Israel Concerned over the U.S. Arms Deals with "Moderate" Arabs?

According to Haaretz, major arms deals signed between U.S.A and Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the United Arab Emirates have caused concern among Israeli officials; although Israel had already been informed about the scope and content of these agreements.

On the other hand, a report submitted to Congress by Pentagon states that none of the deals would "alter the military balance in the region." It is claimed that officials in Washington defended the arms deals on the basis that they will boost the moderate axis in the Middle East, deter Iran and in particular strengthen Saudi Arabia's military capabilities in its war against al-Qaeda in Yemen.

These are the contents of deals:

To Egypt:

• Four batteries of Harpoon Block II anti-ship cruise missiles (20 missiles).


• Four fast missile boats.


• 450 Hellfire antitank missiles.


• 156 jet engines for F-16 jets in the wake of a deal in October for the sale of 24 F-16 C/D fighter aircraft equipped with electronic warfare suites. It is stated that the F-16s supplied to Egypt are less advanced than the aircraft of similar type in Israel's arsenal.

To Saudi Arabia:

• 2,742 TOW-2 antitank missiles.

To Jordan:

• 1,808 Javelin antitank missiles with 162 launchers in the wake of a deal in September for more than 80 advanced rocket launchers, of types that have been sold to Israel in the past.

To UAE:

• Ordnance at a value of $290 million.


• 1,600 laser-guided "smart" bombs


• 800 one-ton bombs


• 400 bunker buster bombs.

It is also stated by the newspaper that although the UAE does not pose a threat to Israel and is not considered an enemy state, officials in Tel Aviv are concerned about this deal.

In the same report submitted to Congress, it is mentioned that there have been no arms deals since Barack Obama took office. So, what is really behind Israeli officials' concerns? Is it the fact that its neighbours are going to be armed with better high-tech devices, no matter how "moderate" they are? Or is it a subtle "protest"/"complaint" in order to use the argument that the 'balance of power' may tilt away from additional military aid to Israel from Washington following the 2007 Memorandum of Understanding, which promisws $30 billion to Tel Aviv over the following 10 years?

Iran: Hillary Clinton on Engagement & Pressure with Regime of "Ruthless Repression"

On Monday, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton talked to Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Hamad Bin Jassim Bin Jabr Al-Thani. At the press briefing, Clinton answered a question regarding Iran. She underlined the "so-far-unsuccessful yet continuing dual-track approach" - engagement and pressure - and emphasized the difference between the "must-do's" against the Iranian government in the absence of any "amelioration" in the government's response and the "needs & concerns" to be taken care of when it comes to Iranian people who are facing "ruthless repression":

The Latest from Iran (6 January): Distractions

QUESTION: Secretary Clinton, on Iran, President Obama said last year that you’d have a pretty good sense by the end of year whether Iran was seriously interested in pursuing dialogue about its nuclear program. There aren’t a lot of signs that they are, and there are no signs that I’m aware of that they’re interested in carrying out the agreement on low-enriched uranium that was reached in Geneva.

Iran is going through a very turbulent period in its history. There are many troubling signs of the actions that they are taking. And we want to reiterate that we stand with those Iranians who are peacefully demonstrating. We mourn the loss of innocent life. We condemn the detention and imprisonment, the torture and abuse of people, which seems to be accelerating. And we hope that there will be an opportunity for Iran to reverse course, to begin engaging in a positive way with the international community, respecting the rights of their own citizens. But we’re going to continue on our dual-track approach.

One, from your point of view, is the LEU deal dead? Two, even if the door to talking about the LEU deal is still open, is the Administration now closer to imposing targeted sanctions, particularly on companies or individuals that have ties to the Revolutionary Guard Corps?

And lastly, do you not perceive a danger that additional sanctions could play into the hands of the hardliners, who often make the argument that they are engaged in a struggle with foreign forces and try to rally people around them that way? And they’ve made that argument even as they’ve been crushing the protests recently.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Arshad, we remain committed to working with our international partners on addressing the serious concerns we have regarding Iran’s nuclear program. Now, our approach, as you know, has always proceeded on two tracks; we have an engagement track and a pressure track. And as I’ve said, the results of our efforts to engage Iran directly have not been encouraging. We’re disappointed by their response to the proposal for the Tehran research reactor. And the Iranian Government announced a deadline to receive a positive response to their unacceptable counter-offer. So yes, we have concerns about their behavior, we have concerns about their intentions, and we are deeply disturbed by the mounting signs of ruthless repression that they are exercising against those who assemble and express viewpoints that are at variance with what the leadership of Iran wants to hear.

Now, we’ve avoided using the term “deadline” ourselves. That’s not a term that we have used because we want to keep the door to dialogue open. But we’ve also made it clear we can’t continue to wait and we cannot continue to stand by when the Iranians themselves talk about increasing their production of high-enriched uranium and additional facilities for nuclear power that very likely can be put to dual use.

So we have already begun discussions with our partners and with likeminded nations about pressure and sanctions. I can’t appropriately comment on the details of those discussions now, except to say that our goal is to pressure the Iranian Government, particularly the Revolutionary Guard elements, without contributing to the suffering of the ordinary Iraqis [sic] who deserve better than what they currently are receiving.

Wednesday Debate: "Are Israel and Apartheid South Africa Really Different?"

A debate between Haaretz's Akiva Eldar, who asked on Monday, "Are Israel and apartheid South Africa really different?" and David Newman of The Jerusalem Post, who replied, "Security or Discrimination?":

ELDAR

The day after the murder of the settler Meir Hai about 10 days ago, Major General (reserve) Amos Gilad was asked to comment on the claim by settlers that the attack was able to take place because roadblocks had been lifted on West Bank roads. The security-political coordinator at the Defense Ministry told his radio interviewer that the policy of thinning out internal roadblocks has greatly contributed to the West Bank's impressive economic growth. According to Gilad, who until recently was coordinator of activities in the territories, the improvement of the Palestinians' economic lot has contributed substantially to Israelis' security.

Israel: A Grand Construction Strategy, Step by Step
Power Politics in Palestine: A More Confident Fatah Today?
Israel Inside Line: Lieberman’s “Enough” Declarations
Israel-Palestine: Gideon Levy “The Time for Words is Over”

An army man, who is not suspected of belonging to a human rights organization, thus upsets the simplistic and most accepted formula: restrictions on Arabs means more security for Jews. The Supreme Court ruling last week to lift the ban on Palestinians using Route 443 shows that members of the judiciary also no longer stand at attention when they hear the magic word security. Nonetheless, the judiciary members, like politicians and the media, still find it hard to let go of their paralyzing dependency on this term. This is intentional: If discrimination is not mandated by security considerations stemming from the threat of Palestinian terrorism, how can we diagnose this regime as segregationist? If it is not diagnosed as such, there is no need to treat it.

The Association for Civil Rights in Israel, which appealed against the ban on Route 443, dared suggest the word apartheid and was reprimanded for it. In her ruling, Supreme Court President Dorit Beinisch wrote that "the great difference between the security means adopted by the State of Israel for defense against terrorist attacks and the unacceptable practices of the policy of apartheid requires that any comparison or use of this grave term be avoided." A similar argument was voiced during the days of Israel's military administration over its Arab citizens, which was lifted in 1966, and which is today considered a dark period in the country's history.

Beinisch herself is a co-author of about a dozen rulings that exposed the malicious use of the segregation regime in an effort to take over Palestinian land. In some cases, most notably one concerning the separation fence near Bil'in, she wrote that the invasive route set by the army was inferior from a security point of view to the route proposed by experts at the Council for Peace and Security. In another case the state admitted that the person in charge of planning the fence did not inform government lawyers that the route had been adjusted to the blueprint for expanding the settlement of Tzofin. Were it not for human rights organizations and conscientious lawyers, who would prevent shortsighted politicians from annexing more and more territory "for security against terrorism"? asked Beinisch.

One of the myths among whites in South Africa was that "blacks want to throw us into the sea." Many of apartheid's practices were formally based on security, mostly those involving restrictions on movement. Thus, for example, at a fairly early stage, black citizens needed permits to move around the country. During the final years of apartheid, when the blacks' struggle intensified as did terrorism, its practices became more severe.

To avoid the rude word apartheid, Beinisch pulled out the well-known argument that apartheid is "a policy of segregation and discrimination based on race and ethnicity, which is based on a series of discriminatory practices designed to achieve the superiority of a certain race and oppress those of other races." Indeed, systematic segregation (apartheid) and discrimination in South Africa were meant to preserve the supremacy of one race over others.

In Israel, on the other hand, institutional discrimination is meant to preserve the supremacy of a group of Jewish settlers over Palestinian Arabs. As far as discriminatory practices are concerned, it's hard to find differences between white rule in South Africa and Israeli rule in the territories; for example, separate areas and separate laws for Jews and Palestinians.

Last Wednesday, Israeli policemen blocked the main road linking Nablus and Tul Karm. Dozens of taxis with Palestinian workers on their way home from another day on the job in the settlements were told to park on the side of the road. Cars with yellow license plates passed by. There was no roadblock for security inspections; it was just the memorial ceremony for Rabbi Meir Hai. Just as long as they do not say that there is apartheid.

NEWMAN

If an outside observer needs to be convinced of just how absurd and intractable the Israel-Palestine conflict has become, he/she only needs to reflect on last week's High Court ruling concerning the right of travel for Palestinians on Route 443, linking Jerusalem to Modi'in.

Take a step back and think about it - the court had to remind the country, which prides itself on being the only democracy in the Middle East, that in a democratic society, everyone has the right of access to public facilities, not least the major transportation arteries.

For its part, the Defense Ministry argued that it was necessary to keep Palestinians from using this route due to the security risk involved. It was the classic argument - in the name of security, everything is permissible, even when it comes to blatant discrimination. Even the court ruling did not totally prohibit road closures, and allowed one section of 443 to remain closed to Palestinian cars.

Interestingly, no such argument was used to ban settlers from using roads on the West Bank. Security is only about security for the Jewish citizens of the country, never for the Arabs or Palestinians, many of whom have suffered violence at the hands of some settlers - such as the burning of mosques, the destruction of orchards and even the murder of innocent civilians - from the Jewish underground in the 1980s, to Baruch Goldstein in Hebron in 1994, to the recent activities of Ya'acov Teitel.

If anyone from the outside suggests that such policies smell of something called apartheid, we immediately reject such a comparison and write long letters and articles explaining why the system of discrimination against the black population in South Africa bears no relationship to the situation of the Palestinians in Israel and the West Bank. But for the first time in a High Court discussion, the term apartheid was used by one of the appellants on behalf of the Palestinians to describe the situation by which one ethnic group is forbidden from driving on a road exclusively reserved for the Jewish population.

CALL IT security, call it discrimination, call it apartheid - it is stupid and shortsighted. It reflects, yet again, the fact that after 42 years of occupation of the West Bank, Israel is controlled by, rather than in control of, the situation. We continue to live in fear, unable to maintain a secure environment for our citizens. So we resort to incremental, half-baked solutions such as the building of concrete walls in the middle of cities and along both sides of Route 443, the prevention of free access and travel to citizens of one group, and the confiscation and destruction of olive groves and orchards in those places where we argue there is a security risk.

The one thing we prove time after time is that the mighty IDF may be good at defending its external borders (and even this is not necessarily the case any more), but it is hopeless when it comes to controlling another people who want nothing more than their own political and sovereign rights.

The construction of roads is part of a wider system of regional and physical planning which has always been governed by political and security dictates. During the country's first decades, the establishment of civilian settlements along its borders was seen as an integral part of its defense policy and, as such, could override any objections raised by planning, economic or environmental lobbies.

I OFTEN drive from the Negev to Jerusalem via the West Bank, using roads which have been constructed and expanded in recent years to enable ease of access for the Jewish settlers and travelers, while the roads leading into Hebron, Bethlehem, Jenin and other Palestinian cities have been transformed into minor roads in poor condition, although they serve the needs of hundreds of thousands of inhabitants. We drive along empty highways, while they drive along narrow, overcrowded and dangerous side roads - and we do all this in the name of security, so that we can bypass the cities which we ostensibly control but are afraid to enter, and so that we can have ease of access to every small settlement and hilltop outpost without having to encounter our neighbors who are excluded from large parts of the territory.

While Palestinians are able to drive freely on all roads in Areas A and B (as defined in the Oslo Accords), there are more than 300 kilometers of roads in Area C (under Israeli control) on which they either are forbidden to travel or must have special authorization. Any car with Palestinian license plates can be prevented from travelling on these roads, especially those defined as "sterile" by the Israeli authorities.

Within the Green Line, too, roads are used as a powerful political tool. The construction of the new road to Arad and parts of the Route 6 extension in the South have enabled the removal of some 15 unrecognized Beduin villages on the grounds of "public need."

PLANNING IS a powerful tool of territorial and land control which can be, and in the case of Israel is, used to ensure that the political objectives of the state are achieved. And where there is no reason to build settlements along borders or construct bypass roads and highways for exclusive use, there is always the Jewish National Fund, which designates areas for afforestation - especially in close proximity to the Green Line - so as to close them to any form of alternative development, even if other communities require space to meet the residential needs of their rapidly growing populations.

Security is important to all of us. None of us wants to be blown up by a roadside bomb, a Katyusha rocket or a suicide bomber, just as no Palestinian wants to see IDF tanks and soldiers in their backyard or ripping up their orchards. But to prevent the normal civilian rights and privileges of hundreds of thousands of innocent people from building homes or travelling along roads is a cynical manipulation of the security agenda - and it is this which brings our democracy into disrepute.

Israel: A Grand Construction Strategy, Step by Step

On Tuesday, after  the approval of 900 housing units in November and 700 new apartments in December, Israel's Jerusalem municipality approved the construction of a further four apartment buildings in East Jerusalem.

Palestinian Chief Negotiator Saeb Erakat responded, "We condemn this decision in the strongest language and we condemn the Israeli Government's continuing construction of settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank....Netanyahu's government is talking about peace and negotiations in a way that is totally opposed to the reality on the ground where settlement activity is continuing."

Power Politics in Palestine: A More Confident Fatah Today?
Israel Inside Line: Lieberman’s “Enough” Declarations
Israel-Palestine: Gideon Levy “The Time for Words is Over”

Stephan Miller, spokesman for Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat, was far happier about the decision, "As far as the municipality is concerned, building can begin".

Iraq: Compensation for Israel's 1981 Osirak Airstrike?

Muhammad Naji Muhammad, an Iraqi Membeof Parliament, has claimed that the Iraqi Government is preparing to knock on the United Nations' door to demand compensation for Israel's bombing almost 30 years later: "Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and the Foreign Ministry turned to the UN and the Security Council demanding that Israel pay us reparations for damage caused to the reactor in 1981."

UN Security Council Resolution 487, which condemned Israel's pre-emptive aerial attack, gives Iraq the right to demand compensation over the damages. In Article 6, it says: "[The United Nations] Considers that Iraq is entitled to appropriate address for the destruction it has suffered, responsibility for which has been acknowledged by Israel."