was planned from a long time ago.�

Michael Rubin, an adviser to former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld from 2002-2004 and now an analyst at the American Enterprise Institute told the Christian Science Monitor that the exercise was meant to reassure America�s puppet dictators that we have their back.

�In Washington we can convince ourselves we withdrew [from Iraq] per political agreements, but a lot of the propaganda in the region, especially the Iranian-backed propaganda, suggests we fled in defeat,� Rubin says. �One of the perceptions we�re trying to reverse is the perception among many of the Gulf monarchs, and the king of Jordan, that we dumped Hosni Mubarak way too quickly.�

�What this does is send a signal to many of the GCC states that we�re not simply going to turn our backs on all the monarchs,� Rubin says. Building this kind of military-to-military relationship with allied Middle Eastern dictatorships �is an important check against Iran�s military ambitions, and has been a US goal since the 1980s,� Rubin told the Christian Science Monitor.

Last 5 posts by John Glaser

* Israel in Breach of International Law in Treatment of Palestinian Children - June 26th, 2012
* Four More US Ships Arrive in Gulf as Iran Feels Pressure - June 25th, 2012
* US Drug War in Honduras Expands as Human Rights Abuses Increase - June 25th, 2012
* US Reconstructs Former Military Bases Across Asia-Pacific - June 23rd, 2012
* Turkey-Syria Spat Over Downed Plane Threatens to Escalate the Conflict - June 23rd, 2012

synergy

Posted: Jun 27 2012, 10:42 PM

Advanced Member

Group: Admin
Posts: 98,105
Member No.: 3
Joined: 20-November 07

Obama�s October Surprise: Largest War Games in US-Israeli History

QUOTE

AntiWar.com

by Richard Silverstein, June 27, 2012

Israel�s daily Maariv reported yesterday that the long delayed war games between U.S. and Israeli forces will take place in October. It noted that some commentators are calling it a �dress rehearsal� for the aftermath of an Israeli attack on Iran. IDF sources quoted in the article called the exercises �of immense importance.�

These will be the largest such military maneuvers in the history of the joint U.S.-Israel relationship. They were originally scheduled for several months ago but were canceled abruptly, according to some, at the behest of Ehud Barak, who wanted to send a message to the U.S. that Israel might be planning an attack and prefer not to have such an event interfere with it.

Three thousand U.S. Air Force personnel and a larger IDF contingent will focus on air warfare and missile defense. The primary goal is to prepare for the aftermath of an Israeli attack on Iran and the expected counterattack against Israel.

The date of the war games is no accident, coming only a few weeks before the presidential election. They will thus serve two purposes: shoring up Jewish support for Obama�s campaign and reassuring Israel that the U.S. will provide it every weapon money can buy to defend itself should it counterattack Iran. One expects that all this might be predicated on an Israeli commitment not to attack Iran quite yet � perhaps not until sometime after Nov. 4?

As part of the proceedings, the U.S. will bring new military hardware and technology Israel hasn�t yet seen, such as an upgraded battery of the Patriot PAC-3 missile system designed as a backup security system in case the higher-level security systems fail to shoot down Iran�s missiles and the Aegis anti-missile radar system. Israel will also demonstrate the new Arrow 2 missile, which will be able to detect missile launches even earlier than previously.

Emphasis will be placed on combating the ballistic threat from Iran. This is meant as an explicit message to Iran, which has threatened a broad response to an Israeli attack, that such an attack on Israel will fail and isn�t worth trying. Of course, the assumption behind this is that Israel believes that it can both attack Iran and face no consequences from such an attack: one of the most glaring examples of having your cake and eating it too I�ve yet seen.

Other factors that will play a role in this exercise will be the possibility that Syria and Hezbollah would join with Iran in attacking Israel. In preparation for the exercises, Lt. Gen. Craig Franklin, commander of the 3rd Air Force, visited Israel recently and launched a joint command that would conduct the war games.

Business Insider also reports that the Defense Department has awarded Raytheon a $338-million contract for 361 Tomahawk cruise missiles. Most of them will be configured for at-sea launches from guided-missile cruisers such as those patrolling with the Navy�s Fifth Fleet just outside Iranian waters. Though they won�t be delivered till 2014, they might be ordered in the expectation that current stock could be depleted in the sort of attack Israel and/or the U.S. might launch against Iran.

What is particularly disturbing in all this is that the U.S. seems to be inching ever closer to supporting an Israeli attack on Iran. While Obama and his officials have appeared to be reigning in Netanyahu, holding him back from an attack, this type of military preparation serves as a wink and a nod to such supposed efforts at restraint.

The end result is that if Israel does attack, it will be able to point to this military exercise as an example of U.S. encouragement of such an approach. Bibi will quite reasonably argue: Why did you show us all this missile defense hardware designed to protect us in the event we strike Iran, if you didn�t expect us to do so? And he will be right.

Further, military preparations of this sort indicate an acceptance by the U.S. that diplomacy can�t possibly work. Instead of serving as a threat toward Iran, as Obama might argue, that this is what lies in store if it doesn�t negotiate in good faith, it may instead be seen as a cynical statement by us that we ourselves don�t believe negotiations can work. In other words, it could be a self-fulfilling prophecy that leads to war.

Some might argue that scheduling such exercises indicates a tacit acceptance by Israel that it won�t attack Iran until the elections. But that might not be so. There is no reason Netanyahu couldn�t simply attack, causing the automatic cancellation of the war games. Some Israeli military-security insiders have told Reuters that they believe Bibi will attack before the elections in the belief that Obama will feel compelled to support Israel due to the sensitivity of a potentially close election campaign. Such projection on Israel�s part tells much more about its self-involved egoism than it does about any actual U.S. response to an attack.

Meanwhile, Kenneth Waltz, an international relations specialist at Columbia University argues in �Why Iran Should Get the Bomb� that precisely what�s needed in the Middle East is an Iranian bomb to establish a power balance in the region. He believes that, given the current status of nuclear proliferation in the world, it�s better for states not to have a regional monopoly as Israel does. A balanced standoff such as between Pakistan and Iran, the U.S. and Russia, or China and Japan (the latter has breakout capacity but hasn�t actually created a weapon) actually promotes stability rather than the opposite. It�s a provocative, contrarian approach but quite persuasive.

Read more by Richard Silverstein

* Israel Lobby Creates Anti-Iran Astroturf Group � June 21st, 2012
* Ziad Jilani: a Kill Shot in Wadi Joz � April 27th, 2012

synergy

Posted: Jun 29 2012, 11:06 AM

Advanced Member

Group: Admin
Posts: 98,105
Member No.: 3
Joined: 20-November 07

Another counterproductive U.S. foreign policy failure. The demise of U.S. power and influence is stunning!

Israel Fears Rise of US-Supported Jihadists in Syria

QUOTE

AntiWar.com

Russia shares Israel's concerns as the US continues to recklessly arm Syria's rebel militias

by John Glaser, Thursday, June 28, 2012

The Israeli Defense Force is preparing for the possibility that jihadist terrorists will launch attacks on Israel from Syria if regime change topples President Bashar Assad, according to officials.

The chaos in Syria has long appeared intractable, but many prominent voices are now calling for regime change. The problem is that much of the opposition consists of Sunni extremists that may create an Islamist regime in Syria if the efforts of the US and its allies in support of the rebels are ultimately successful.

Indeed, current US policy, as Joshua Landis, an expert on Syria from the University of Oklahoma wrote in Foreign Policy this month, �is pursuing regime change by civil war in Syria.�

Israel and the US are set to hold their largest ever joint military exercise in October, which will include thousands of soldiers and a simulation of military attack from Syria.

Incidentally, Russia shares Israel�s fears about the rise of the Islamist opposition in Syria, which serves as their last valuable ally in the region.

�Russia is opposed to regime change in Syria not only on principle, but because the likely new regime would be headed by an Islamist government inimical to Russian interests,� reports investigative journalist Joe Lauria.

�Russia feels that the West doesn�t know how to handle regime change and that the outcome is almost invariably the kind of the chaos from which Islamic extremist movements arise,� Mark Galeotti, who chairs the Center for Global Affairs at New York University, told Lauria.

The US policy of arming and supporting the Syrian rebel militias could be catastrophic. As UN envoy to Syria said just this week: �Syria is not Libya, it will not implode, it will explode beyond its borders.�

Last 5 posts by John Glaser

Turkey Deploys Anti-Aircraft Guns, Rocket Launchers to Syrian Border - June 28th, 2012
Syria Rebels Increasingly Violent, Thanks to Foreign Arms - June 28th, 2012
Iraq's PM Calls for Early Elections Amid Calls to Resign - June 27th, 2012
West Rebuffs Iranian Offer to Help Kofi Annan With Peace in Syria - June 27th, 2012
US Rejected Chance for Incremental Progress in Iran Talks - June 27th, 2012

synergy

Posted: Jun 30 2012, 07:09 PM

Advanced Member

Group: Admin
Posts: 98,105
Member No.: 3
Joined: 20-November 07

Israel continues its effort to drag America into a war on Iran

QUOTE

by Paul Woodward on June 30, 2012 | War in Context

From Jerusalem, David Ignatius writes: A popular new slogan making the rounds among government ministers here is that in dealing with Iran, Israel faces a decision between �bombing or the bomb.� In other words, if Israel doesn�t attack, Iran will eventually obtain nuclear weapons.

This stark choice sums up the mood among top officials of the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: It�s clear that Israel�s military option is still very much on the table, despite the success of economic sanctions in forcing Iran into negotiations.

�It�s not a bluff, they�re serious about it,� says Efraim Halevy, a former head of the Mossad, Israel�s intelligence service. A half-dozen other experts and officials made the same point in interviews last week: The world shouldn�t relax and assume that a showdown with Iran has been postponed until next year. Here, the alarm light is still flashing red.

Israeli leaders have been warning the Obama administration that the heat isn�t off for 2012. When a senior Israeli politician visited Washington recently and was advised that the mood was calmer than in the spring, the Israeli cautioned that the Netanyahu government hadn�t changed its position �one iota.�

The negotiations with Iran by the group of leading nations known as the �P5+1,� rather than easing Israel�s anxieties, may actually have deepened them. That�s not just because Netanyahu thinks the Iranians are stalling. He fears that even if negotiators won their demand that Iran stop enriching uranium to 20 percent and export its stockpile of fuel already enriched to that level, this would still leave more than 6,000 kilograms of low-enriched uranium that, within a year or less, could be augmented to bomb-grade material.

Netanyahu wants to turn back the Iranian nuclear clock, by shipping out all the enriched uranium. And if negotiations can�t achieve this, he may be ready to try by military means.

The numbers game on enrichment reveals a deeper difference: For President Obama, the trigger for military action would be a �breakout� decision by Iran�s supreme leader to go for a bomb, something he hasn�t yet done. For Netanyahu, the red line is preventing Iran from ever reaching �threshold� capability where it could contemplate a breakout. He isn�t comfortable with letting Tehran have the enrichment capability that could be used to make a bomb, even under a nominally peaceful program.

Netanyahu sees his country�s very existence at stake, and he�s prepared for Israel to go it alone because he�s unwilling to entrust the survival of the Jewish state to others.

As Halevy says, a war against Iran would be �an event that would affect the course of this century,� but when Ignatius says Netanyahu is prepared for Israel to go it alone, the columnist is merely parroting his sources.

If Israel really has the ability or intention to go it alone, what is it waiting for? Netanyahu�s red line of threshold capability has almost certainly already been reached. In spite of this, Israel threatens military action yet doesn�t act.

What Netanyahu can do is trigger a war that Americans must then fight. Israel�s war will then become America�s war for the simple reason that no one in Washington has the guts to let Israel do what it claims it can: go it alone.

When Halevy says that the threats of war are not a bluff, what he should really be saying is that Netanyahu is willing to start a war, but he�s not willing to accept responsibility for its consequences.

synergy

Posted: Jul 19 2012, 08:59 PM

Advanced Member

Group: Admin
Posts: 98,105
Member No.: 3
Joined: 20-November 07

Here we go. After Syria comes Iran.

QUOTE

Hezbollah Is Blamed in Attack on Israeli Tourists in Bulgaria
By NICHOLAS KULISH and ERIC SCHMITT 4:31 PM ET
A service was held Thursday at the Burgas airport for the bombing victims before the dead were returned to Israel.

A senior American official confirmed Israel�s assertions that the suicide bomber who killed five Israelis on a tour bus was a member of a Hezbollah cell.

Hezbollah Is Blamed in Attack on Israeli Tourists in Bulgaria

QUOTE

The New York Times

A service was held Thursday at the Burgas airport for the bombing victims before the dead were returned to Israel.
By NICHOLAS KULISH and ERIC SCHMITT
Published: Thursday, July 19, 2012

BURGAS, Bulgaria � American officials on Thursday identified the suicide bomber responsible for a deadly attack on Israeli vacationers here as a member of a Hezbollah cell that was operating in Bulgaria and looking for such targets, corroborating Israel�s assertions and making the bombing a new source of tension with Iran.

One senior American official said the current American intelligence assessment was that the bomber, who struck Wednesday, killing five Israelis, had been �acting under broad guidance� to hit Israeli targets when opportunities presented themselves, and that the guidance had been given to Hezbollah, a Lebanese militant group, by Iran, its primary sponsor. Two other American officials confirmed that Hezbollah was behind the bombing, but declined to provide additional details.

The attacks, the official said, were in retaliation for the assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists, for which Iran has blamed Israeli agents � an accusation that Israel has neither confirmed nor denied. �This was tit for tat,� said the American official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation was still under way.

The bombing comes amid heightened tensions over Iran�s nuclear program, which Tehran says is for peaceful purposes but Israel and the West say is a cover for developing weapons. The United States and Europe imposed sanctions this month aimed at crippling Iran�s vital oil industry, while Iran has sworn to exact revenge for the assassinations, as well as for cyberattacks on its nuclear industry.

A senior Israeli official said on Thursday that the Burgas attack was part of an intensive wave of terrorist attacks around the world carried out by two different organizations, the Iranian Quds Force, an elite international operations unit within Iran�s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, as well as by Hezbollah.

�They work together when necessary, and separately when not necessary,� the Israeli official told reporters on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to publicly discuss national security issues.

While the Burgas attack fit the modus operandi of Hezbollah, the Israeli official said, it was not clear whether the bomber intended to blow himself up or had suffered what the official called a �work accident,� adding, �We will never know.�

The bomber had a fake Michigan driver�s license, but there are no indications that he had any connection to the United States, the American official said, adding that there were no details yet about the bomber like his name or nationality. He also declined to describe what specific intelligence � intercepted communications, analysis of the bomber�s body parts or other details � that led analysts to conclude that the bomber belonged to Hezbollah.

�This looks like he was hanging out for a local target, and when this popped up he jumped on it,� the official said, referring to a bus carrying Israeli tourists outside the airport in Burgas.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said at a news conference on Thursday in Jerusalem that the attack in Burgas was carried out by �Hezbollah, the long arm of Iran.�

Iranian officials condemned the attack and all acts of terrorism. �Terrorism endangers the lives of innocents,� said a spokesman for the Foreign Ministry, Ramin Mehmanparast, according to Iran�s state Arabic-language television channel, Al Alam.

The Bulgarian authorities released a security video Thursday showing the suspect wandering into the arrivals hall at the airport here, for all appearances just a tourist in his plaid shorts, Adidas T-shirt and baseball hat.

But it is his oddly bulky, oversized backpack that, in terrible hindsight, stands out the most. This bag, investigators believe, contained the bomb that the man is suspected of detonating next to a bus outside the airport, killing the five Israeli tourists, a Bulgarian bus driver and himself in a fireball that upended this city on the Black Sea.

The suicide attack, the country�s first, sent police and intelligence officers from Bulgaria, Israel and the United States racing to identify the bomber and to look for possible accomplices and evidence that would connect him to Hezbollah or Iran.

Officials here have said they have the man�s fingerprints and his DNA, and are trying to identify a man roughly 36 years old, who they suspect was in the country between four and seven days before the blast.

The Bulgarians are still trying to figure out how the bomber entered the country, how he traveled around and where he stayed.

The police released the video in the hopes that the man would be recognized. Beyond that, investigators had more questions than answers.

�We�re not pointing the finger in any direction until we know what happened and complete our investigation,� Nickolay Mladenov, Bulgaria�s foreign minister, said in an interview. He was speaking in front of the airport on Thursday, where three giant flags, one for Bulgaria, one for Burgas and one for the European Union, flew at half-staff.

Israeli officials were swift to blame Iran on Wednesday in the immediate aftermath of the bombing, and Mr. Netanyahu did not let up on Thursday. �The time has come for all countries that know the truth to speak it,� he said at the news conference. �Iran is the one behind the wave of terror. Iran is the No. 1 exporter of terror in the world.�

Mr. Netanyahu added, �A terrorist state must not have a nuclear weapon.�

Bulgarian authorities said they were working with the F.B.I., the C.I.A., the Israeli intelligence services and Interpol. Interior Minister Tsvetan Tsvetanov said that the F.B.I. determined that the driver�s license was a fake and that the person described on the card did not exist. He said the Bulgarian government had spoken with John O. Brennan, President Obama�s top counterterrorism adviser, overnight.

Speaking at the Central Synagogue in Sofia, home to most of Bulgaria�s 5,000 Jews, James Warlick, the United States ambassador, expressed his �outrage and horror at the terrorist incident that happened yesterday in Burgas.�

The speaker of Iran�s Parliament, Ali Larijani, criticized the United States for not condemning the bombing in Damascus on Wednesday that struck at President Bashar al-Assad�s inner circle, killing three senior defense officials. �By not condemning the assassination in Syria, the Americans show that they believe in good assassinations and bad assassinations,� he said, according to the Fars news agency.

An Israeli Defense Force plane carried 33 of the wounded back to Israel from Burgas on Thursday morning, dispersing passengers to hospitals around the country, a military spokesman in Jerusalem said. The dead were flown back Thursday evening after a ceremony at the airport, which had reopened several hours earlier.
� Previous Page

* 1
* 2

Nicholas Kulish reported from Burgas, and Eric Schmitt from Washington. Reporting was contributed by Matthew Brunwasser from Burgas, Isabel Kershner from Jerusalem, Thomas Erdbrink from Tehran, and Boryana

synergy

Posted: Jul 20 2012, 06:23 PM

Advanced Member

Group: Admin
Posts: 98,105
Member No.: 3
Joined: 20-November 07

White House not blaming Iran, Hezbollah in Bulgaria attack

QUOTE

USAToday "The Oval"

Fri 20 Jul 2012

By Aamer Madhani, USA TODAY

The White House isn't yet backing Israel's assertion that Hezbollah, with the help of Iran, was behind this week's deadly bombing of a tourist bus in Bulgaria.
President Obama walks to the Oval Office after returning back to the White House, on July 20, 2012 in Washington, DC. President Obama canceled a day campaigning in Florida after receiving news that a gunman entered a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, and opened fire, killing a 12 people and wounding 59. (Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images) ORIG FILE ID: 148959509
CAPTION
By Mark Wilson, Getty Images

Defense Minister Ehud Barak on Friday reiterated the Israeli belief that Hezbollah was responsible for the terror attack on Wednesday which killed five Israelis and a Bulgarian bus driver. And a U.S. official speaking on the condition of anonymity also told the Associated Press on Thursday that Iranian-backed Hezbollah was behind the attack.

But asked on Friday about possible Hezbollah involvement, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney was circumspect.

"It is certainly the case that Hezbollah and Iran have been bad actors, as a general matter," Carney said. "But we're not, at this point, in a position to make a statement about responsibility. "

Obama spoke by phone with Bulgarian Prime Minister Boiko Borisov on Friday before he delivered remarks in Fort Myers, Fla. on the shooting rampage early this morning at a movie theater in Aurora, Colo.

"The President reiterated his condemnation of the barbaric attack," according to a White House readout of the call with Borisov. "He offered his support for the ongoing investigation, and for the Bulgarian people in this challenging time. The leaders discussed the strong partnership and excellent counterterrorism cooperation between the United States and Bulgaria, and the President expressed his appreciation for Bulgaria's important contributions as a NATO member to international peace and security."

Iran and Hezbollah have denied involvement in the attack, but Tehran has accused the Israeli spy agency Mossad of killing several Iranian nuclear scientists, leading to speculation that the attack might be latest move in a proxy war between Israel and Iran.

In October, the U.S. accused Iranian officials of involvement in a foiled plot to Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the United States.

0 User(s) are reading this topic (0 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)

0 Members:

« Next Oldest | Israeli-Palestinian conflict | Next Newest »

Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today.

Learn More · Sign-up for Free