By Ted Belman Obama’s message to Israel: Freeze settlements or get rid of Dimona (see below) Apparently Dennis Ross said To my mind all that is necessary is to take out Iran and its proxies for there to be peace. There is no need to capitulate to the PA. America wants this as a gift to the moderates. Keep in mind that this opinion was published by Haaretz. I haven’t seen anyone else share this opinion. There is also talk about Netanyahu having accepted a deal in which Israel would lease the Jordan valley and east Jerusalem from the Arabs I can’t imagine Israel accepting any of these deals. Abbas has aleady rejected it. In the view of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak, his strategic approach is too moderate, just like that of his boss, Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi. The chief of staff and his deputy failed to volunteer grave security assessments and enthusiastic recommendations for operations to their political superiors. In Washington last week, Gantz said goodbye to his counterparts in the Pentagon, first and foremost Gen. James "Hoss" Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The Hoss nickname given to the Marine Corps pilot is a reference to the middle brother of the Cartwright family from the 1960s TV show "Bonanza." According to The New York Times, U.S. President Barack Obama tasked "Hoss" Cartwright with drafting the list of security goodies the administration urged Netanyahu to accept in exchange for a two-month extension of the freeze on construction in the settlements. Netanyahu turned them down. Both the Pentagon and the U.S. National Security Council regret the departure of the Ashkenazi-Gantz duo. Just a few months ago, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, succeeded in pressuring Pakistan's government to grant another three-year term to its pro-American military chief, Ashfaq Parvez Kayani. Mullen and Cartwright would not have been happy to replicate this feat in Jerusalem. This infuriates Barak, who wishes to be seen in Israel as the man with the closest possible ties to Washington, and in the U.S. as someone working to moderate Netanyahu on the Palestinian issue, though not the Iranian one. But Barak's efforts have failed. His political power is almost nonexistent. Meanwhile, he is pulling away from his two top advisors, former chief of staff Amnon Lipkin-Shahak and former Military Intelligence chief Uri Saguy. This may be because they are close to Ashkenazi, or perhaps because he is not eager to listen to their reservations about strategic adventuring - two possibilities that actually have a great deal in common. Against this background, and with America holding its midterm elections today, last week's address by Dennis Ross to AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, in Hollywood, Florida, takes on special significance. Ross is in charge of Iran and Israeli-Arab affairs at the National Security Council. The White House made sure to disseminate his remarks, of which the most instructive is the link he made between Israel's nuclear program - yes, Israel's, not Iran's - and the diplomatic process. Ross, who has served both Republican and Democratic presidents for the last three decades, predictably lauded Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and National Security Advisor Thomas Donilon for leading the campaign to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. But he also took care to mention that Congress, with "strong encouragement from AIPAC," had enacted tough sanctions against Iran with bipartisan support. "The entire American political spectrum views the challenge of Iran as a foremost national security priority of the United States," he declared. An American security priority, not an Israeli one; the conflict with Iran is "ours." Obama hopes to resolve this conflict peacefully, but he is under no illusions, and is prepared to use force to realize his declared goal of preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. According to Ross, for all the importance of the recent increase in American military aid, Israel's long-term security depends on real peace with its neighbors - and therefore, on the victory of the region's moderates over its extremists. In the Palestinian context, this means seizing the fleeting opportunity provided by the leadership duo of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Salam Fayyad. This, he added, is an American interest, not just an Israeli one. Thus it is not subject to Netanyahu's sole discretion. Ross - that is to say, Donilon, which is to say, Obama - outlined the link between peace negotiations and Israel's nuclear program in delicate but clear diplomatic language. In September, at the International Atomic Energy Agency's General Conference, the U.S. managed to foil a condemnation of Israel's nuclear program (which had been pushed by Egypt ). The Obama administration will of course "continue to stand up for Israel in these organizations, but there should be no mistake that our efforts are strengthened when Israel is actively participating in peace negotiations." Between "Hoss" and Ross, the meaning is clear, and it does not depend on the outcome of today's elections: You want to keep Dimona? Then you'll pay the price to keep talking with Abbas - namely, a settlement freeze. And as for Iran, don't be an idiot. Leave it to Obama. I have posted this articles links several times in the past in the comments. Apparently it has not resonated either with Ted or anyone else. It has with me even before Moshe Dann’s article (see below). There has been a strong Lobby in the American Defense establishments including and especially the CIA and State Dept. to force Israel to give up our nuclear deterrent. Egypt Vocally and Saudi Arabia quietly have been lobbying American and all international bodies to pressure Israel to forgo her nuclear arsenal. Iran has given America a degree of leverage over Israel that extends and exceeds what has been till now. The closer Iran gets to that hypothetical point of no return the more leverage America has to use against Israel and our national interests i.,e survival! A nuclear defanged Israel is an Israel with no realistic long or short term deterrent. Yamit By Moshe Dann http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/06/obamas_real_agenda_israels_dim.html “I understand those who protest that some countries have weapons that others do not. No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons. That is why I strongly reaffirmed America’s commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons. And any nation – including Iran – should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. That commitment is at the core of the Treaty, and it must be kept for all who fully abide by it. And I am hopeful that all countries in the region can share in this goal.” As a policy statement, this means that America (or any other country) cannot deny the right of any country to WMD. It undercuts the reasons for America’s attack in Iraq, assents to nuclear proliferation and precludes any action against Iran. It also turns the focus on Israel. Amidst all of the distortions and inaccuracies of Pres Obama’s speech in Cairo, this paragraph sends chills through Israel’s intelligence community. His reference was not just to Iranian nuclear weapons, but “any nation” that has, or acquires them. That includes Israel. Obama’s emphasis on a commitment to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, something which Israel has refused to agree, since that means opening all of its facilities to inspection – including its top secret plant in Dimona – is a direct threat to Israel’s security. Aware of Israel’s long-standing policy in this matter, Obama shifts the attack. By linking support for Israel against Iran with a halt to all settlement building, and establishing a second Arab Palestinian state, Obama has set the stage for his big prize: Dimona. Aware that no Israeli government can agree to a complete freeze in building, Obama can blame Israel for American inaction against Iran, and lack of support for its war in Afghanistan. It’s a perfect excuse: ‘Israel didn’t do enough; it’s Israel’s fault.’ “Israeli intransigence” will be given as the reason for America’s failure. ‘If only Israel had evacuated more settlements, stopped building, dismantled more checkpoints, given more aid to Hamas, stopped demolishing illegal Arab buildings, etc., we could have done something,’ Obama will say. But Obama’s real agenda is not settlements; it’s Israel’s nuclear capacity. Egypt especially has been urging the US to force Israel to open its facility at Dimona. Prior to the “Six Day” War in 1967, Russian spy-planes flew over Dimona and, according to Isabella Ginor and Gideon Remez (Foxbats Over Dimona) wanted to bomb it. No doubt, Arab terrorist groups like Al Qaida, Hamas and Hezbullah have Dimona in their sights as well. The key to neutralizing Israel’s nuclear capacity is the NPT. As his speech clearly indicates, Israel’s agreement to the NPT is the lever to gain Iranian compliance. ‘How can Israel be allowed to have nuclear weapons,’ Obama suggests, ‘and not Iran, or any other country?’ Unlike any other President, Obama has put Israel in a difficult, if not impossible position. If it refuses to agree to sign the NPT, Israel will be isolated and blamed for lack of progress on Iran. If it agrees, Israel will lose a vital strategic deterrent. Well aware of terrorist threats to America, and concerned about investments and interests throughout the world, Obama sees pushing Israel against the wall as a convenient way of deflecting Muslim terrorism. As long as Islamists think that Obama is on their side, they’ll refrain from attacking, keep the oil flowing and the prices low. Iran may even be willing to make cosmetic (and temporary) adjustments so that Obama can claim that the crisis has been defused. And Israel will pay the price: sanctions, boycotts, diplomatic and economic isolation similar to the international pressures that broke South Africa’s apartheid regime. Obama’s speech is an ominous warning of what he is prepared to do in order to strip Israel of its military advantage. Along with the loss of control over Judea and Samaria, territories that are vital for Israel’s security and access to water reserves, faced with Arab terrorist militias backed by Arab armies, Israel will be completely vulnerable. The face of this Jihad is not one of ranting, bearded clerics, but smooth-talking, clean-shaven smiling apostles of peace and the Philosopher-King of Hope. ------ The author, a former asst professor of History (CUNY) is a writer and journalist living in Jerusalem. moshedan@netvision.net.ilthe meaning is clear, and it does not depend on the outcome of today’s elections: You want to keep Dimona? Then you’ll pay the price to keep talking with Abbas – namely, a settlement freeze. And as for Iran, don’t be an idiot. Leave it to Obama.
“The entire American political spectrum views the challenge of Iran as a foremost national security priority of the United States,” . “An American security priority, not an Israeli one; the conflict with Iran is “ours.”
According to Ross, for all the importance of the recent increase in American military aid, Israel’s long-term security depends on real peace with its neighbors – and therefore, on the victory of the region’s moderates over its extremists.In the Palestinian context, this means seizing the fleeting opportunity provided by the leadership duo of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Salam Fayyad. This, he added, is an American interest, not just an Israeli one. Thus it is not subject to Netanyahu’s sole discretion.
as part of a deal It is suggested that the only thing in question is the length of the lease.
Pres. Barack Hussein Obama, June 4, 2009
Wednesday 3 November 2010
Are negotiations with Abbas all about Iran?
Obama's message to Israel: Freeze settlements or get rid of Dimona
In an address to AIPAC last week, Dennis Ross outlined the link between peace negotiations and Israel's nuclear program in delicate but clear diplomatic language.
By Amir Oren November 2,2010
Maj. Gen. Benny Gantz will retire from his post as deputy chief of staff at the end of the month and begin his demobilization leave. It is hard to believe he will be offered another senior defense post.
Obama’s Real Agenda: Israel’s Dimona Nuclear Facility
http://www.israpundit.com/archives/29934
Posts
