FresnoZionism.org — ציונות פרסנו

The Jerusalem Post reports:

Syria has begun delivery of the first batch of anti-aircraft missile and gun range land-based Pantsyr-S1E defense systems (SA-22 E in NATO terminology), the Web site of Russian newspaper Nezavisimaya Gazeta reported Saturday.

The SA-22 E, produced by KBP, a precision weaponry manufacturer based in Tula, Russia, is a combined surface-to-air missile and anti-aircraft artillery weapon system. The versatile platform can be mounted either on a tracked or wheeled vehicle.

According to Nezavisimaya Gazeta, the recently developed SA-22 E will be dispatched to Syria even before its deployment in the Russian military.

This is exactly the kind of weapon that Syria shouldn’t have. Let’s look at the Iranian-Syrian strategy: Iran wishes to develop nuclear weapons unmolested. She hopes to deter Israel and the US from a preemptive strike at her facilities by threatening Israel with missile attacks — especially mobile short-range missiles, which are very difficult to counter — from her clients Syria and Hezbollah.

I believe that Israel’s leadership considers an actual Iranian nuclear capability an existential threat, and will take action once some red line is crossed. We don’t know when this will be, but it’s obvious that Iran and Syria think it will be soon and are rushing to prepare for it. I do not believe that the US administration has the political capital or will to launch an attack themselves, but they would probably support an Israeli one.

I doubt that the Russians would be especially happy with a nuclear Iran. However, it appears that a new global struggle for influence is developing between the US and Russia, and of course the Mideast is a major theater in that struggle. Israel represents a strong point for the US side, and the Russians would probably like to see it neutralized.

Indeed, the scenario of an Israeli strike setting back Iran’s nuclear program by a decade or so, followed by an Iranian-Syrian-Palestinian war which Israel loses would probably be just fine with the Russians.

What a pity for the folks who gave us the word ‘pogrom‘ if Israel were to destroy the Iranian nuclear program, and then turn around and deal a crushing blow to Mr. Assad and his missile collection.

Or maybe it will happen in the reverse order?

Technorati Tags: Syria, Russia, Israel, Iran, SA-22, Pantsyr

On Thursday I wrote as follows about the response of the ADL to an article critical of its position against legislation to recognize the Armenian Genocide, specifically a letter signed by Andrew H. Tarsy, then Regional Director in New England:

…the argument that efforts to force the Turks to accept the truth will be ‘counterproductive’, that one is somehow preventing them from “coming to grips with their past” by supporting such resolutions — please. This argument is disingenuous, and is enough to make me blush on behalf of Tarsy and the ADL.

Apparently Mr. Tarsy himself, who is now out of a job, agrees with me.

Tarsy, 38, said he had been struggling with the national position for weeks and finally told Foxman in a phone conversation Thursday that he found the ADL’s stance “morally indefensible.”

…”I regret at this point any characterization of the genocide that I made publicly other than to call it a genocide. I think that kind of candor about history is absolutely fundamental.”

As recently as Tuesday night, however, Tarsy defended the ADL’s position before a hostile crowd at the Watertown Town Council meeting. In explaining why he did it, Tarsy said yesterday that he was doing the best he could to explain the ADL policy while struggling at the same time to change the policy internally. Neither side would back down and he was fired. — Boston Globe

The ADL’s position is not only “morally indefensible” as Tarsy has said, but is unlikely to have any effect on the Turkish government’s policy toward Israel, or Turkish Jews.

Ironically, the result of the ADL’s stubbornness on this issue has been to seriously weaken the respect in which the ADL is held in the broader Jewish and non-Jewish community, and to diminish its effectiveness in anti-bias activism.

Kol hakovod to Mr. Tarsy, who took the moral high road that his boss would not.

Technorati Tags: Tarsy, ADL, Armenian Genocide

Question: What is the difference between US support for the Fatah-dominated Palestinian Authority (PA) in the West Bank and support for Hamas?

Answer: not much. Consider the recent ‘accidental’ payment of a full year’s salary to 3,500 members of the Hamas ‘security’ forces by the PA:

In defending his move, [PA Prime Minister Salam] Fayad initially claimed that the payment was a regrettable error caused by a computer glitch. In his updated story, Fayad claimed that a Hamas agent in his Ministry of Finance was responsible for the move.

Fayad’s excuses naturally raise the question: If Fatah opposes Hamas, why are all the names and bank account numbers of Hamas’s soldiers conveniently located in Fatah’s Ministry of Finance’s computer files? Aside from that, it is hard to believe that Fayad objected to paying the jihad forces. Since Hamas took over Gaza in June, Fayad has regularly paid the salaries of Hamas legislators, civil servants in Hamas’s government, and Hamas terrorists imprisoned in Israeli jails.

Moreover, Fayad’s assertions that Fatah opposes Hamas are hardly believable given that Fatah is engaged in intense negotiations with Hamas toward a reunification of their forces. Wednesday, PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas stated openly that he seeks to reconcile with Hamas. In his joint press briefing with Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Aso, Abbas called for a “return to national unity.” He said, “The split [between Judea and Samaria and Gaza which happened] as a result of Hamas’s coup is temporary and will be removed.” — Caroline Glick

Since the Palestinians have no economy and no resources, this payment came from money transferred to the PA by the US or European Union. Our good, Western, anti-terrorist dollars and Euros.

It seems as though the US and the Olmert government are rushing headlong toward the creation of some kind, any kind, of a Palestinian state under Abbas (anything is acceptable, just as long as it’s not Hamas). On the Israeli side, I don’t know how much of the support for this is genuine or is a result of pressure from the US. US policy is apparently being dictated by the so-called ‘realists’ connected to the Bush Administration, such as James Baker, and the US State Department.

I’m going to make a prediction that this will not come to fruition. I wish that the reason were that Israel and the US would decide that making deals with Fatah is unproductive and dangerous, but unfortunately that will not happen. The change in policy will be the result of something much worse.

I think it’s likely that war will break out between Israel and Iranian proxies (Hezbollah, Hamas, and possibly Syria) within the next year. This will be accompanied by renewed terrorism from the West Bank, and it will become clear to everyone that Israel’s security requires a military presence there.

If peace is the goal, then I recommend that Israel stop pretending that enemies can be friends but rather build up a strong deterrent capability to keep them at bay.

Technorati Tags: Israel, Fatah, Hamas, Fayad