Middle East Inside Line: IDF Concern over Settlers, Israel's Warning to Europeans, Barak's Tactics, Chomsky on "Stalinist" Israel

Israel Defense Forces Concern over Settlers: The head of Israel Defense Forces' Central Command, General Avi Mizrahi, told the troops of Kfir Infantry Brigade on Monday that the recent spate of settler violence could lead to a Palestinian uprising in the West Bank.

The Kfir Brigade, created in December 2005, consists of six battalions who man 30 percent of the roadblocks in the West Bank and are responsible for 60 percent of arrests. Although the IDF is not aware of any plan, Mizrahi said, the IDF must be ready for any escalation in the territory and for the possibility of fighting the Palestinian forces, trained in Jordan by US General Keith Dayton. Mizrahi continued:

Middle East Inside Line: Proximity Talks Continue; Israel’s Lieberman & Palestine; Chomsky Barred

In most of the settlements, there is no problem,. Most are normative – but another mosque arson, and yet another arson, and it all comes together. But Yitzhar, Gilad's Farm, Maon, they don't believe in us at all as a state. They want only one thing, and when someone loses his boundaries, you don't know where it's going to go.

"Hands off Gaza": The Israeli Foreign Ministry warned Turkey, Greece, Ireland, and Sweden that any of their citizens setting sail for Gaza would be stopped before they could reach the coastal territory.

Earlier Monday, Israeli security forces released and deported a Turkish national arrested this month for allegedly belonging to an outlawed Islamic group.

Israel's Barak Aligning with Obama: Unlike his coalition partners, Ehud Barak prefers playing the "good guy" within the context of a regional peace under Washington's guidance. Possibly because of benefits when compared to partners' "intransigence", the Labor Party declines to hit the media with conservative and provocative statements on Jerusalem.

Barak on Monday urged Israeli lawmakers to refrain from taking any actions or making remarks that might present West Jerusalem's opposition to the Middle East peace process, according to Israel Radio. He also said that Israel must work to increase the mutual trust with its top ally, the United States, and added that the proximity talks must eventually lead to direct talks with the Palestinians.

Chomsky's Response to Israeli Officials: Having been refused entry into Israel on Sunday, Noam Chomsky likened Israel to a  "Stalinist regime". In a telephone conversation with Haaretz, Chomsky said from Jordan:

The official asked me why I was lecturing only at Bir Zeit and not an Israeli university. I told him that I have lectured a great deal in Israel. The official read the following statement: 'Israel does not like what you say.

I find it hard to think of a similar case, in which entry to a person is denied because he is not lecturing in Tel Aviv. Perhaps only in Stalinist regimes.

Israel's Lieberman on North Korea: Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman on Sunday responded to a personal attack from the North Korean Foreign Ministry, which called him "an imbecile". He said, "I see it as a compliment from the North Koreans."

Iran Analysis: Assessing the Tehran Nuclear Deal (Gary Sick)

Gary Sick, a former official in the Carter and Reagan Administrations and one of the top US-based analysts on Iran, offers an evaluation of today's agreement between Iran, Brazil, and Turkey on a procedure for the enrichment of Tehran's uranium stock:

What to make of the new nuclear agreement by Turkey and Brazil with Iran?

Perhaps the main point is to be reminded of the moral from the old folk tale: Be careful of what you wish for, since you just might get it. The United States took a rather righteous position that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the West had made Iran a remarkably generous offer, and when it was rejected they had no choice but to go all out for sanctions.

Iran Document: Text of Iran-Brazil-Turkey Agreement on Uranium Enrichment
Iran Urgent: The Deal on Uranium Enrichment

There are those in Washington (but also in Paris and London) who were fully committed to passing a strong sanctions resolution in the United Nations Security Council next month, and this is a blow to them and all the intense diplomatic work they have done in the past five or six months. Clearly, it will be immensely more difficult, if not impossible, to get a sanctions resolution if this deal is on the table.


According to preliminary information, the agreement provides that Iran will, within a month, ship 1240 kg of roughly 5 percent low enriched uranium (LEU) to Turkey where it will be held in escrow for up to a year until Iran is provided with 120 kg of fuel cells (uranium enriched to near 20 percent) to replace the nearly exhausted fuel of the Tehran Research Reactor (TRR) that makes medical isotopes. This represents more than half of the 2065 kg of LEU that Iran had produced as of February according to the IAEA, and it greatly reduces Iran’s capability to produce enough fissile material for a bomb.

We should all be reminded of the original purpose of the agreement. It was intended as a confidence-building measure that would open the way to more substantive discussions of other issues. The original offer that Iran provisionally accepted in October tacitly accepted Iran’s right to enrich uranium; in return Iran would give up control over a significant portion of its existing stash of LEU. Even low enriched uranium can be further enriched to create bomb-grade (roughly 90+ percent) highly enriched uranium (HEU) that is required for a bomb. The October agreement would have created an environment conducive to at least minimal mutual trust and the beginning of serious negotiations.

Note to negotiators: In the past six months, Iran has not used its LEU to build a bomb, even without an agreement.

Iran has set up a special line to enrich uranium to the 20 percent required for the TRR, but that line is small, separated from its other enrichment facilities, and under inspection of the IAEA. The move to enrich some uranium to 20 percent was obviously intended as a pressure tactic to drive the West back into negotiations, since Iran does not have the capability to manufacture fuel cells for the TRR.

We should also be reminded that Iran did not reject the original deal: they proposed amending it. Basically, when the Iranian negotiators came home with the proposed deal, they were attacked from all sides –-- including members of the Green Movement –-- for being suckers. Their opponents pointed out that they were going to rely on the word and goodwill of Russia (where the LEU would be enriched to 20 percent) and France (where the fuel cells would be fabricated). Iranians from left to right argued that both of these countries had repeatedly cheated Iran on nuclear issues: Russia by delaying endlessly the completion of the nuclear power plant at Bushehr, and France by refusing to grant Iran rights to the Eurodif enrichment facility partially owned by Iran since the days of the shah. Why, they asked, should we believe that this agreement will be any different?

Instead, they proposed that the swap of LEU for the fuel cells should happen on Iranian soil, probably in stages and within a fixed period of time. That idea was rejected by the United States and its negotiating partners.

The new bargain appears to be a compromise in which the LEU would physically be removed from Iran and held in escrow in Turkey for up to a year, in which time the fuel cells would be manufactured and delivered to Iran. The new bargain also appears to go much further in formally recognizing the legitimacy of Iran’s independent enrichment program. That should not be a surprise given the fact that Brazil, one of the parties to the bargain, has its own enrichment facility similar to Iran’s and in fact concealed its details for some time.

So where does that leave us?

Essentially, it takes us back to last October. The one big difference is that Iran has more LEU now than it did then. But the reality is that Iran will keep producing LEU unless a new agreement is reached to persuade them to stop. If we wait another six months for negotiations, Iran will have still more LEU.

In short, this agreement is largely symbolic and limited in its practical effects. If the West accepts the deal as worked out by Brazil and Turkey, and if a new round of negotiations begins – on both the nuclear and other major issues – then this could be a breakthrough. If the West turns it down, or if the two sides do not use it to negotiate some of the major issues that separate them, then nothing much will have been accomplished.

The next step is up to the United States and its negotiating partners.

Although angst is high among the sanctions-at-all-costs crowd, this path to a nuclear swap deal was fully endorsed by the United States and was the centerpiece of the justification for sanctions. One way to respond at this point may just be to declare that our threat of sanctions worked: Iran has capitulated and we accept yes as an answer.

Hmmm…are we that smart?

The Latest from Iran (17 May): Let's Make a Deal (But Not with You, Mousavi)

2120 GMT: We close tonight with an analysis by Gary Sick, posted in a separate entry, of today's Tehran agreement on uranium enrichment.

2045 GMT:Political Prisoner Watch. Literary critic Abbas Khalili Dermaneh (also known as Khalil Dermaneki) has been released after almost five months in detention. Dermaneh was arrested during the Ashura demonstrations on 27 December.

Ahmad Yazdanfar, the head of Mir Hossein Mousavi's security detail, has been arrested.

NEW Iran Analysis: Assessing the Tehran Nuclear Deal (Gary Sick)
NEW Iran Document: Text of Iran-Brazil-Turkey Agreement on Uranium Enrichment
NEW Iran Document: Mehdi Karroubi “The Islamic Republic Depends Upon the People”
NEW Iran Document: The Prosecutor on the Executions, “Leaders of Sedition” (15 May)
NEW Iran Urgent: The Deal on Uranium Enrichment
Iran Blackout: Shutting Down the Movies
The Latest from Iran (16 May): Intimidation After the Executions

1800 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch. Writer and children's rights activist Reza Khandan was released last Wednesday. Peyke Iran claims that that international pressure contributed to the decision to free him.


1440 GMT: Karroubi's "Islamic Republic Depends on the People". We have posted the English translation of Mehdi Karroubi's latest rallying call for the Iranian people to defend the Republic.

1415 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch. Amir Kabir University student Mohammad Yousefi has been released after six months in detention.

1150 GMT: More "It's Still War!" MediaFail (see 1024 GMT). It's one thing for The New York Times to package this morning's Iran-Brazil-Turkey deal as, first and foremost, a complication for sanctions. Even if their "experts" are doing no more than speculating --- "The terms mirror a deal with the West last October which fell apart when Iran backtracked. This time, however, those same terms may be unacceptable to Washington and its partners because Iran has since increased its supply of nuclear fuel" --- at least there is the guise of analysis rather than Government spin.

Reuters, however, has no excuse. The agency ran the scare story last Friday from "Western diplomats" that Iran must be preparing for militarised nuclear capability because it was enriching uranium to 20 percent, rather than sending it abroad. So what happens when Iran does agree to send the uranium abroad?

Well, Reuters calls "Western diplomats" --- possibly the same ones who fed them their Friday article --- to get quotes:

"If they refuse to stop enriching to 20 percent and make this proposal for fuel, then why are they continuing the higher enrichment [with their own centrifuges]? There is no other peaceful justification," a Western diplomat said. [NOTE: The "peaceful justification" is that Iran may not get enriched uranium for up to a year, even if this morning's deal goes through with the US and other powers.]

"This would be a deal-breaker," another said.

1120 GMT: Nuclear Question of the Day/Week/Month. We're continuing special updates in a separate entry on today's Iran-Brazil-Turkey deal on uranium enrichment, and we have posted a copy of the agreement.

An EA correspondent, meanwhile, asks the key question about Iranian politics. We all know that President Ahmadinejad, seeking legitimacy, has pursued an agreement since last summer, but "why are the Supreme Leader and Speaker of Parliament Ali Larijani, who opposed last October's deal, now supporting it?"

1030 GMT: Academic Corner. Four students from Elm-o-Sanat University in Tehran have been expelled for political opposition.

1024 GMT: CNN on Iran Nuclear Deal "It's Still War!" A hopeless display of journalism from CNN this morning....

Instead of trying to get to grips with the possible significance of the deal announced by Iran, Brazil, and Turkey, CNN's website goes back to the older scare story --- circulated by "Western diplomats" on Friday --- of Iran putting in a second cascade of centrifuges to provide 20-percent enriched uranium for its Tehran Research Reactor, producer of medical isotopes (see Saturday's updates).

True, Foreign ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast told the Islamic Republic News Agency this morning that Iran would continue this process but --- since arrangements for a swap of Iran's 3.5-percent uranium for 20-percent uranium in Turkey may not be completed until mid-2011 --- that would seem a logical step to keep the TRR going.

So here's CNN gambit: "20-percent enriched uranium is the threshold for uranium capable of setting off a nuclear reaction. And Western leaders have alleged that Iran is trying to create nuclear weapons under the guise of a civilian energy program."

Umm... "Threshold for a nuclear reaction". Not threshold for even a single bomb, which is more than 90 percent.
0750 GMT: Karroubi Watch. Mehdi Karroubi, meeting academics, doctors, nurses, and families of martyrs, has asserted that the Islamic Republic was only born through people's votes; therefore, the Republic derives its meaning from the people.

0730 GMT: The Nuclear Deal. We will be providing updates on today's agreement between Brazil, Turkey, and Iran in a separate entry.

Meanwhile, the key (and probably unasked) question on the internal dimension: what legitimacy will the Ahmadinejad Government claim (and what legitimacy will it obtain) from the agreement? Not sure if anyone has noticed, but there seems to be an anniversary coming up on 12 June....

0720 GMT: Intimidation. Following the public threat to Mir Hossein Mousavi from the Tehran Prosecutor General and the letter by 175 members of Parliament calling for prosecution of Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi (see yesterday's updates),  Khabar Online offers a timeline of the warnings to Mousavi and Karroubi.

0620 GMT: We open this morning with updates on two important stories.

Media inside and outside Iran will likely be focused on news of agreement between Iran, Brazil, and Turkey on a procedure for a deal on enrichment of Tehran's uranium. We've got the latest developments and what to watch for today.

Inside Iran, however, the political story is the continued effort by the Government to defend the executions, now more than a week old, of 5 Iranians. We have a transcript of Saturday's lengthy statement by Tehran Prosecutor General Abbas Jafari Dowlatabadi justifying the hangings.



However, just as significant in the statement --- despite Dowlatabadi's extended denial that the timing of the executions has any political significance --- is his high-profile warning to Mir Hossein Mousavi. The Tehran Prosecutor's references to Mousavi's position as Prime Minister in the 1980s, during a period when many Iranians were executed, should not be missed: you supported them then, so why trumpet public opposition now?

Then there is Dowlatabadi's pointed declaration to the "leaders of sedition": we've seen you denounce this execution of rightfully-condemned terrorists, we've noted it, and we will add it to the list of charges against you.

Absolutely no connection to the 12 June anniversary of the Presidential election, with the possibility of opposition demonstrations, whatsoever.

Iran Document: Text of Iran-Brazil-Turkey Agreement on Uranium Enrichment

JOINT DECLARATION BY IRAN, TURKEY AND BRAZIL
(17 May 2010)

Having met in Tehran, Islamic Republic of Iran, the undersigned have agreed on the following Declaration:

1. We reaffirm our commitment to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and in accordance with the related articles of the NPT, recall the right of all State Parties, including the Islamic Republic of Iran, to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy (as well as nuclear fuel cycle including enrichment activities) for peaceful purposes without discrimination.

UPDATED Iran Urgent: The Deal on Uranium Enrichment

2. We express our strong conviction that we have the opportunity now to begin a forward looking process that will create a positive, constructive, non-confrontational atmosphere leading to an era of interaction and cooperation.


3. We believe that the nuclear fuel exchange is instrumental in initiating cooperation in different areas, especially with regard to peaceful nuclear cooperation including nuclear power plant and research reactors construction.

4. Based on this point the nuclear fuel exchange is a starting point to begin cooperation and a positive constructive move forward among nations. Such a move should lead to positive interaction and cooperation in the field of peaceful nuclear activities replacing and avoiding all kinds of confrontation through refraining from measures, actions and rhetorical statements that would jeopardize Iran’s rights and obligations under the NPT.

5. Based on the above, in order to facilitate the nuclear cooperation mentioned above, the Islamic Republic of Iran agrees to deposit 1200 kg LEU in Turkey. While in Turkey this LEU will continue to be the property of Iran. Iran and the IAEA may station observers to monitor the safekeeping of the LEU in Turkey.

6. Iran will notify the IAEA in writing through official channels of its agreement with the above within seven days following the date of this declaration. Upon the positive response of the Vienna Group (US, Russia, France and the IAEA) further details of the exchange will be elaborated through a written agreement and proper arrangement between Iran and the Vienna Group that specifically committed themselves to deliver 120 kg of fuel needed for the Tehran Research Reactor (TRR).

7. When the Vienna Group declares its commitment to this provision, then both parties would commit themselves to the implemention of the agreement mentioned in item 6. Islamic Republic of Iran expressed its readiness to deposit its LEU (1200 kg) within one month. On the basis of the same agreement the Vienna Group should deliver 120 kg fuel required for TRR in no later than one year.

8. In case the provisions of this Declaration are not respected Turkey, upon the request of Iran, will return swiftly and unconditionally Iran’s LEU to Iran.

Middle East Inside Line: Proximity Talks Continue; Israel's Lieberman & Palestine; Chomsky Barred

The Proximity Talks Continue: "U.S. envoy George Mitchell returns to mediate a second round of Middle East talks this week," announced Kurt Hoyer, the US Embassy spokesman in Tel Aviv. He said it was not yet determined on what day Mitchell will arrive.

Israel's Lieberman Responds to Russia, Turkey, and Syria: Israel Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman said Sunday "The sale of weapons [between Syria and Russia] does not contribute to building an atmosphere of peace." He asserted that Syria has no interest in peace and critiqued Russia's "hypocritical" stance on terrorism:

Russia, but also Egypt and Turkey as well as other countries, have a policy of differentiating between 'good' and 'bad' terrorism, between that which targets Israel and that which targets others.

Middle East Inside Line: Nakba Day/Independence Day; Deterioration in East Jerusalem; Israel’s Lieberman “An Imbecile”?

Lieberman also spoke about calls to include Hamas in discussions: "We will not accept any ultimatum with regard to Hamas, and we won't let this movement take part in any peace process."



Palestine's Erekat in Israel: The top negotiator of the Palestinian Authority, Saeb Erekat, gave a speech at the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv on Sunday. He called on both parties to make decisions and reiterated the Palestinian Authority’s desire for a just peace with Israel based on the two-state solution. He said:

I know that many in Palestine and Israel today doubt the possibility that peace can be achieved. I beg to differ. We don’t need to reinvent the wheel. There can be a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders, with land swaps and solutions for the refugees.

Many people thought that there was no progress with the negotiations that have taken place over the years because Palestinians and Israelis have eyes that only see things that are not achieved. But I believe that Palestinians and Israelis, over the last decade of negotiations, have come a long, long way.

The Americans cannot make peace for us. Americans cannot make the concessions that are required by Palestinians or Israelis. Americans cannot make decisions for Palestinians and Israelis. Many people say that the proximity talks after 19 years is a regression, that Palestinians not sitting face-to-face with Israelis is a step backward. That can be argued, but another argument in the science of negotiations is that proximity is when two sides exhaust everything they have – they have turned over every stone, they cannot conclude what they are trying to achieve. Then comes a third party to do four tasks: to go between, to facilitate, to arbitrate and to mediate.

Considering a future Palestinian state, he added:

Limited arms doesn’t mean limited dignity. We will not accept Israeli presence in the Palestinian state.

I am not going to waste my time talking about interim solutions. If at the end of the day, as Palestinians, we are willing to accommodate Israeli requests and end our nakba [catastrophe], and you still insist that my hometown Jericho should be called Yeriho and Nablus be called Shechem, talk to me. I’m not scared. Now it is the moment of truth. Israelis need an end to conflict. Israelis need to understand that there is a leadership that is willing to [meet] the requirements for peace.

When asked if the PA would recognize Israel as a Jewish state, Erekat said:

Why are you asking me to join the Zionist movement? I don’t want to be a Zionist... Your name is the State of Israel. I recognize you as the State of Israel. If you want to call yourselves the Eternal, United, Historical, Biblical, Hebrew Nation of Jews from now to the future, who cares?

Chomsky Not Allowed into Israel and Palestine: Professor Noam Chomsky, an American linguist and left-wing activist, was denied entry into Israel and the West Bank on Sunday by the Interior Ministry. He was scheduled to deliver a lecture at Bir Zeit University near Jerusalem.

Interior Ministry Spokeswoman Sabine Haddad told The Jerusalem Post on Sunday evening that the initial decision to deny Chomsky entry was down to a "misunderstanding" and denied claims that Chomsky's name was on a blacklist of individuals prohibited from
entering the country. She said:

We are checking with the IDF's Coordinator for Government Activities in the Territories (COGAT). If COGAT gives us the all clear, we will grant him entry.