President Obama!

He has done it in grand style - the next US President!!!

There's no more problems with US Party Politics. President Obama has swept to an astonishing election victory in the 2008 race. It's simply phenomenal that he won by such an overwhelming majority.

There were problems in the Barack Obama camp early on - but they were coming from insinuations against them by Republicans. The Democrat Presidential hopeful has the media in a buzz; the world spotlight engulfing his campaign.

Time will tell how Mr. Obama will be tested - especially on his policy towards Israel and the Mid-East.

What is clear is that there is a slither of uncertainty about the Barack Obama persona. Some have claimed that he can't seem to give a straight answer that he doesn't retract or modify at some later point. Some say that he is feverishly trying to defend his faith - while avoiding wanting to be associated in any way with the Islamic faith - although his family has a strong connection to it. Some questioned why would he so vehemently reject linkage to Islam?

It must be known that he is now the vessel of change; of peace between the various religious persuasions.

What is the problem anyway? The problem is not that he has allegiance to any religion - covertly or otherwise, it's perhaps that some felt he was trying to secure the vote by any means necessary. That's politics people are saying, but it is more than that - it borders on chicanery. But they all do it - others say.

Regardless the man has triumphed - kudos to him and to the Democrats.

A job well done, well run and well won!!!

Media Bias

The picture to the right shows angry Palestinian paramedics hurrying to get wounded people to a hospital. This picture was plastered over the front page of www.iol.co.za - South Africa's premiere news website.

The image is indicative of the type of media bias running rampant in the world in reporting that is blatantly pro-Palestinian. The image not only generates massive viewer sympathy for an apparent aggressive Israeli strike, it allows for the seeds of hatred to germinate.

Before the picture is explained in more detail, it is important to understand what happened on this very day in the south of Israel. Dozens of mortars and rockets pounded Israel (Some 50 or more). In fact the area that militants were targeting was the coastline, knowing full well that thousands of Israelis are enjoying their summer vacation along the coastal strip.


This picture is the result of the deadly shrapnel from a mortar that landed in the south of Israel. A woman was moderately wounded in this terrorist attack. This is the picture that IOL never showed. This is the picture of fear that is in the mind of every Israeli living in the south of Israel. Militant accuracy aside, if these explosives hit their targets - as they did at the Ashkelon mall recently - the damage is catastrophic.

Palestinian terrorists target civilians indiscriminately; Israeli forces target militants precisely. Collateral damage is an unavoidable factor, but the IDF hit/miss ratio is as low as it can be.

The terrorist group Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack, blaming Israel for the death of a bomb-maker and his family in Gaza. The truth is the bomb-maker inadvertently detonated his own explosives - killing his family; wounding countless others and leveling his apartment.

And here is the proof

'Gaza blast caused as gunmen prepared for martyrdom op'

By YAAKOV KATZ AND JPOST.COM STAFF

"Hamas's military wing, Izzadin Kassam, said Friday that the previous day's deadly blast in the northern Gaza town of Beit Lahiya was caused by an accident as operatives were "preparing for a special martyrdom operation."

Western Negev comes under heavy rocket barrage

Eight people, including an infant girl, were killed in the powerful explosion, which flattened the home of a Hamas operative.

After Hamas initially blamed Israel for the blast, the IDF immediately said that that was not caused by an Israeli attack but was rather a "work accident," most likely caused by terrorists' faulty handling of explosives.

Rockets began to fly shortly after the blast, with more than 50 mortar shells, Kassam and Katyusha rockets fired into Israel.

An Israeli woman was moderately wounded by shrapnel in an attack on Kibbutz Yad Mordechai shortly after noon and evacuated to Barzilai Hospital in Ashkelon. A number of fires broke out following the attack..."

Food for thought...

Can Obama be trusted?

The words roll off his tongue but the true colors of this Presidential hopeful remain hidden.

Barack Obama - the Democrat Presidential nominee may be a lot of things, but credible he most certainly isn't.

His campaign is peppered with smart talking rhetoric and big ideas, but the bottom line is his true motivation on US Foreign Policy remains unclear.

Recently Obama was seen embracing members of AIPAC in what the Democrats know is a key vote-clincher in their chances of securing the bid for the White House in 2008.

Barack Hussein Obama is constantly defending himself - taking rearguard action - against the vast majority of people who question his past; his affiliations and his religious persuasion.

A key issue is his stance on Israel's security - something the one-time Senator of Illinois and four-time Arizona Senator John McCain are looking to exploit.

Barack Obama has not only cleverly phrased his stance on diplomacy with rogue states; he has made sweeping promises and later had his campaign public spokesmen repudiate such statements soon after.

For example: "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided," was what Obama said to a crowd of 7000 people at an AIPAC conference. His team later altered that statement which now reads: "Jerusalem is a final status issue, which means it has to be negotiated between the two parties as part of an agreement that they both can live with..."

This apparent about-turn is what Obama is constantly doing in his election bid - especially regarding the War on Terror; Iran and other sponsors of terrorism. Obama is big on words and even bigger on exploiting American fatigue over an Iraq war effort that is actually a deterrent to a potentially nuclear-armed Iran.

Barack Obama is shrouded in mystery and for that to be the case with the most powerful man on the planet, is totally unacceptable. Senator McCain brings real experience to the table while trying to distance himself from the perceived failures of the Bush administration.

While voters busy themselves with the process of electing a candidate, this campaign is about more than change, it is about a better America with improved security. This is not a gamble; this is a challenge best left to experienced hands.

This is what they say...

By Yossi Melman, Haaretz Correspondent

The standard assumption is that a military attack by the United States or Israel to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons would be disastrous for the attackers, and would threaten the stability of the entire Middle East.

Various experts outline doomsday scenarios for such an occurrence, and warn especially of Iran's harsh reaction. Fearing the reaction of the ayatollahs has a paralyzing effect. Even before the first shot has been fired, Iran can credit itself with a success. It created an image of an omnipotent country that will not hesitate to use its power to respond and avenge a military operation against it. This is an impressive psychological achievement.

But a new paper, to be published this month in the U.S. by two well-known experts on the subject, sketches a different and more complex picture. The paper is "The Last Resort," written by Patrick Clawson and Michael Eisenstadt of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. The main point, notes Dr. Clawson in an interview with Haaretz, is that the success or failure of a military attack depends on many variables, and not just the degree of damage the attack would cause.
Advertisement
What are these variables?

The type of weapons chosen for the attack - will nuclear or conventional weapons be used? Who attacks - the U.S. or Israel? Will the attack cause serious collateral damage to the surroundings, that is causing a lot of civilian casualties? Will only the nuclear sites be attacked, or other regime targets? After the attack, will President Ahmadinejad announce Iran's departure from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty? If the attack completely destroys Iran's nuclear program that is one thing, but if it does not, that is a different story. Then Iran will be able to continue to develop its nuclear program, and the world will no longer care about that. In short, this is subject that is dependent on many variables.

Nevertheless, what would be deemed a success?

If the attack does destroy the nuclear facilities, and it leads to a broad consensus in Iran that nuclear weapons are dangerous for the future of the regime or the nation. In other words, success or failure is determined by the political result of the military attack. The primary objective of the military option has to be to convince Iran to cease its nuclear program, that it's not worthwhile to continue. Destroying the nuclear facilities is not an end in and of itself; it is merely a means to an end. And therefore it is necessary to create the political conditions that will increase the chances for the success of the attack.

And what will be a possible result of an Israeli attack?

Again, my answer is that it depends. Israel has to create the circumstances in which world public opinion will understand Israel and its motives, even if it regrets the attack.

That's more or less what happened with the attack against the nuclear facility in Syria?

Yes, it is quite similar. Israel benefited from President Assad's hostile attitude to the world, and therefore the international community showed understanding of the Israeli air force's attack. Israel did not have to do much because Assad did the job for it. In this respect, Israel also benefits from Ahmadinejad and his statements. They help Israel present its position to the world and explain the threat it faces.

Do you share the sweeping assessment of most experts that Iran's reaction if attacked will be harsh and painful?

No. Iran's record when it comes to its reactions in the past to attacks against it, or its important interests, is mixed. When the Taliban assumed power in Afghanistan and persecuted the Shi'ite minority there, Iran mobilized military forces on the border and threatened to respond, but in the end it did nothing. The same occurred when the U.S. shot down an Iranian passenger airline in 1988: Iran threatened to avenge the incident, but in the end the exact opposite happened. Not only did Iran not respond, but also the incident hastened its decision to agree to a cease-fire in the war with Iraq for fear that the U.S. was about to join the war on Saddam Hussein's side.

In another incident during the war, Iranian boats attacked an American naval force that set out to mine the Gulf. The U.S. did not expect Iran to react, and was surprised. This did not stop it from sinking half of the Iranian fleet in response.

Iran has lately been threatening that if it is attacked it will close the Straits of Hormuz and block the flow of oil, and thereby damage the world economy. But this is a problematic threat, since it would also affect Iran's friends and supporters, such as China and India. I have no doubt that in such a case, they would be angry at Iran.

But most experts estimate that in the event of an Israeli attack, the Iranians will respond with force and launch Shihab missiles at Israel.

It is possible, but first, the Shihab missiles are not considered particularly reliable. Iran deploys them without having done hardly any significant tests. Second, the Shihab's guidance system is not very accurate. The missile's range of accuracy is up to a kilometer. And finally, Israel's aerial defense system - the Arrow missiles would certainly intercept quite a few Shihab missiles. Moreover, Iran's firing missiles at Israel would enable Israel to respond in a decisive manner.

And what about Hezbollah? They will certainly mobilize to help Iran and respond against Israel.

There is no guarantee that Hezbollah will react automatically. They will make their considerations on the basis of their interests, as they understand them. In Hezbollah, they are very aware of Israel's strength, and of the harsh reaction that may result if Hezbollah attacks.

In other words, you're basically saying that things are not as they seem? That Iran is like a dog whose bark is worse than his bite?

There's something to that. My assessment is that contrary to the impression that has been formed, Iran's options for responding are limited and weak.

And this is what I say...

First off it's interesting to read the theoretical hypotheses of those working in the strategic military institutes.

There are several factors to consider that have not been pointed out in this argument:

Never before has President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad and Iranian leadership been less concerned about world opinion vis-a-vis his nuclear proliferation strategy

Never before has Iran been the most powerful military force in the Middle East

Never before has Iran been in a more favorable military position - given American and world fatigue for Middle East wars (following from several years of bloodshed and thousands of casualties in Iraq)

Never before has Iran faced the prospect of an ultra-liberal American President - the likes of which (assuming Barack Obama wins) is more likely to favor appeasement than military action

Never before has Iran commanded so much power in the Middle East in its aggression and rhetoric against Israel. This can be seen with continuing support and training for Hamas operatives and other militants in Gaza; financial support for families of suicide bombers and weapons and financing for Hizballah in Lebanon.

Never before has Iran had access to Nuclear weapons-grade material

Now, things are a little different.

Iran has been estimated to have nuclear-ready bomb material within 1-3 years.

Iranian leadership has repeatedly called for Israel to be wiped off the face of the map.

Iranian leadership flatly denies or at best questions the accuracy of Holocaust reports.

Iranian leadership likened Israel to a rotting corpse (on the eve of Israel's 60th birthday) and promised that it would die.

Iran has been conducting large-scale military operations across it's vast expanses. Huge displays of its military might were made public.

Iran purchased the latest anti-aircraft defense systems from Russia to guard its Nuclear Facility from an enemy attack.

Iran is working feverishly - against UN & IAEA recommendations in fast-tracking its nuclear program.

Iran is looking to purchase ICBMs that are capable of avoiding detection by radar and satellites. Add this fact to the likelihood of potential nuclear warheads and it becomes clear that Iran is intent on striking first and wreaking absolute havoc - so much so that its enemies would be unable to respond.

Iran has defied every single UN resolution requesting it to halt its uranium enrichment program.

Iran does not need nuclear power - it has one of the world's largest supplies of petroleum.

Iran recently apprehended British sailors in international waters and held the world to ransom with their demands that Britain apologize for the supposed incursion.

Given the facts, and we must take history into account, the situation is indeed grave.

President George W. Bush is fast coming to the end of his term. A likely successor in Barack Obama will initially prove too soft to Iran - given Obama's severe short-sightedness in foreign affairs. Barack Obama has one slogan - Change - but that counts for precious little if the change is going to tilt the balance of power in the world in favour of radical Islamic states.

As potential leader of the free world, it is not only Obama's world duty to protect and to preserve the principles of justice and democracy - it is his duty to enforce them. Diplomacy with terrorist states is appeasement. Barack Obama is too self-absorbed in fancy ego-aggrandizement to take criticism of his ill-informed; misguided world politics. What the world demands of America is RealPolitik.

If however John McCain assumes the Presidency then President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad and Iran's military dictatorship will face severe recriminations from a powerful Western democracy and its allies.

Either way a US congress of Republicans and Democrats - regardless of who the President is - will not allow a rogue Iran - armed with Nuclear warheads - to threaten the security of the world.

The European Union is exerting tremendous political and economic pressure on Iran to end its enrichment objectives. This has had a minimal effect. Iran has been ratcheting up its anti-Israel slander with increasing alacrity.

This poses the question: will military action incur severe reprisals by Iran?

The short answer - yes.

Whether it is Israel that surprises Iran or a western coalition, Israel will in all likelihood suffer a barrage of missile strikes - the likes of which will make the 2006 2nd Lebanon War look like a walk in the park.

This means that it is necessary to exert maximum diplomatic and economic pressure on Iran. The country needs to be completely isolated from other nations. It needs to feel the isolation. This can be done through a strong multilateral initiative comprising Russia; China; EU; USA; Canada and Australasia. In the face of such sanctions, Iran may consider - being rational - halting enrichment.

If however international pressure is unable to end enrichment in Iran within a short time, then military action must come to pass. There simply is no alternative. The world cannot allow a nuclear armed Iran to threaten another state with extinction. The world cannot allow the leading sponsor of terror to be armed with nuclear weapons.

The world must act and sacrifices will have to be made - it is inevitable that sacrifices will have to be made - but the alternative of inaction will yield grave consequences.

The new Israel with the problems of old

The State of Israel has come under immense scrutiny since its inception in 1948. However in spite of these difficulties - 7 wars and 7 victories - Israel stands firm. The threat of war hangs over Israel at every juncture; peace is as fragile a concept as always - yet the Israeli people stand firm. At a time where Israel's enemies are planning the ultimate affront - in nuclear war - Israel has a duty to remain strong.

An article written in www.theherald.co.za recently captures the essence of Israel's existence; its desire to live in peace the challenges confronting the Jewish State.


60 years after founding, no peace for Israel

SIXTY years after the declaration of independence as a sovereign Jewish state on May 14, 1948, Israel has not yet found peace (shalom).

Judaism is twice as old as Christianity and three times older than Islam – yet there are 82 Christian countries, 56 Muslim countries and only one Jewish state.

A country which is smaller than the Kruger National Park – less than one quarter of one per cent of the land mass of the Arab world – Israel is the only place on earth where Jews have formed the majority, the only place where they have been able to rule themselves and defend themselves, the only place where they have been able to do what every other people takes for granted – to live as a nation, sharing its own destiny and creating a society according to its own values.

Only in Israel can the Jew speak the Jewish language, live by the Jewish calendar, walk where their ancestors walked and continue the story they began. Yet still it has to fight for the right to exist.

So often the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians is portrayed as a zero sum game in which one side wins and the other side loses. But from violence both sides lose, from peace both sides gain.

What matters, therefore, is that all involved work for peace, a peace that allows Israel and the Palestinians to live in dignity and freedom without fear, a peace in which each makes space for the other, a peace in which the children of Abraham – Jews, Christians and Arabs – live together as brothers and sisters, part of the same extended family, a peace that heals the wounds of the past – for the sake of generations not yet born.

Israel is the country whose national anthem, Hatikvah, means “hope”. Israel is the home of hope and on the occasion of its 60th anniversary it is fitting that the people of God will express that hope by praying for peace in the Holy Land.

David Abel, co-chairperson, Support Association for Zionism, George

What really happened

Israeli bombing of suspected Syrian nuclear reactor spreads fear throughout the Middle East

The September 2007 precision strike, by the IAF, against a suspected Syrian nuclear site has stirred up a hornets nest.

The Israeli Air Force, guided by operatives on the ground, deep within Syrian territory smashed a suspected nuclear facility.

For several months both Israel and Syria were mum on the incident. Both have their reasons. Israel not eager to make public it’s illegal air raid across sovereign territory and Syria not willing to disclose the likelihood that it is conducting a covert nuclear operation.

Syrian admittance of a nuclear operation would arouse instant condemnation from the IAEA under M. El Baradei. Further economic sanctions – the likes of which Iran is being heavily subjected to – would certainly follow.

Israel is keen to downplay the incident amidst growing discontentment from the Palestinians in their fractured two-state (Gaza and the West Bank) and their frail leadership; rising tensions with Hezbollah and of course the Syrians.

The use of force against suspected nuclear targets is frowned upon. The international community is eager to desist unilateral initiatives in favour of agreed upon diplomatic; political and economic sanctions.

Of course the only point agreed upon by members within the Security Council is their disagreement. Thus the organ of international peacekeeping is akin to a toothless tiger when the opinions of its members result in moribund resolutions.

Israel is unwilling to accept an enemy neighbour armed with nuclear capability. Thus the rapid dismembering of Syria’s capability was paramount. A larger threat, to the Israelis and the world at large, appears to be Iran.

That American security reports found no evidence corroborating nuclear proliferation in Iran, the Iranians have publicly announced, on multiple occasions, their desire for the rapid development of uranium enrichment.

This does not bode well for the teetering world order. With the Mid-East as a potential hotbed for a nuclear arms race, countries are aligning themselves with either side. Moderate Arab states are reluctant to criticize Iran, for fear of arousing the wrath of sympathizers. The delicate situation requires global unity to apply sufficient pressure to bring closure to the matter.

Israel meanwhile sits with its ears to the ground. The drums of war are beginning to sound in the distance.

The Syrian position

Top-level envoy describes the unlikelihood of a break in the strategic alliance between Iran; Hezbollah and Syria.

Ongoing negotiations between Syria and Israel via the Turkish intermediary have given hope to renewed peace efforts between the enemy states. Syria demands that the Golan Heights – a strategic area for both Israel and Syria that was captured by Israel in 1967 – be returned as a prerequisite for peace talks.

President Assad has expressed his desire to continue in peace negotiations provided that the Golan Heights are returned. His Israeli counterpart – Ehud Olmert – has some preconditions himself.

In order for Israel to be content with returning the Golan Heights to Syria, it is necessary – according to Israeli officials – that Syria cut ties with the terror-sponsors. These include Hezbollah and Iran.

Recently a high-level advisor to the Syrian regime made it clear that Syria is unlikely to detach itself from Iran or Hezbollah for the sake of peace with Israel. This places the opportunity for peace in a precarious predicament.

Without a guarantee that Syria will desist in enemy activities, handing over the Golan Heights will simply allow enemies of the State of Israel to camp out on Israel’s doorstep. Such a solution is hardly attractive to Israel.

The leftists in the Knesset may feel that a conciliatory gesture such as handing back the Golan Heights may be viewed positively by the outside world. If the Syrians then continue to allow weapons to pass from Iran into southern Lebanon it will again be up to Israel to prove such actions are being undertaken. This results in a zero-sum for Israel. They will have lost face and land in the interests of a peace that was barely worth the paper it was scribbled on.

The problem it seems comes to down to Iran. As the major antagonist in the region, it is Iran that pulls the strings with Syria; Hamas and Hezbollah. Iran may be fighting a proxy war against Israel now, but international pressure may yet put an end to such bullying tactics in the near future.