Ashkenazi in U.S.: IDF must prepare to strike Iran

[bemildred]

Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi on Monday said that while Israel was interested in exhausting diplomatic options against Iran's nuclear program, the army must nevertheless prepare itself for a military attack.

Ashkenazi, who is currently visiting the United States, has decided to cut short his trip in order to take part in a special cabinet session on negotiations for a deal to release abducted Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit.

During a visit to Washington, D.C., Ashkenazi met with Dennis Ross, the designated U.S. envoy to the Persian Gulf, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to discuss the Iranian issue. The IDF chief told Ross that Israel would not tolerate a nuclear Iran. He said that a diplomatic approach to Iran's contentious nuclear program must be taken first, but said Israel must also prepare for other possibilities.

Ashkenazi also met during his trip with General James Jones, national security adviser to President Barack Obama, to discuss other Middle East issues. The IDF chief held a number of other meetings over the course of his visit, but was forced to turn down an invitation to dine at the home of outgoing Israeli envoy Salai Meridor, in the company of other senior American officials.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1071490.html

[bemildred]

1. Ashkenazi cuts short U.S. visit to deal with Shalit

WASHINGTON (JTA) -- Israel's military chief cut short a visit to the United States to return home to attend talks over the release of a captive Israeli soldier.

Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi's spokesman notified Israeli media of the decision to return to Israel on Monday afternoon, hours before Ashkenazi was to have been the guest of honor at a Friends of the Israel Defense Forces dinner.

"The IDF spokesman requests that it be emphasized that the decision of the chief of staff derives from the desire and decision of Lt. Gen. Ashkenazi to be present in Israel at a time that discussions are taking place about the return of Gilad Shalit and that there is no further significance to this," the statement said.

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's outgoing government is in the midst of intense Egyptian-brokered talks with Hamas to return Shalit, a corporal captured by the terrorist group in a cross-border raid in June 2006. Hamas wants hundreds of its members freed from Israeli prisons; Israel is insisting that some of the freed prisoners not return to Gaza.

http://jta.org/news/article/2009/03/16/1003755/ashkenazi-cuts-us-visit-short-to-deal-with-shalit

[azurnoir]

20. Interesting considering

Negotiators return from Cairo without Schalit deal

Hopes for a breakthrough that would lead to the release of captive soldier Gilad Schalit were dashed Monday night when the Prime Minister's Office released a statement saying that Hamas had hardened its position.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x265750

[bemildred]

21. Yeah, I wasn't convinced that was the real reason he left.

Or not. It just seemed odd. There seemed to be some confusion about what he did while he was here too.

[bemildred]

24. Obama Rebuffs Israeli Hawk

Some interesting bits in this regard down towards the bottom.

There are very worrying signs about Israel and Iran, amid new threats from Israeli officials that they won't long tolerate Iran's nuclear program before they strike militarily. But, at the same time, there are reports that President Obama's national security team isn't buying the Israeli line that time is running out.

For instance, a top Israeli military official, in Washington, was not exactly given the red carpet treatment by Obama's top officials -- yet even so, he met Jim Jones, Obama's national security adviser, Hillary Clinton, and Dennis Ross.

The Israeli armed forces chief of staff, Gabi Ashkenazi, met yesterday with top US officials in Washington, including General James Jones, the national security adviser, and Dennis Ross, the State Department's special adviser on "the Gulf and Southwest Asia," and he warned that Israel is preparing for a military strike on Iran. According to Haaretz, the Israeli daily:

Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi on Monday said that while Israel was interested in exhausting diplomatic options against Iran's nuclear program, the army must nevertheless prepare itself for a military attack. ...

During a visit to Washington, D.C., Ashkenazi met with Dennis Ross, the designated U.S. envoy to the Persian Gulf, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to discuss the Iranian issue. The IDF chief told Ross that Israel would not tolerate a nuclear Iran. He said that a diplomatic approach to Iran's contentious nuclear program must be taken first, but said Israel must also prepare for other possibilities.

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/dreyfuss/418375/obama_rebuffs_israeli_hawk

[Jefferson23]

25. So Israel's drumbeat for war is contained for now, but I couldn't

help but think how differently this would have gone down had McCain won the White House. Although I do not support Obama on some of his approaches to the problems our nation faces, I am still grateful he is my president.

[bemildred]

26. Mr Dreyfuss is not quoting the best source there.

So I would not take what is said as fact. But he did pull up stakes and leave early.

I think it is a mistake to expect too much of President Obama, too soon. I think he intends to defend Israel's security while trying to force a settlement along the lines of the "Arab proposal". That is going to be a difficult thing to pull off, a dirty fight, and a long slog; and I may be over-estimating his intentions. He may simply understand that the present course will never lead to anything but what we have now, and be trying to change the dynamics of the situation without thinking too specifically about endgames.

[Jefferson23]

27. Yes, I understand that, and Dreyfuss does add, "if its true." Yet, it appears to

be a reasonable explanation. I'm grateful for any slow down on the rhetoric that would likely have been one voice, the Israel/US voice on Iran, had McCain won. For Obama has many obstacles and opportunities, as every president does, so we shall see.

[bemildred]

28. Yup, hard to see how Obama could be worse than McCain.

McCain gave ample evidence of his total lack of clue.

[grassfed]

51. yes.

[bemildred]

30. Netanyahu's Love Bombs To America

The Tibet lobby has some work to do. The new Israeli prime minister's proposed national security adviser is under suspicion of spying against America:

Mr. Arad, a former member and director of intelligence for the Mossad, Israel's spy service, is mentioned in the indictment of Lawrence Franklin, a former Pentagon analyst who pleaded guilty in 2005 to providing classified information about Iran in a conversation with two employees of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) ...

Israeli and U.S. officials said Mr. Arad has been denied a U.S. visa since June 2007 under section 212 3(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. This gives consular officers and the Justice Department authority to bar people who may seek "to violate any law of the United States relating to espionage or sabotage" from entering the country.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/03/netanyahus-love.html

[Howardx]

31. heres the real reason ashkenazi left early

"According to one report, visiting General Ashkenazi didn't exactly find the welcome mat rolled out for him:


Last year, Israeli Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi had no problem setting up meetings with top officials in the U.S. government.

On his current trip to Washington, Ashkenazi sought to meet the administration of President Barack Obama, but most officials were unavailable.

Diplomatic sources said Ashkenazi failed to obtain access to any Cabinet member, including Defense Secretary Robert Gates. The Israeli military chief, who sought to discuss the Iranian nuclear threat, won't even meet his counterpart, Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

"The administration is sending a very clear message to Israel, and this is we want to talk about Palestine and not Iran," a diplomat who has been following U.S.-Israel relations said.

On March 12, Ashkenazi left for a five-day visit to the United States meant to lobby the Obama administration to abandon the planned U.S. dialogue with Iran. Ashkenazi, scheduled to meet with the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee, was expected to have brought new Israeli intelligence on Iran's nuclear weapons and missile programs. But the diplomatic sources said the administration made it clear that nobody in a policy-making position was available to sit with Ashkenazi. This included the president, Vice President Joseph Biden, Gates, National Intelligence director Dennis Blair or Mullen.

Ashkenazi has obtained a meeting with National Security Advisor James Jones. But the sources said the meeting would focus on U.S. demands for Israel to ease military restrictions in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. ...

The Israeli chief of staff has also scheduled a session with Dennis Ross, the special adviser on Iran to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. But the sources said Ross was not regarded as being in a policy-making role.

The diplomatic sources said the White House and the senior echelon of the Obama administration have refused a dialogue with Israel on the Iranian threat. They said Ms. Clinton, during her visit to Israel, was largely silent during briefings by Israeli intelligence on Iran's nuclear and missile programs.


The slap at Ross, in the above report, that he is "not regarded as being in a policy-making role." and the report that Clinton "was largely silent" while Israeli officials harangued her about Iran, is a good sign.

If this latter report is true, it means that, so far, Obama and his team are standing strong against Israel's attempts to elevate the Iran problem to the level of a crisis. The real crisis, of course, is not Iran but Israel's refusal to talk seriously about a deal with the Palestinians."

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/dreyfuss/418375/obama_rebuffs_israeli_hawk?rel=hp_picks

[bemildred]

32. Post #24.

Not that I don't appreciate the kick.

[Howardx]

34. aah

hmmmmm. youre welcome!

[bemildred]

2. Pentagon chief: Israeli attack on Iran would endanger Mideast

On the eve of Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi's visit to the United States for talks on Iran's nuclear program, his American counterpart, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Michael Mullen, warned last Thursday that an Israeli attack on Iran might lead to escalation, undermine the region's stability and endanger the lives of Americans in the Persian Gulf "who are under the threat envelope right now."

Asked by interviewer Charlie Rose of PBS television what would happen if Israel attacked Iran, Mullen, referring to the frequent statement that "all options are on the table," said such an "option generates a much higher level of risk in terms of outcomes in the region and it really concerns me."

However, he also expressed concern about Iran acquiring nuclear capabilities, saying it would "be very destabilizing" to the region because "their neighbors are extremely concerned about it. I worry about the proliferation which would occur." "If other parts of the world are an example, neighborhoods, when they get one, they start to proliferate," he explained. "So it really ... dramatically increases the danger in the region."

Mullen commented favorably on President Barack Obama's plan to begin a dialogue with Iran, but said that if this dialogue fails and Iran acquires nuclear weapons, the U.S. might take military action. Though America's ground forces are "stretched" in Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. has a "very strong" strategic reserve in the air force and the navy, he noted.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1071297.html

[IndianaGreen]

3. Admiral Mullen is concerned about American lives, something that Israel doesn't give a hoot about

Even George W. Bush nixed Israel's proposal to bomb Iran.

The people calling for bombing Iran are the same crazy scum that forced Ariel Sharon to form his own Kadima party.

[bemildred]

5. Yeah, it's easy to speculate about their motives, but I can't rationalize it.

It's a bonehead stupid idea, and that OUGHT to be obvious. Maybe they just hate giving up being able to threaten Iran.

[Idealism]

36. This is purely a political move by Bibi, and a very deft one at that.

Same reason why Bibi has been shooting his mouth off about "Iran must not be allowed to get a nuke" and that he will intervene militarily to make it so, same reason for pressuring Obama and our new administration to "do something" with regards to Iran-- This is about influencing Iranian politics because it will help Bibi get re-elected if he can keep a right-wing figurehead as the President of Iran.

This all adds up to one important event in the near future: June Iranian Presidential elections.

Why you might ask? Bibi, being the war-hawk he is, but ALSO being the intelligent cunning bastard too, realizes that the status quo figurehead (aka current President of Iran) spouting off at the mouth about needing the "Zionist regime wiped off the face of the map" and denying the Holocaust is good for Bibi's popularity. After all, if war is imminent what better man to have in office than a war-hawk? That is how you build popular support and get your agenda passed through, not to mention re-elected.

Bibi has figured out that if he demonizes Iran and hints at military actions needing to take place, it only undermines the moderates and left-wingers of Iran, but instead of undermining the right-wing Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, he gives him ample opportunity to match Bibi's public threats with Mahmoud's own boisterous musings.

In the June elections we will see a moderate, former President of Iran Mohammad Khatami allowed to run as the biggest threat to Ahmadinejad. Khatami's campaign bid may yet be struck down by the conservative clerics and mullahs who ultimately have the final say in politics. Even if he runs, he may not be allowed to win, if the very conservative mullahs and clerics don't stand behind him- which they may decide against if Israel threatens an assault. Bibi kills two birds with one stone: keeping Iran as right-wing as possible while boosting the need for a right-wing war-hawk at Israel's helm.

[bemildred]

37. Khatami has withdrawn, in favor of another guy.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=3786561

Just saying. WRT your argument, I think you give Bibi far too much credit, and I can think of several other "explanations" just as good or better, e.g. as a distraction from the issues much closer to home, and there is also the issue of Iran's support for Hamas and Hezbollah and a wish to have some leverage over that.

[Idealism]

38. Yeah, just as I posted that I read about Khatami withdrawing.

Perhaps it was due to the mullahs wanting a more "strong" leader in place should Bibi threaten Iran. I don't know what else it would be: Khatami was wildly popular when he first got elected, promised to increase democratic freedoms and the like. Well, the clerics decided they didn't want any of that and stonewalled him at every turn till he was out of office. Seems like history is repeating itself here.

Bibi was smart enough to get himself elected twice. He had the political cunning to sign the Wye agreement, pandering to moderates and pro-peace Israeli's, but never enforce it due to one reason or the other (Al-Aqsa Intifada being the most commonly used) in order to not appear soft. I would not underestimate him.

Iran's support for Hamas and Hizbollah is minute in the total foreign assistance these two organizations get. I don't see Bibi saber-rattling about Pakistan's fiduciary support of these two groups. That is more so a distraction than substance. If Iran were to cut off funding, neither Hamas nor Hizbollah would cease to be, and by all measures would probably run just about as well as they can with all the international sanctions imposed on them.

[bemildred]

39. For the sake of argument ...

I think it's more about weapons and politics than money. Look at it from an Israeli government point of view here for a minute, you got two hostile militias on your border that you have a mutual hate thing going on with, and these other guys - Iran - are sitting 1000 miles away kibitzing and trying to give them weapons and generally egging them on. Now, wouldn't that be a sufficient motive to want to have some sort of big stick that you could wave over in that direction from time to time? And the USA is talking about making up with them, which means you are going to have even less to work with in terms of leverage. And Iran has oil, and it's big, and it's friends with Iraq and Syria and Russia and China. You don't need any elaborate explanation for why Israel wants some leverage over there. I'm not saying it's the correct approach, but it's not hard to figure out.
:-)

[Idealism]

40. Militarily speaking, Grad rockets are a minor issue to Israel.

If the rockets were able to reach Tel Aviv, it may become different, but for that to happen you would have to have Iran exporting different rockets than Grads which they have as of yet have not done.

Perhaps I am jaded with the American perspective that all moves have some political undertones to them, and that most politicians will do whatever they can to get re-elected.

[bemildred]

41. Well, I'm just offering an explanation for the big fuss over Iran. nt

[polly7]

4. Why does Israel's gov't hate all its neighbours?

They have many, many nukes, yet hyocritically and despite recent articles stating studies showed Iran hasn't the capability to make one ......... want to detroy even more human beings than they presently are in Palestine. Where does all that hate come from?

[LeftishBrit]

6. In the case of Iran...

it's because the government of Iran hates them first!

Note that I do NOT think that a strike on Iran is justified, or likely to achieve its goals, and may escalate into a serious and long-lasting war. I'm perhaps unusual on this board in that I have friends from both Israel and Iran; and the thought of a war between the countries horrifies me on a personal as well as political level. At the same time, it does no good to pretend that Israel is the only 'hater' in the region.

[cali]

8. oh please

that's as ridiculous as claiming that all of Israel's neighbors hate Israel and want to destroy it. There's ample hate coming form all directions in the ME.

[no_hypocrisy]

7. "must"?????

Who's making them?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

9. The butcher of Gaza? He's a fucking WAR CRIMINAL FCOL!!! nt

[henank]

11. No he's not.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

12. Google "Ashkenazi war criminal" to get a sense of how many are ready to file charges.

Open your eyes and stop letting your ideology blind you.

Have you seen photos of what that criminal wrought in Gaza?

Or doesn't it count, since they are only brown Muslims. Who gives a shit, right?

[oberliner]

13. Ashkenazi is of Syrian decent

Is he not "brown" in your eyes?

This is not a white/brown conflict much as you seem to want to define it as such.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

14. Bullshit.

If you think racist attitudes towards Arabs aren't a big part of why 80% of the Israeli population was just fine seeing pictures of dead Arab kids, you better think again.

Same thing for the blatant disregard in the good ol' USA.

[oberliner]

15. I respectfully disagree with you

Israelis did not support the invasion because of the race or color of the people of Gaza. Israelis supported the invasion of Gaza because of the consistent rocket attacks on Israeli cities and past history of Hamas suicide attacks which slaughtered numerous innocent Israeli victims.

Just as you have argued that anti-Israeli sentiments among Palestinians, Lebanese, and others are not based on anti-Jewish prejudices, I would argue that the corresponding sentiments from Israelis are not based on racial prejudices.

Do you really think that Israel would not have acted in the way that it did if the people living in Gaza were of a different race?

As for the US and the reaction of Americans to the conflict, that is an altogether different matter. Race definitely appears to figure into which conflicts receive the most attention over here.

How many Americans have even a clue as to what is going on in Sri Lanka for instance?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

16. You are deluding yourself if you think that there are NOT many in Israel who think like

Rahm Emmanuel's dad. Puh-leeze.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

17. Study: Israeli Jews becoming increasingly racist toward Arabs

By Avirama Golan, Haaretz Correspondent

Tags: israel, arabs, racism, jews

Israel's Jewish community increasingly supports the delegitimization, discrimination and even deportation of Arabs, found a report on racism in Israel, set to be released Wednesday.

The report, to be presented at a press conference in Nazareth by Mossawa, the Advocacy Center for Arab Citizens of Israel, states that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has clearly impacted public opinion, and warns that ideas such as population exchange and racial segregation are gaining ground. It also warns that several Jewish politicians are gaining influence based on a platform of racial hatred.


http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/966014.html

[oberliner]

18. It is certainly true that racism is a problem in Israel

However, that is not what informs the ongoing conflict between Israelis and Palestinians.

In fact, as this article suggests, the reverse seems to be the case. That is to say that the conflict itself has resulted in a rise in such attitudes, not the other way around.

The excerpt you included makes that very assertion.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

22. Oberliner, racism is exactly what allows Israeli Jews and their American supporters to allow the

status quo to continue for 40+ years.

I'm sorry, I'm laughing so hard I've spit my morning coffee on my monitor. You really can't be serious.

[Taitertots]

29. I'm sure it has nothing to do what Arabs have done

for the last 60+ years.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

33. I think the early Zionists were pretty racist... wouldn't you agree?

Land without a people and all?

If not for racism, how else can the Israeli populace live with itself for maintaining 40+ years of denying the full measure to an entire national group? They're not "like" Jewish Israelis... not really!

Israel isn't the only nation that has brutal racism as an underpinning, but that doesn't mean it isn't there.

[Taitertots]

35. Some people in Israel have been racist

That doesn't mean the 40+ years of response to arab aggression was based on racism.

It has everything to do with Israel facing a continued war for its existence from its neighbors. The suicide bombers, rocket attacks, the calls for genocide against the Israelis, and the multiple wars of aggression against Israel.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

42. Nonsense. Palestinians accepted their racist lot pretty passively for many

before violence was involved.

The bottom line: Elected governments of every political stripe, and the Israeli electorate has been pretty comfortable with 40+ year deprivation of human and politicla rights, with using "dirty Arabs" as cheap labor, with stealing their land, with throwing them in jail without charge or trial, with keeping them unlder lock and key for days and weeks at a time.

If comfort with those horrific living conditions isn't racism, what is?

You know it and I know it.

[Taitertots]

45. Violence predates the formation of Israel

Those actions are responses to the continued existential threat facing Israel from a group that happens to self identify along religious and ethnic basis.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

48. For sure. When the racist fantasy "land without a people" was quickly shown to be nonsense

violence ensued.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

50. You mean back in 1947 when Jews owned 7% of the land? Another newsflash: there are Christians in

Palestine too.

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Shaktimaan]

46. umm... doesn't Israel treat their Arab population better than

any of the surrounding Arab states treat their Palestinian population? If the conflict was based on racism then why do we see discrimination against Palestinians coming from other Arabs as well? Are we to believe that even though widespread discrimination against Palestinians occurs everywhere, in Israel alone that same discrimination (but in a far lesser degree) is due to racism?

If comfort with those horrific living conditions isn't racism, what is?

I dunno. What is it everywhere else?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

47. Wrong question: Do Arab Israeli enjoy all the same rights and privileges as Jewish Israelis?

No.

You know it's bad when you compare the shining beacon of democracy in the ME to the surrounding despots.

You're right. Israel isn't as bad as Sudan or Zimbabwe.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

43. Oberliner, do actually believe that racist attitudes don't "inform" this conflict?

They are the very fuel and fire of this conflict, beginning with "a land without a people" nonsense.

They were invisible from day one, and inconsequential from day one.

Books are filled with racist quotes from Israeli state builders, recorded racist actions, etc.

You can't POSSIBILY be serious.

[Howardx]

19. american israel supporters live in a fantasy world

the israel they support is long gone if it ever existed in the first place.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

23. How else can one group with power consign the powerless group to decades of political

and personal half-life?

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Scurrilous]

44. Russia confirms Iran missile contract

<snip>

"Russian news agencies cited a top defense official Wednesday as confirming that a contract to sell powerful air-defense missiles to Iran was signed two years ago, but saying no such weapons have yet been delivered.

Russian officials have consistently denied claims the country already has provided some of the S-300 missiles to Iran. They have not said whether a contract existed.

The state-run ITAR-Tass and RIA-Novosti news agencies and the independent Interfax quoted an unnamed top official in the Federal Military-Technical Cooperation Service as saying the contract was signed two years ago. Service spokesman Andrei Tarabrin told The Associated Press he could not immediately comment.

Supplying S-300s to Iran would change the military balance in the Middle East and the issue has been the subject of intense speculation and diplomatic wrangling for months.

Israel and the U.S. fear that, were Iran to possess S-300 missiles, it would use them to protect its nuclear facilities — including the uranium enrichment plant at Natanz or the country's first atomic power plant, which is now being built by Russian contractors at Bushehr.

That would make a military strike on the Iranian facilities much more difficult.

It was not clear why the missiles have not been delivered, but the reports cited the defense official as saying "fulfillment of the contract will mainly depend on the current international situation and the decision of the country's leadership."

more