-
JPost Middle East- Analysis: Why has the West Bank been quiet? January 6, 2009
- Lebanon doubts Hizbullah will open second front January 6, 2009
- UNSC to meet on Gaza resolution January 6, 2009
- Hamas opens hospital for gunmen January 6, 2009
- Sarkozy urges Assad to press for truce January 6, 2009
- ynet - Updates for RSS
- Bush adviser: Iran, Pakistan key Obama challenges January 7, 2009
- Judge to ponder whether Bernard Madoff dangerous January 7, 2009
- Rice says US supports Mubarak proposal on Gaza January 7, 2009
- Saddam wouldn't have allowed Israel's Gaza raid, says aide January 7, 2009
- UK voices support for Egyptian ceasefire initiative January 7, 2009
- Haaretz.com - News
- ANALYSIS / Israel must double, triple, quadruple its medical aid to Gaza January 7, 2009A few days ago, Physicians for Human Rights began soliciting $700,000 in donations for hospitals in the Gaza Strip. The Israeli humanitarian organization also provided a detailed list of the medical equipment Gaza lacks, including portable monitors, respirators, ultrasound and X-ray machines, wheelchairs, needles, dressings, catheters, oxygen, medical gases, endo-tracheal tubes, screws and plates for shattered limbs, and surgical gloves. According to PHR, Gaza also has a severe shortage of intensive-care beds, which cost about $50,000 apiece. Moreover, many Palestinian ambulances are out of commission. ...
- As truce efforts grow, Israel mulls expanding Gaza ground op January 7, 2009Israel's political leadership will meet in Tel Aviv on Wednesday morning to discuss expanding the ground offensive in the Gaza Strip at a time when most of the aims of the operation have been met. ...
- Rice: U.S. backs Egypt proposal for Gaza cease-fire January 7, 2009U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said on Tuesday Washington backed a proposal by Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak for a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas in Gaza. ...
- Venezuelan President Chavez: Gaza operation is a Palestinian 'holocaust' January 7, 2009Venezuela expelled the ambassador to Israel on Tuesday in protest over the offensive in Gaza only hours after leftist President Hugo Chavez called the attacks a Palestinian "holocaust." ...
- Israel to establish 'humanitarian corridor' for Gaza Strip January 7, 2009Israel will set up a "humanitarian corridor" to counter a crisis caused by its offensive in the Gaza Strip, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's office ...
- ANALYSIS / Israel must double, triple, quadruple its medical aid to Gaza January 7, 2009
Obama’s ‘Palestinian friend’ laments catastrophic U.S. policy in Mideast
No one stopped Rashid Khalidi, the Columbia University professor of Modern Arab Studies, at Ben-Gurion airport. Having just landed after the long flight from New York, the professor was anticipating the traditional reception from airport security personnel reserved for visitors with “suspicious” names. To his surprise, he entered the airport like anyone else, with no problems or delays. Perhaps word had gotten around at Ben-Gurion that he was the Palestinian friend of United States President-elect Barack Obama.
Khalidi, 60, who spent three weeks in Israel and the territories before continuing on to Beirut this week, doesn’t like all the fuss surrounding his relationship with the president-elect. Up to now, he had avoided speaking about it publicly, for better or worse. The reason may be, as reflected in my interview with him at his hotel in Jerusalem, overlooking Damascus Gate, his disappointment in his Chicago friend’s treatment of the Arab and Islamic community in the United States. Or maybe it’s also discomfort with the Democratic candidate’s response during the campaign to reports about the ties between them. “He is a respected scholar, although he vehemently disagrees with a lot of Israel’s policy,” said Obama in a widely publicized comment from a May campaign event, in response to a question about their relationship. His spokesman made certain to add that the president-elect has been “clear and consistent on his support for Israel.”
“Obama was my colleague at the University of Chicago, a family friend, neighbor and my district representative in the Illinois State Senate,” says Khalidi. “Since I moved to New York in 2003 and he moved to Washington a year later, we’ve had much less opportunity to remain in contact.” In April, The Los Angeles Times reported that, at the farewell party at an Arab-American community center, Obama noted that they had shared frequent dinners and interesting conversations, adding, “I’m hoping that, for many years to come, we continue that conversation - a conversation that is necessary not just around Mona and Rashid’s dinner table,” but around “this entire world.” The article further related that Obama said he hoped to give the Palestinians hope with a new American policy in the Middle East. Another one of the guests reportedly likened the settlers in the territories to Osama bin Laden, asserting that both are “blinded by ideology.”
Republican presidential candidate John McCain and his running mate, Sarah Palin, took the story and ran with it, seeking to score some points with Jewish voters. “Obama is a friend of a Palestinian hater of Israel,” proclaimed McCain. Palin attacked The Los Angeles Times for refusing to make public a videotape of the farewell party. Their people “discovered” that, during the 1980s, when the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) was considered a “terror organization,” Khalidi was the organization’s spokesman in Beirut.
Khalidi, considered the successor to Prof. Edward Said among the Palestinian intelligentsia, studied and taught for 12 years, until 1983, at the American University of Beirut and the Institute for Palestinian Studies there. While he did maintain connections with foreign reporters, he was never a PLO spokesman. Later on, between the Madrid summit in late 1991 and the Oslo Accords in September 1993, Faisal Husseini got Khalidi added as a consultant to the Palestinian delegation to the Madrid summit and to the bilateral talks with the Israeli team, headed by Elyakim Rubinstein. That was when Khalidi formed his opinion of the coordinator - the U.S. mediator Dennis Ross, who is one of Obama’s advisors on foreign affairs. Khalidi alludes to him when he says in the interview that he hopes the new president will not bring back the same people who contributed to the failure of the peace process here. Nor was Khalidi thrilled to hear that Obama has appointed Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. Clinton’s courting of Israel during the darkest days of the intifada made her a darling of the Jewish community and distanced her from the Palestinian community.
Obama’s campaign went on the counterattack against McCain-Palin: This is yet another attempt, they said, to recycle controversy and divert public attention from the fact that McCain supports Bush’s economic policies. Obama’s spokesman suggested that instead of berating the media’s supposed double standards, McCain ought to explain why, during the time he was chairman of the International Republican Institute, for years it helped fund the Center for Palestine Research and Studies, an organization that sponsored some of Khalidi’s lectures and published some of his work.
Khalidi, who wanted the black Democratic candidate to win, kept his head down and avoided the media. As the son of a political family, he is adept at swimming in such murky waters. His family tree in Jerusalem on his father’s side dates back at least to the 15th century. He says it’s quite likely that some of his ancestors, who were Chief Judges in Cairo during the Mameluke period, are buried in the Muslim cemetery in the Mamila area (the designated site of the new Museum of Tolerance). His uncle was the mayor of Jerusalem from 1935 to 1937, until he was deposed by the British Mandate authorities and exiled to the Seychelles. In the 1950s, the uncle was appointed foreign minister of Jordan and, for a brief time, also served as prime minister under King Hussein.
Khalidi, who is married and has one grandchild, speaks with eloquence and firmness. He was born in New York in November 1948. His father, a university student at the time, married a woman from Lebanon and developed a diplomatic career as an international civil servant working in the UN Secretariat. After his return from Beirut, Rashid Khalidi earned a place of honor among the Palestinian intellectual elite, alongside professors Edward Said, Walid Khalidi (his cousin) and Ibrahim Abu Lughod. His book Under Siege: PLO Decisionmaking during the 1982 War, was translated into Hebrew and published by Ma’arachot Press. He is the Edward Said Professor of Modern Arab Studies at Columbia University and served as the Director of the Middle East Institute there for five years, before stepping down last year. In 2006, he published his most recent book, “The Iron Cage: The Story of the Palestinian Struggle for Statehood” (Beacon Press).
After being around for about two weeks, after quite a long time away, what kinds of changes have you sensed in Palestinian society?
“It would be presumptuous of me, after an absence of over two years, and not having been able to go to Gaza, to pronounce myself on this subject. I will give some impressions nevertheless. I sense even greater anger than before in Jerusalem at the systematic choking off of the city from its West Bank hinterland, the unceasing pressure of new settler strongholds and property expropriations, and the denial of a minimal level of basic municipal services to Arab neighborhoods. Just compare the miserable state of the roads or the schools or the parks in East Jerusalem to those in the West. On a broader level, I detect enormous popular frustration and disgust with both wings of the national leadership, Fatah and Hamas. In spite of this crisis at the political level, there is an irrepressible dynamism, ingenuity and vitality in the Palestinian economy and society, whether in the West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem or the Palestinian community inside Israel. This is the underlying strength of the Palestinian people: it is like water that cannot be dammed up, but finds a way to get through. This resilience is there no matter what new refinements the occupier devises to torture his captive.”
Do you believe that the current PLO leadership will be able to cut a deal with Israel on a two-state solution that will be accepted by the Palestinian people?
“The current PLO leadership does not and will not properly represent the entire Palestinian people until it can achieve a historic compromise with the other wing of the Palestinian national movement, and until a renewed, unified leadership can agree on minimal national goals and a strategy, whatever they are. This requires resisting the internal and external pressures that are intent on keeping the Palestinians divided. Only if they are unified do the Palestinians have a chance of achieving their national goals. Thereafter, to be binding and legitimate, any agreement that might be reached would have to be submitted to a referendum of the entire Palestinian people, inside and outside the country.”
How do you see the future of the Palestinian territories?
“Both the occupation regime and the settlement enterprise have gotten constantly stronger since the negotiating process began in 1991 - after being weakened by the first intifada. These twin processes went on steroids after the second intifada started in 2000. If these two bulldozer-like endeavors are not rapidly reversed - not halted, reversed - then there is no possibility whatsoever of a two-state solution. These processes - the consecration of the occupation regime and the expansion of settlements - have been ongoing for 41 years. I suspect that because of them, combined with the blindness of Israeli leaders and the weakness of Palestinian leadership, there is little chance for a two-state solution to be implemented. And anyone who wants to implement a real, equitable two-state solution would have to explain in detail how they would uproot all or most of the settlements. Equally difficult will be overcoming the powerful interlocking complex of forces in Israeli society that have extensive material, bureaucratic, political and ideological interests in the Israeli state’s continued control over the lives of 3.5 million Palestinians, a control that is exercised under the pretext of security.”
As someone who has long been involved with the PLO and Palestinian politics, what can you say about the current Palestinian leadership?
“The Palestinian people have certainly not always had the leadership they deserved. Israel worsened this situation by systematically liquidating Palestinian leaders - generally the most effective and intelligent among them - going back to the early 1970s. Several Arab regimes also played a part by assassinating key PLO leaders. Historians have pointed to similar efforts by the Zionist movement in the late 1930s and 1940s.
“That said, the current leadership seems to me to be lacking in several respects, and certainly does not seem up to the difficult tasks at hand. It is time for a wholesale renewal of the Palestinian leadership, and the replacement of the few remaining members of the founding generation of the modern Palestinian national movement and their entourage with younger individuals with new ideas. This requires a major effort to confront the failed policies of the current leaders of both major factions, and to find new approaches to the grave problems the Palestinian people face.”
How do you assess the last eight years of U.S. conduct in the Middle East and specifically in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
“It has been catastrophic. It made a bad situation worse, undermined democracy all over the region by helping to sabotage the results of the 2006 Palestinian elections, played a major role in splitting the Palestinian national movement, and helped Israel dig itself even deeper into the hole of a permanent occupation. The administration’s other foolish Middle East policies, like the occupation of Iraq, the ‘cold war’ with Iran and Syria, and encouraging Sunni-Shi’ite conflict in the region, have all been negative in and of themselves, but they also had a profoundly harmful effect on the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. Many American historians say George W. Bush may have been the worst president in American history, but his impact on this region has certainly been little short of a disaster.”
What are your expectations of Barack Obama’s administration in the Middle East? Do you believe he will stick to his promise to put it at the top of his agenda?
“I have no special insight. I do believe that the president-elect takes this problem very seriously, and will give it his attention. Obsessed as we are with our own issues, however, we should not ignore the fact that he faces the greatest American and global economic crisis since 1929, and must necessarily give that priority.
“In any case, much will depend on who is chosen for the key positions relating to the Middle East. If some of the unimaginative, close-minded and biased advocates of conventional thinking who bear a major share of the responsibility for the mess we have been in for over 20 years - from the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations to that of Clinton, even before George W. Bush made things even worse - are appointed to important posts, my expectations will be low. I was involved in the negotiations as an advisor to the Palestinian delegation from Madrid in 1991 until June 1993, before Oslo. Those American officials who helped get the Palestinians and Israelis into the mess they are in via a deeply flawed negotiating process, and a cowardly refusal to confront occupation and settlement head-on when it would have been far easier to do in the 1980s and 1990s, do not deserve another chance to ruin the future of the peoples of this region.”
Can Obama save the two-state solution, or is it too late? What would you suggest he could do in order to accomplish this?
“It may well be too late, as I have said. The new administration would have to prevail on the Israeli government to put into reverse the twin bulldozers of occupation and settlement. This would mean removing walls and barriers inside the occupied territories that separate Palestinians from Palestinians and allowing free movement instead of restricting the population to segregated inferior roads. It would mean ending land confiscation and the building of new residential units for settlers all over the occupied territories, and the return to the population of these territories of the land stolen from them on various ‘legal’ pretexts or without a pretext at all. In sum, it means ending Israeli security control over the occupied territories, and scrapping the whole overarching structure of the occupation regime that has constantly grown more deeply rooted for 41 years.
“Doing this would require a lot of the new president’s political capital. Despite the immense significance of Barack Obama’s victory in terms of American history and politics, I do not think things have necessarily changed in terms of the balance of forces in Washington where Israel/Palestine issues are concerned. This balance of forces is and has long been an obstacle to progress toward ending occupation and settlement and achieving peace.”
Are you disappointed with Israeli intellectuals and the peace camp?
“I respect what many Israeli groups and individuals do. However, their efforts are insufficient in light of the looming prospect of a permanent occupation and the continuation into the indefinite future of what exists today. This is a de facto one-state solution, wherein the State of Israel rules over the entirety of Mandatory Palestine and over more than 5 million Palestinians, most of whom have no rights at all in the polity that takes all the important decisions, the Israeli polity. Although the responsibility of Israel in this matter is paramount, the efforts of Palestinians and of outsiders have been insufficient as well, and we will all be affected by such an outcome, so we all have an urgent responsibility to act. More immediately, targeting a civilian population of 1.5 million people of the Gaza Strip with hunger, deprivation and effective imprisonment, whatever the nature of their leaders, is criminal and is a violation of international law, as are all attacks on civilian populations, Jewish or Arab - something I have said repeatedly in talks here. That people, whether in Tel Aviv, Ramallah, the Arab countries, or the capitals of the world, can remain silent while Gazans are punished on this scale is beyond belief.”
What have you learned from the political-media affair in regard to your relations with Obama?
“It proved once again that to be of Palestinian origin and to be publicly opposed to the occupation and critical of U.S. policy is grounds for public defamation as a ‘terrorist.’ It attests to the survival of McCarthyite tendencies in the U.S. media and politics. It also reaffirmed that Arabs, Muslims and Palestinians specifically are still the ‘other’ in American society. A higher percentage of Arab-Americans voted for Obama than any other ethnic group besides African-Americans, and they voted in record numbers too, I believe, and yet they are still pushed aside, almost literally. For instance, two Arab-American women in hijab were removed from the camera’s gaze at one of Obama’s rallies during the election. Obama did not visit one mosque or Arab community center throughout the entire two-year campaign, and he never mentioned Arab- or Muslim-Americans in his speeches. Whatever may have been the ’strategic’ political reasons for these actions, they show the kind of atmosphere we in the U.S. live in.
“This situation is linked to the problematic notion that it is acceptable to create a U.S. Middle East policy which caters to Israel - and specifically to the Israeli right - and to the concerns of powerful forces like the Israel lobby that are allied to the Israeli right, but hardly at all to Arab- and Muslim-Americans. Such a policy is based on the opinions, ‘expertise’ and allegiances of Washington insiders who are not knowledgeable about all the complex realities of the region, and are mainly sensitive to Israeli concerns. Just as an Obama administration aspires to reflect the entire country in all its diversity, so should its Middle East policy-making reflect a comprehensive set of interests and concerns, and not just one narrow range of them.”
Do you believe that J-street and Arab-American peaceniks can contain AIPAC and Jewish right-wing organizations?
“They appear to have begun to make some headway. They need to convince American politicians, Democrats in particular, that where Israel and Palestine are concerned, leaders of the main institutions of the American Jewish establishment, notably AIPAC, do not represent the views of the majority of the American Jewish community. In fact, the hawkish views of most of these leaders are far closer to those of the 24 percent of that community who voted for McCain than they are to the 76 percent who voted for Obama.
“Arab-Americans of course have a long way to go before they have significant influence, although this is already beginning on the local level in some states. This is still largely a first-generation immigrant community, although more and more of the young have been born, brought up, and educated in the U.S., and will play a much larger political role than their elders. Part of the problem is that the range of opinions that is permissible in the United States is far narrower than those voiced in politics and the media in Israel, or anywhere else. And the general level of ignorance in the U.S. about Middle Eastern realities, in part due to the unceasing propaganda bombardment, is higher than any place in the world.”
As an historian - why did Oslo fail and why does it look like our conflict is reaching a final deadlock?
“Oslo was doomed to fail for several reasons. It was never an agreement between equals, granting statehood and self-determination to the Palestinians, nor was it intended to allow that outcome, Palestinian illusions about it notwithstanding. It did not deal with the key issues between the two sides - Jerusalem, refugees, land, borders, sovereignty and water - and failed to halt settlement or end the occupation. It was an agreement that in effect allowed one side to continue eating the pie that the two were supposed to negotiate over dividing. Indeed, the decade of negotiations that began with Madrid saw a doubling of the settler population, the implementation of plans to parcel up the West Bank into cantons, and the consecration and strengthening of the occupation regime. The 2000 intifada then gave [former Prime Minister Ariel] Sharon a chance to accelerate those already ongoing processes.
“There is no such thing as ‘final’ in history. The current situation is inherently unstable, with intolerable pressure being put on the Palestinians. This pressure will sooner or later produce a reaction, unless it is relieved. The Palestinian national movement is currently in eclipse, as has happened before. Who can say what will come next, but the past 60 years have shown that Palestinian society, whether the part that remained behind in the Jewish state in 1948, or that currently under occupation, or that in the diaspora, has shown enormous vitality and a remarkable capacity to re-knit itself and resist enormous pressure. Look at the Palestinians in Lebanon, who have suffered and suffer more than any segment of Palestinian society, except the people of Gaza. In spite of the serial atrocities committed against them, the multiple external foes they have faced, and the many terrible mistakes and failures of the political leadership, like the Gazans they manage to maintain their social cohesion in conditions of indescribable difficulty.
Here is a unique chance to help this article to be read by thousands of people more. You just share it on your favourite social networking site. You can also email the article from here.
Obama and Hillary ready to face Iran?
By Joel C. Rosenberg
(Jerusalem, Israel, December 3, 2008) — On Monday, I did a telephone interview with reporter who asked a number of intriguing and provocative questions. Here are three, with an executive summary of my answers:
1. What is the most serious foreign policy challenge facing the incoming Obama Administration?
A: Without a doubt, the biggest challenge to U.S. national security - and the security of our allies (namely Israel) - is the threat of Radical Islam. Al Qaeda leaders and other Jihadists are actively preaching that Israel is the “Little Satan” and America is the “Great Satan” and both must be annihilated. So are the leaders of Iran, whose brand of Shia Islamic eschatology (End Times theology) is driving them to try to destroy Judeo-Christian civilization as we know it in order to hasten the coming of the Islamic Messiah known as the Mahdi or the “Twelfth Imam.”
Such Radicals are actively planning and trying to execute catastrophic terrorist attacks Americans and Israelis. True, we as Americans haven’t been hit since 9/11/01 here at home. But that’s not because the Jihadists aren’t trying. The fact is, U.S. and foreign intelligence services have thwarted at least twenty serious terrorist attacks targeting the homeland.
The nightmare scenario would be a Radical Islamic group obtaining nuclear, chemical or biological weapons and using them to accomplish their genocidal objectives. Just this morning, the Times of London has a major story noting: “Iran poses the greatest foreign policy challenge to Barack Obama, the President-elect, with Tehran on course to produce a nuclear bomb in the first year of an Obama administration, a coalition of top think-tanks gave warning yesterday.”
That said, the second biggest challenge we face is this: the rise of an increasingly totalitarian, anti-Semitic, imperialist and violent Russia under Czar Putin. I’m deeply concerned that Russia’s invasion of the democratic Republic of Georgia last summer is a sign of more aggression to come.
2. Are you encouraged by the selection of Hillary Clinton as the country’s next Secretary of State?
A: Unfortunately, no. As I have previously written, I am not convinced that President-elect Barack Obama truly understands the nature and threat of Radical Islam in general or the threat posed by the current leaders of Iran, in particular. His choosing Hillary has not dispelled those concerns. During the Pennsylvania primary, Hillary said on ABC’s Good Morning America: “Well, the question was, if Iran were to launch a nuclear attack on Israel, what would our response be? And I want the Iranians to know that, if I`m the president, we will attack Iran. We would be able to totally obliterate them. That`s a terrible thing to say, but those people who run Iran need to understand that. Because that perhaps will deter them from doing something that would be reckless, foolish and tragic.”
It sounded tough and hawkish at the time, and it probably helped Hillary win the Keystone State. But think about her words more carefully. First problem: she is suggesting obliterating Iran after Iran obliterates Israel. Shouldn’t we be doing everything we possibly can to prevent a second Holocaust of six million Jews, not simply threaten retaliation after that Holocaust occurs?
Second problem: Hillary believes Washington can “deter” Iran from using nuclear weapons, if they obtain them. Is that true? I’m not convinced. Iran’s Ayatollah Khamenei and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad believe they have been chosen for this moment to usher in the return of the Islamic Messiah by destroying Israel and the U.S. They believe this is their divine destiny. This is why they are feverishly trying to build, buy or steal nuclear weapons to trigger the End of Days. How exactly can one successfully negotiate with much less contain or deter leaders with an eschatology that requires them to obtain and use weapons of mass destruction? Hillary’s fundamental misreading of the beliefs and goals of the Iranian leadership tragically compounds the President-elect’s misreading of the situation. I am praying for them both, and for their other national security advisors. But I am not encouraged by what I have seen so far.
3. What do the terror attacks in India tell us the next stages in the Global War on Terror?
It tells us two things. First, the Jihadists are targeting Americans, Jews and Christians for death and destruction wherever they can find them. No country is off limits. There are no safe havens. The war with Radical Islam truly is a global war and we need all hands on deck in the struggle to defeat the Jihadists.
Second, the Jihadists are trying to trigger a nuclear war between India and Pakistan. During my interview with him for Inside The Revolution, former CIA Director Porter Goss urged me to keep my eye on the India-Pakistan conflict and warned this could be one of the next major flashpoints. Seems he was right. Let’s be praying that the Lord would intervene and bring true peace between those two increasingly critical countries.
Here is a unique chance to help this article to be read by thousands of people more. You just share it on your favourite social networking site. You can also email the article from here.
biological attack by 2013
Bipartisan commission suggests Obama administration bolster efforts to counter, prepare for germ warfare by terrorists
Associated Press
| Published: | 12.02.08, 12:15 / Israel News |
The United States can expect a terrorist attack using nuclear or more likely biological weapons before 2013, reports a bipartisan commission in a study being briefed Tuesday to Vice President-elect Joe Biden. It suggests the Obama administration bolster efforts to counter and prepare for germ warfare by terrorists. ”Our margin of safety is shrinking, not growing,” states the report, obtained by The Associated Press. It is scheduled to be publicly released Wednesday.
The commission is also encouraging the new White House to appoint one official on the National Security Council to exclusively coordinate US intelligence and foreign policy on combating the spread of nuclear and biological weapons.
The report of the Commission on the Prevention of WMD Proliferation and Terrorism, led by former Sens. Bob Graham of Florida and Jim Talent of Missouri, acknowledges that terrorist groups still lack the needed scientific and technical ability to make weapons out of pathogens or nuclear bombs. But it warns that gap can be easily overcome, if terrorists find scientists willing to share or sell their know-how.
“The United States should be less concerned that terrorists will become biologists and far more concerned that biologists will become terrorists,” the report states.
The commission believes biological weapons are more likely to be obtained and used before nuclear or radioactive weapons because nuclear facilities are more carefully guarded. Civilian laboratories with potentially dangerous pathogens abound, however, and could easily be compromised.
“The biological threat is greater than the nuclear; the acquisition of deadly pathogens, and their weaponization and dissemination in aerosol form, would entail fewer technical hurdles than the theft or production of weapons-grade uranium or plutonium and its assembly into an improvised nuclear device,” states the report.
It notes that the US government’s counterproliferation activities have been geared toward preventing nuclear terrorism. The commission recommends the prevention of biological terrorism be made a higher priority.
Sense of urgency
Study chairman Graham said anthrax remains the most likely biological weapon. However, he told the AP that contagious diseases — like the flu strain that killed 40 million at the beginning of the 20th century — are looming threats. That virus has been recreated in scientific labs, and there remains no inoculation to protect against it if is stolen and released.
Graham said the threat of a terrorist attack using nuclear or biological weapons is growing “not because we have not done positive things but because adversaries are moving at an even faster pace to increase their access” to those materials.
He noted last week’s rampage by a small group of gunmen in Mumbai.
“If those people had had access to a biological or nuclear weapon they would have multiplied by orders of magnitude the deaths they could have inflicted,” he said.
Al-Qaeda remains the only terrorist group judged to be actively intent on conducting a nuclear attack against the United States, the report notes. It is not yet capable of building such a weapon and has yet to obtain one. But that could change if a nuclear weapons engineer or scientist were recruited to al-Qaeda’s cause, the report warns.
The report says the potential nexus of terrorism, nuclear and biological weapons is especially acute in Pakistan.
“Were one to map terrorism and weapons of mass destruction today, all roads would intersect in Pakistan,” the report states.
In fact, commission members were forced to cancel their trip to Pakistan this fall. The Islamabad Marriott Hotel that commission members were to stay in was blown up by terrorist bombs just hours before they were to check in.
“We think time is not our ally. The (United States) needs to move with a sense of urgency,” Graham said.
Obama backs Saudi plan to force Israel to 1949 borders, divide Jerusalem
Despite all his election promises and assurances to Jewish groups and Israelis, Barack Obama plans to throw his weight behind the Saudi royal family’s 2002 plan to roll back Israel to at least its 1949 borders, the Times of London reported Sunday, citing sources close to America’s president-elect.
While the Saudi plan calls for recognition of Israel by Arab states, such promises have historically proven of scant value relative to the “hard currency” of territorial retreats. Tzipi Livni, the Israeli foreign minister and leader of the ruling Kadima party, and President Shimon Peres, have said that the Saudi plan could be a starting point for discussions but have stopped far short of accepting it.
Contrary to Obama’s promises at the last AIPAC conference in support of an “undivided Jerusalem” — a position he retreated from days later — the Saudi plan divides Jerusalem, hands over the Old City, Temple Mount and the adjacent Western Wall to the Arabs, and calls on Israel to take responsibility for the “Palestinian refugee problem.” It requires Israel to restore the strategic Golan Heights to Syria and allow the Palestinians to establish their capital in east Jerusalem. It would dismantle all Jewish settlements and even Jewish suburbs of Jerusalem, dislocating nearly a half-million Israelis, and leaving the state behind what diplomatic dove Abba Eban described as “Auschwitz borders.”
On a visit to the Middle East last July, the president-elect said privately it would be “crazy” for Israel to refuse a deal that could “give them peace with the Muslim world”, according to a senior Obama adviser.
Apparently there are many crazy Israeli, since the Saudi plan is unacceptable to the vast majority of Israelis, including Benjamin Netanyahu of the Likud, the frontrunner to be prime minister in the next round of elections, slated for February 2009.
The Arab peace plan received a boost last week when President Shimon Peres, a Nobel peace laureate and leading Israeli dove, commended the initiative at a Saudi-sponsored United Nations conference in New York, stepping far beyond the ceremonial role that the Presidential role typically accords. He was loudly applauded for sycophantically telling King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, who was behind the original initiative: “I wish that your voice will become the prevailing voice of the whole region, of all people.”
There are unconfirmed reports that the conference had to be temporarily suspended as Peres sought with difficulty to extract his proboscis from the rectum of the plenum.
A bipartisan group of senior foreign policy advisers have urged Obama to give the Arab plan top priority immediately after his election victory as the basis for an imposed solution on Israel. The advisers — enemies of Israel all — included Lee Hamilton, the former co-chairman of the Iraq Study Group, and Zbigniew Brzezinski, a Democrat former national security adviser.
Brent Scowcroft, a Republican former national security adviser and Israel bashed, piled on as well, suggesting that an early start to the Palestinian peace process was “a way to psychologically change the mood of the region”.
According to a Washington source, Obama told West Bank constable Mahmoud Abbas: “The Israelis would be crazy not to accept this initiative. It would give them peace with the Muslim world from Indonesia to Morocco.”
Dan Kurtzer, a former Ambassador to Israel, submitted a paper to Obama on the question before this month’s presidential elections arguing that trying to reach bilateral peace agreements between Israel and individual countries in the Middle East was a recipe for failure as the record of Bill Clinton and George W Bush showed. In contrast, the broader Arab plan “had a lot of appeal”. A leading Democratic expert on the Middle East said: “There’s not a lot of meat on the bones yet, but it offers recognition of Israel across the Arab world.”
Sderot resident appeals to Obama
Pinchas Amar asks President-Elect to keep his promise from July to protect town residents from rocket fire. In Ashkelon, school canceled and police ask residents not to hold a protest because of safety concerns
A few months ago, US President-Elect Barack Obama stood in the Sderot home of Pinchas Amar and promised an end to rocket fire. Friday, after one of the Qassams among the repeated rocket barrages landed near his home, the resident of the beleaguered Negev town sent out an appeal to the new American leader.
“Obama promised me, in my home, in front of the media, that he wouldn’t allow the rocket fire to continue. My message to him is: Keep your promise,” said Amar, who, along with his wife, was injured in earlier rocket fire.”I was barely able to reach the secure room,” said Amar, who was recently restricted to a wheelchair after falling off a ladder. “I heard a scary blast… I hope Shabbat will be quiet.”
Residents of a nearby kibbutz, also the victim of a rocket attack, expressed similar sentiments. “It was really scary… and the worst part is that they’ve only recently started building secure rooms here, meaning that not all of the rooms are completed or accessible,” they said.
Meanwhile, slightly to the north, the Ashkelon school board announced that school would be canceled on Sunday. Eli Shato, the head of the school board said, “We told parents that we’re not waiting and are canceling school. There’s not a single fortified structure and I’m not willing to endanger the children.”
Also in Ashkelon, local resident Ran Yedai had attempted unsuccessfully to form a security staff during the ceasefire. Friday, he said, he had received several phone calls from other concerned citizens interested in taking part in such efforts, pursuant to the rocket attacks.
Another city resident, Ronen Alush, wanted to stage a protest against government inaction on the issue of the rocket attacks on the Negev but was asked by police to refrain from doing this, so as not to endanger residents
Aide to Rahm Emanuel: Obama pro-Israel
US president-elect starts selecting top gov’t officials, but son of Israeli immigrant yet to accept White House chief of staff offer; aide to Emanuel tells Ynet, ‘He would not consider role if he wasn’t convinced Obama is pro-Israel’
WASHINGTON - Despite reports in US media that Illinois Democratic Rep. Rahm Emanuel has accepted US president-elect Barack Obama’s offer to serve as White House chief of staff, a source close to Emanuel told Ynet he has not yet accepted and was still considering the offer due to personal and family reasons.
Emanuel is the son of American Jew and Israeli immigrant Dr. Benjamin Emanuel. The source told Ynet on Wednesday, “Emanuel is pro-Israeli, and would not be willing to consider accepting the job unless he was convinced that President-elect Obama is pro-Israel.”
Michael Kotzin, executive vice president of the Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Chicago, said that Emanuel very often attends Israel-related events such as independence day and the yearly parade for Israel.
“He brings his young children to the events, and told me that his father used to bring him as a child to Israel-related events. These are events with large crowds, and when Rahm Emanuel attends, he also speaks to the crowd about Israel,” Kotzin said.
Meanwhile, Obama continues to consult with his advisors about appointments, and starting Thursday morning will receive daily classified intelligence briefings similar to what is given to the president. Vice president-elect Joe Biden will also be taking part in some of the briefings.
The most prominent candidate for White House spokesman is Robert Gibbs, who was Obama’s communications director in the Senate and in his presidential campaign.
CBS reported that Obama would not rush into any decisions regarding his cabinet, and would wait until after Thanksgiving to announce his appointments.
Reports in American media also revealed that Obama was considering appointing two Kennedys as part of his cabinet.
Politico.com reported that Caroline Kennedy, daughter of assassinated president John Kennedy, was being considered for US ambassador to the United Nations.
Robert Kennedy Jr., Caroline’s cousin and son of Robert Kennedy Sr. who was also killed, is being considered as environment minister.
Obama is also considering appointing Colin Powell, former secretary of state, as defense minister or education minister. In recent years Powell has been focusing on promoting education in the United States and may not wish to return to politics.
Obama’s Israeli adviser: Next White House chief of staff?
US Congressman Rahm Emanuel, who served as Clinton’s adviser after volunteering for IDF service during Gulf War, may be appointed chief of staff if Democratic presidential candidate wins elections
Israel may earn more White House representation than it bargained for, in the event that Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama emerges victorious from the November 4 elections.
Congressman Rahm Emanuel, who has served in the Israel Defense Forces and even speaks a little Hebrew, could be appointed the White House’s next chief of staff.
Chicago-born Emanuel, 49, is currently representing the state of Illinois in the House of Representatives. He is also one of Obama’s most trusted advisors, and the presidential candidate has called him a friend as well as a political associate.
Emanuel’s father, Benjamin, is an Israeli-born doctor. His mother, Martha, is an American Jew who works for a Chicago civil rights organization. As a child, Emanuel received a Jewish education at a conservative school and spoke Hebrew with his father at home.
When Bill Clinton began his campaign for presidency, he appointed Rahm Emanuel to direct the campaign’s finance committee. But Emanuel left when the Gulf War broke out, in order to volunteer in the IDF.
He served in one of Israel’s northern bases until the war ended, and upon his return to the US became Clinton’s advisor in the White House for almost eight years.
In 2003 Emanuel decided to embark on his own political career, and was elected representative of the state of Illinois. In 2006 he was elected chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and assisted the party in gaining a majority in the House of Representatives.
Emanuel joined the Obama campaign during its dawning stages, after turning down an offer from Bill Clinton asking him to join his wife Hillary’s campaign for the Democratic nomination to presidential candidacy.
The congressman’s wife, Amy, converted to Judaism a short time before they were married. They have two children, both of whom study at a Jewish school in Chicago.
Obama has already announced that if he becomes the next US president, he would take Emanuel with him to the White House, possibly to serve as chief of staff.