The Truth About Israeli Settlements

Caroline Glick is one of the top Israeli commentators on current events and issues in the Middle East. Her writing is published in the Jerusalem Post and around the world.

Last week she participated in a debate hosted by Intelligence Squared, where she argued against the proposition: "Israel is Destroying Itself with Its Settlement Policy: If settlement expansion continues, Israel will have no future."

In her opening remarks in the video below, Caroline Glick utterly destroys the premise of the proposition and systemically deconstructs commonly held views about Israel's "settlements" in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank). This video is a must watch for anyone who considers themselves knowledgeable about the settlement topic. Also read Glick's post about the video here. - R.O.

Falling for Hamas’s media manipulation

Legitimate criticism of the Western media's biased reporting of the Israel-Hamas conflict. - R.O.

Falling for Hamas’s media manipulation

By Michael Oren, Published: November 28, 2012 - Washington Post

Michael Oren is Israel’s ambassador to the United States.
What makes better headlines? Is it numbing figures such as the 8,000 Palestinian rockets fired at Israel since it unilaterally withdrew from Gaza in 2005, and the 42.5 percent of Israeli children living near the Gaza border who suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder? Or is it high-resolution images of bombed-out buildings in Gaza and emotional stories of bereaved Palestinians? The last, obviously, as demonstrated by much of the media coverage of Israel’s recent operation against Hamas. But that answer raises a more fundamental question: Which stories best serve the terrorists’ interest?

Hamas has a military strategy to paralyze southern Israel with short- and middle-range rockets while launching Iranian-made missiles at Tel Aviv. With our precision air force, top-notch intelligence and committed citizens army, we can defend ourselves against these dangers. We have invested billions of dollars in bomb shelters and early-warning systems and, together with generous U.S. aid, have developed history’s most advanced, multi-layered anti-missile batteries. For all of its bluster, Hamas does not threaten Israel’s existence.

But Hamas also has a media strategy. Its purpose is to portray Israel’s unparalleled efforts to minimize civilian casualties in Gaza as indiscriminate firing at women and children, to pervert Israel’s rightful acts of self-defense into war crimes. Its goals are to isolate Israel internationally, to tie its hands from striking back at those trying to kill our citizens and to delegitimize the Jewish State. Hamas knows that it cannot destroy us militarily but believes that it might do so through the media.

One reason is the enlarged images of destruction and civilian casualties in Gaza that dominated the front pages of U.S. publications. During this operation, The Post published multiple front-page photographs of Palestinian suffering. The New York Times even juxtaposed a photograph of the funeral of Hamas commander Ahmed Jabari, who was responsible for the slaughter of dozens of innocent Israelis, with that of a pregnant Israeli mother murdered by Hamas. Other photos, supplied by the terrorists and picked up by the press, identified children killed by Syrian forces or even by Hamas itself as victims of Israeli strikes.

In reporting Palestinian deaths, media routinely failed to note that roughly half were terrorists and that such a ratio is exceedingly low by modern military standards — much lower, for example, than the NATO campaign in the Balkans. Media also emphasize the disparity between the number of Palestinian and Israeli deaths, as though Israel should be penalized for investing billions of dollars in civil-defense and early-warning systems and Hamas exonerated for investing in bombs rather than bomb shelters. As in Israel’s last campaign against Hamas in 2008-09, the word “disproportionality” has been frequently used to characterize Israeli military strikes. In fact, during Operation Pillar of Defense this year, Hamas fired more than 1,500 missiles at Israel and the Israeli Air Force responded with 1,500 sorties.

The imbalance is also of language. “Hamas health officials said 45 had been killed and 385 wounded,” the Times’ front page reported. “Three Israeli civilians have died and 63 have been injured.” The subtext is clear: Israel targets Palestinians, and Israelis merely die.

The media perpetuated Hamas propaganda that traced the fighting to Jabari’s elimination and described Gaza as the most densely populated area on earth. Widely forgotten were the 130 rockets fired at Israel in the weeks before Jabari’s demise. For the record, Tel Aviv’s population is twice as dense as Gaza’s.

Hamas is a flagrantly anti-democratic, anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, anti-feminist and anti-gay movement dedicated to genocide. The United States, Canada and the European Union all consider it a terrorist organization. Hamas strives to kill the maximum number of Israeli civilians while using its own population as a human shield — under international law, a double war crime. Why, then, would the same free press that Hamas silences help advance its strategy?

Media naturally gravitate toward dramatic and highly visual stories. Reports of 5.5 million Israelis gathered nightly in bomb shelters scarcely compete with the Palestinian father interviewed after losing his son. Both are, of course, newsworthy, but the first tells a more complete story while the second stirs emotions.

This is precisely what Hamas wants. It seeks to instill a visceral disgust for any Israeli act of self-defense, even one taken after years of unprovoked aggression.

Hamas strives to replace the tens of thousands of phone calls and text messages Israel sent to Palestinian civilians, warning them to leave combat zones, with lurid images of Palestinian suffering. If Hamas cannot win the war, it wants to win the story of the war.

Veteran journalist Marvin Kalb, writing for Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government on the terrorists’ successful media strategy against Israel, warned that “the trajectory of the media, from objective observer to fiery advocate,” had become “a weapon of modern warfare.” Kalb quotes a U.S. military expert who describes how perception has replaced reality on the battlefield and that the terrorists know it.

Israel will take all legitimate steps necessary to defend our citizens. We know that, despite our most painstaking efforts, tragic stories can emerge — stories that the enemy sensationalizes.

Like Americans, we cherish a free press, but unlike the terrorists, we are not looking for headlines. Our hope is that media resist the temptation to give them what they want.

Despicable Silence from UN Human Rights Chief on Gaza Rocket Attacks

More proof of the hypocritical irrelevance of the UN Human Rights Council and its blatant, persistent disregard of Israeli human rights. How is it that what should be a critical international institution has been corrupted into festering anti-Semitic bile? Shame on Navi Pillay and the UNHRC. What a disgusting display of moral duplicity. - R.O. 

Israeli Foreign Ministry slams UN human rights chief for ‘ringing silence’ on Gaza rocket fire

The Israeli Foreign Ministry on Thursday slammed the head of the United Nations Human Rights Council over her silence on the constant rocket fire from Gaza.

In a press release headlined “Has the High Commissioner for Human Rights gone mute?” spokesman Yigal Palmor complained that this year alone, more than 800 rockets were fired into Israel from Gaza, lamenting that the high commissioner, Navi Pillay, has not issued any condemnations of these attacks.

“The lives of 1 million Israelis are threatened, and daily life in southern Israel has been severely disrupted. Children do not attend school; civilians sleep in shelters. Only this morning, three Israeli civilians were killed in their home in Kiryat Malachi town, when a Hamas rocket hit their building. Some others, including a 4-year-old boy, where injured,” Palmor wrote.

The press release, which did not name Pillay, accused the high commissioner of not caring about Israelis human rights.

“The High Commissioner has gone mute,” Plamor wrote. “Not a word of sympathy, not a word of concern for the violation of the human rights of Israeli citizens. Just a ringing silence.”

In March, Jerusalem cut off all relations with the United Nations Human Rights Council, after it announced the establishment of a fact-finding mission into Israel’s settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, a decision that was condemned by the government.

“From now on, we will no longer work together in any way, shape or form with any officials from the council, including the high commissioner,” Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman said at the time. “If anyone from the council calls us, we just won’t answer the phone.”

Gaza Missiles a Bigger Threat Than Syria

Gaza Missiles a Bigger Threat Than Syria
By: Jonathan S. Tobin

Over the weekend, provocations on two of Israel’s borders presented the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with new challenges. In the Golan Heights, what was described in reports as “erratic mortar fire” from Syrian army positions brought a sharp, though limited, response from the Israel Defense Forces. In the south, Hamas launched a rocket offensive aimed at Israeli civilian targets. But while the Syrian incident made headlines in the international press since it threatened to drag Israel into the Syrian civil war, it was the situation in Gaza that was the more troubling.

As troubling as the possibility that Israel could be dragged into the ongoing chaos of Syria is, the country’s Gaza dilemma is far more worrisome. Rockets continued to fall on Israel Monday as the Hamas rulers of Gaza continued their own attempt to provoke Israel into an offensive. While both Israel and neighboring Egypt have little to gain from either a repeat of the 2008 Operation Cast Lead, in which Israel knocked out terrorist positions inside Gaza, or a more far-reaching offensive, in which the Islamist terrorist group would actually be deposed, the possibility that at some point Netanyahu will have to do something to stop the rain of fire on his country is very real.

Israelis don’t know for sure whether, as some observers seem to think, the fire from Syria was an attempt by the faltering Assad regime to portray its struggle as one against Israel rather than its own people. Given that such a ploy is a tried and true standby for Arab dictators, it seems logical to think that a desperate Bashar Assad thinks involving Israel in the fighting will bolster support for his embattled government. Yet it is just as likely that the fire into the Golan was unintentional spillover from that war. Certainly it was nothing comparable to the deliberate attacks from the regime on the Turkish border, which is actually a transit and supply route for the rebels who have the support of Ankara.

While Israel has no love for Assad and would be happy to see Iran’s ally fall, it must also ponder whether his replacement by a weak rebel regime would lead to more conflict in the future. Israel is likely to do just about anything to stay out of that mess, and it will take more than a few stray mortar shells to drag it into that war.

But Netanyahu’s choices with regards to Gaza are not so easy. Though Israel’s main strategic focus in the last year has understandably been on the Iranian nuclear threat, Hamas’ ability to make the lives of Israelis living in the south a living hell is a reminder that the enemies on the Jewish state’s border can’t be ignored. Since Saturday, more than 160 rockets have fallen on the region bordering Gaza. Their motives for this offensive are complex.

The impetus for the escalation may stem in part from a desire to remind the world that the Palestinian Authority is merely one of two groups competing for control of a future Palestinian state. The surge in violence doesn’t help PA leader Mahmoud Abbas’s efforts to get the United Nations to unilaterally recognize Palestinian independence without first making peace with Israel, and that suits Hamas’s purposes.

The Hamas fire may also have a tactical purpose. Last Thursday, the Israel Defense Forces discovered a tunnel along the border with Gaza, the intent of which was obviously to facilitate a cross-border terror raid along the lines of the one that resulted in Gilad Shalit’s kidnapping as well as the murder of two other soldiers. Israel has sought to establish a 300-meter no-go zone on the Gaza side of the border in order to prevent such attacks, but Hamas uses rocket fire to defend its freedom of action.

Whether thinking tactically or strategically, Hamas continues to hold approximately one million Israelis living in the south hostage. Anti-missile defense systems like Iron Dome help limit the damage, but they can’t stop all or even most of the rockets, as the last two days showed. Hamas seems to be assuming that an Israeli counter-offensive into Gaza to silence the fire would be too bloody and too unpopular abroad to be worth it for Netanyahu. Another option would be to return to targeted killings of Hamas leaders, but that is likely to lead to more rockets fired at Israeli civilians rather than to stop the attacks.

The bottom line is that Israel has no good choices open to it with regard to Gaza. But with elections looming in January, Netanyahu can’t afford to let the people of the south sit in shelters indefinitely. If their Muslim Brotherhood friends in Egypt — who also worry about the spillover from a new war — can’t persuade Hamas to stand down soon, the prime minister may have to consider raising the ante with the Islamist terrorist movement. While the world is more interested in the violence in Syria, Gaza remains the more difficult dilemma facing the Israelis.

UK leads calls to 'shape' Syria opposition - Al Jazeera

Very interesting development within hours of Barack Obama's re-election: the UK is now saying it will "deal directly with rebel military leaders" in Syria. Is this the right move for the West? Should Western governments escalate the conflict there? Were Western nations simply waiting for the US election to finish before deciding their next move? 

The answer to the latter question seems obvious, as NATO allies (such as the UK) are now openly advocating for an escalation of support for Syrian rebels. The question is: what is the West's end game in Syria? After Assad is toppled, who will take control? Will they take control? Are the "rebels" people that the West can trust? What about the extremist factions within the Syrian rebellion?

My fear is that, like Iraq, the West will entrench itself in another intractable sectarian conflict, one that this time borders Israel. This is certainly a story to watch. - R.O.

UK leads calls to 'shape' Syria opposition - Al Jazeera

British Prime Minister David Cameron said UK and allies should do more to open direct communication with rebel leaders.

Western efforts to oust Syrian President Bashar Assad have shifted dramatically, with Britain saying it will deal directly with rebel military leaders and Turkey saying NATO members have discussed protecting a safe zone inside Syria with Patriot missiles.

The developments came within hours of President Barack Obama's re-election on Tuesday, which US allies said they have been waiting for before implementing new strategies to end the deadlocked civil war that has killed more than 36,000 people over the past year and a half.

British Prime Minister David Cameron, visiting a camp for Syrian refugees in Jordan, said the US, Britain and other allies should do more to "shape the opposition'' into a coherent force and open channels of communication directly with rebel military commanders.

Previously, Britain and the US have acknowledged contacts only with exile groups and political opposition figures inside Syria.

And a Turkish official said Turkey and allies, including the United States, have discussed the possibility of using Patriot missiles to protect a safe zone inside Syria.

The foreign ministry official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of ministry prohibitions on contacts with the news media, said planning for the safe zone had been put on hold pending the US election.

He said any missile deployment might happen under a "NATO umbrella'', though NATO has insisted it will not intervene without a clear United Nations mandate.

"There is an opportunity for Britain, for America, for Saudi Arabia, Jordan and like-minded allies to come together and try to help shape the opposition, outside Syria and inside Syria,'' Cameron said. "And try to help them achieve their goal, which is our goal of a Syria without Assad.''

International pressure
Cameron is currently on a tour of the Middle East and speaking on Obama's re-election said: "I am hearing appalling stories about what has happened inside Syria so one of the first things I want to talk to Barack about is how we must do more to try and solve this crisis.”

The news comes as the Syrian National Council's (SNC) general assembly of nearly 420 members met on Wednesday to choose two leadership bodies and a president during a conference in the Qatari capital Doha.

Syria's main opposition bloc has succumbed to intense international pressure from critics and begun electing new leaders to appease critics who say the exile-dominated group does not represent those risking their lives on the frontlines to oust the regime.

The SNC, largely made up of exiles, has been criticised as ineffective and out of touch with those trying to topple Assad.

The US has called for a more unified and representative opposition, suggesting an end to the SNC's leadership.

SNC officials say the internal election may not be enough to deflect such criticism and halt US-backed efforts to set up an alternate leadership group.

Al Jazeera's Omar Al Saleh, reporting from Doha, said: "The new leadership will discuss an initiative given by an opposition member who is also a current of the SNC.

"That initiative is backed by the international community, France, US as well as Qatar, KSA and other countries. According to that initiative, a new council might emerge," he said

"The SNC fears that that council might be a replacement to them and this is for the political wrangling and negotiations will be decisive for the fate of the Syrian revolution" he added.

Turkey 'fires over Syrian border' - BBC News

Is this a prelude to war? Will NATO defend Turkey if there's an outbreak of hostilities? Serious questions need to be asked. -R.O.

Turkey 'fires over Syrian border'
6 October, 2012 1:51 AM

Turkey has fired into Syria for a fourth day after a Syrian mortar landed near a Turkish village, reports say.

Turkish troops responded immediately after the mortar landed near the village of Guvecci in Hatay province, according to Turkey's Anadolu Agency.

Turkey has been firing into Syria since Syrian mortar fire killed five Turkish civilians on Wednesday.

It was the first time Turkey has taken military action across the border since the Syrian uprising began.

Early on Saturday, the Anadolu Agency said the Syrian mortar had landed over the border during intense fighting between government troops and rebels in Syria's Idlib province.

The rebels are fighting to topple Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's government in an uprising that began in March last year.
There were no immediate reports of casualties on the Turkish side.

Following the killing of two women and three children in the Turkish border town of Akcakale this week, Turkey's parliament authorised troops to launch cross-border operations against Syria and strike at Syrian targets for a period of one year.

The UN Security Council said the incident showed the "grave impact" of the Syrian crisis on "regional peace and stability".

On Friday, Turkey moved tanks and anti-aircraft missiles into Akcakale, though Turkey's Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said his country did not want war.

BBC © 2012

Syria's slaughter is the real insult to Islam

A worthy read. McParland states that since it is Muslims killing Muslims in Syria, while the Arab world sits back and does nothing, this is the real insult to Islam - not some obscure video produced in the United States. - R.O.

Kelly McParland: Syria’s slaughter is the real insult to Islam

Kelly McParland, National Post
Friday, Sept. 28, 2012

The UN General Assembly is a talking shop, where calling for action takes the place of actual action, but sometimes the talk becomes so opaque that even sorting out what the words mean becomes a challenge.

Such is the case this week in New York, where the world’s leaders met for their annual opportunity to lecture one another. Syria’s president Bashar al-Assad wasn’t there, because he’s still at home directing the slaughter of his countrymen. But his spirit was on hand, as a British organization announced that 305 people has been killed in a single day if fighting, the bloodiest day so far, and the UN’s own High Commissioner for Refugees warned that 700,000 refugees may have fled the country by year-end.

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said the daily death count included only victims whose names had been documented. “If we count the unidentified bodies, the figure will be much higher,” said Rami Abdel Rahman, according to Reuters. The group said 199 of the dead were civilians.

By some counts, the monthly carnage in Syria has now surpassed the highest levels reached during the Iraq war. There is no similar international effort in the works to oust Assad, probably because the U.S. organized the last one, and isn’t about to blunder into that hornets nest again. President Barack Obama ran on the promise he’d get U.S. troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan, not into new foreign adventures. And the U.S., for all the talk of its global influence having diminished, is still the only power that organizes these things.

That leaves the diplomats to demand action, without explaining what that might mean. Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary-general, told the assembled worthies the Syrian revolt is “a regional calamity with global ramifications”.

“This is a serious and growing threat to international peace and security which requires security council action,” Ban said. “The international community should not look the other way as violence spirals out of control.”

He also called for those responsibility for atrocities in Syria to be held accountable, noting “there is no statute of limitations for such extreme violence”, and placing most of the blame on the Assad regime.

“Brutal human rights abuses continue to be committed, mainly by the government, but also by opposition groups. Such crimes must not go unpunished,” he said. “It is the duty of our generation to put an end to impunity for international crimes, in Syria and elsewhere. It is our duty to give tangible meaning to the responsibility to protect.”

In the world of diplomacy, these are unusually blunt words. But what exactly does Ban want? He didn’t say, exactly. He urged “the international community – especially the members of the Security Council and countries in the region – to solidly and concretely support the efforts” of a UN special envoy seeking to end the violence. “We must stop the violence and flow of arms to both sides and set in motion a Syrian-led transition as soon as possible.”

Well and good, but those efforts are going nowhere. Mr Ban’s predecessor, Kofi Annan, walked away from the job of special envoy, declaring it a hopeless task. His successor, Lakhdar Brahimi, lacks his stature and hasn’t made any headway. He says he’s working on a new plan, but won’t say when it might be ready.

Egypt’s new president, Mohamed Morsi, said the conflict is “the tragedy of the age,” and must be brought to an end. How? Again, he didn’t say, except that the West should keep its nose out of things and leave it to regional powers like Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Turkey.

“I am against foreign intervention by force in what happens in Syria,” Morsi said. “I do not condone this and I think that it is a big mistake if it happens,” he added through an interpreter. “Egypt does not agree to this.”

Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, has blocked earlier UN peace efforts and also thinks the West should [external] mind its own business.

“We are not imposing – especially by force -what we believe in, but we want to stimulate the internal development,” said Putin. “We have warned that we must act with caution, without imposing by force in order not to cause chaos. And what do we see today? We see a chaotic condition.”

So, everyone wants action, but not by Western powers that have the military muscle to force a climax. The regional powers that demand jurisdiction have done nothing to stem the spiraling body count. They want it ended, but are either incapable or unwilling to end it themselves and don’t want anyone else stepping in to try. Despite the hollering of domestic critics, the U.S. president seems disinclined to defy them, and has the body of the murdered Ambassador to Libya as a evidence of how good intentions often go off the rails once military action is put into play.

The truth seems to be that, despite what Mr. Ban and Mr. Morsi have to say, intervention in Syria doesn’t suit anyone’s purpose just now. No enough to risk their own skins, or those of their countrymen, anyway. If the Turks and the Egyptians and the Saudis want a solution, no one is going to block them from formulating one. For all the outrage over insults to Islam that have played out over an amateurish film on the Prophet, it’s Muslim corpses that are piling up in Syria, Muslim refugees who are fleeing for the border, and Muslim countries that are standing by. If Mr. Ban is increasingly frustrated about it, let him talk to Mr. Morsi.

National Post

Report: Saudi Arabia gives Israel clear skies to attack Iranian nuclear sites

By: Robert D. Onley



This week the United Nations Security Council passed the latest round of sanctions on the Islamic Republic of Iran. UN Resolution 1929 imposes severe restrictions on the Iranian regime's ability to conduct trade in supplies for their nuclear program. However almost immediately, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad denounced the sanctions as a "used hankerchief" and threatened to eject UN weapons inspectors from Iran's nuclear sites.

Today, The Times Online reports that Saudi Arabia --another of Iran's avowed enemies-- has given Israel "clear skies" to attack Iranian nuclear sites and stop Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons. Saudi Arabia is arguably more threatened by a nuclear Iran than even Israel, but as the world's largest supplier of oil has much more economic interest at stake than Israel. Letting Israel do the "dirty work" and draw international condemnation is therefore a favourable move by the Saudi government.

Meanwhile Israel has been repeatedly threatened with destruction by the leaders in Iran. US President Obama has not ruled out American military strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities, possibly conducted in coordination with Israel, but appears very hesitant to shake up the Middle East worse than his predecessor. All of this puts enormous pressure on tiny Israel to conduct the largest scale unilateral pre-emptive military strike in its history.

In the past I've written here about the prospect of an Israeli unilateral strike against Iran. The consequences of such a strike will be undeniably severe for Israel and for the world, but the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran is far more troubling. The fact that the Iranian leader so flippantly dismissed the latest round of sanctions suggests that Iran's nuclear weapons program is perhaps far enough along to be unaffected; in other words, it's already too late.


How long will Israel wait for these latest sanctions to take effect? How can any nation measure the effectiveness of sanctions anyway? Iran has shown nothing but reckless disregard toward the well-founded concerns of the international community, and proved its callousness once again this week. There is no shortage of proof that the Iranian regime is racing toward nuclear weapons capability - Resolution 1929 bears that out.


The million-dollar question then is this: when will the international community (notably the United States) admit that diplomacy has failed to stop Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons? At what point will the world's leaders acknowledge that the only effective way to stop Iran is through targeted military strikes?


In the West it is almost taboo to suggest that it will be necessary to use to air strikes to stop Iran's nuclear program. Indeed after the Iraq War, Barack Obama's Cairo speech and his promises for "change" across the diplomatic spectrum, opening up another theatre in the Middle East seems like a Bush-era pipe dream. This sentiment conveniently ignores the fact that right now, under the leadership of President Obama, the U.S. Air Force is conducting more drone air strikes than ever before. The only thing that has "changed" is the volume of missiles raining from the skies over Afghanistan and Pakistan. 


Thus while many commentators are slow to admit that air strikes may be the only remaining option for stopping Iran's nuclear visions, the pragmatic reality is that the equipment to do so is already in the region and technologically is more precise than ever before.


More critical for Israel, Obama's love-to-hate ally, is the fact that a pre-emptive strike represents a viable option buffeted by successful precedents. Two nations in the Middle East have had their nuclear programs stopped short by Israel. One of them, Syria, is a proud ally of Iran. In 2007, Syria's covert nuclear reactor was destroyed Israeli jets, while back in 1981, Iraq's nuclear program was forcefully stopped by pin-point Israeli air strikes. As I covered in another piece, Israel is not afraid to take such aggressive action. 


While those two raids were surgical successes, Iran's hidden nuclear sites present a far greater challenge for the Israeli Air Force, if in fact the IAF were to conduct such a mission. However given that Saudi Arabia is now reportedly granting Israel clearance to use Saudi airspace specifically for a strike against Iran, it is patently clear that Israel is not the only nation that believes air strikes may be the only way to truly stop the Iranian Bomb. 


Saudi Arabia's decision is also a loud warning that the Iranian nuclear stand-off is shifting into a most dangerous phase. The world can certainly expect more war-gaming and posturing on all sides as the weeks progress.


All Israel needs is a green light from the US to fly over Iraq toward Iran, and the fireworks can begin. What happens after that day could be scarier still for Israel. Russia and China both have enormous economic interests in Iran and anyone who damages their vital energy lifelines could face more than just a verbal lashing. This is a most grave consideration, one which Israel's leaders know all too well as they prepare to make the most fateful decision in the Jewish State's contentious history.