web analytics
April 20, 2014 / 20 Nisan, 5774
At a Glance

Posts Tagged ‘war’

US, Setting Example For Israel, Releases Taliban Terrorists

Tuesday, August 6th, 2013

On 28 July, Jonathan Tobin asked, at Commentary, if the U.S. would release terrorist killers as a precondition for talks – the measure Secretary of State John Kerry was demanding of Israel.

A couple of days later, in an almost supernaturally handy turn of events, we had the answer: yes.  The U.S. did exactly that at the end of July, agreeing to release five Taliban terrorists we’ve been holding at Guantanamo, in order to jumpstart the initiative – mainly ours – for talks with the Taliban.

Daniel Greenfield points out at FrontPage that in June, the Taliban offered to exchange U.S. Army Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl for the five Taliban at Gitmo.  The Haqqani network of the Pakistan Taliban has been holding Bergdahl since late June or early July of 2009, shortly after he went missing close to Pakistan’s northwestern tribal areas on the border with Afghanistan.

But the Gitmo Five were released without an exchange for SGT Bergdahl taking place.  This will have to be a blow to his family in Idaho (not to mention a blow to Bergdahl).

It will also be another blow to U.S. credibility, already on the ropes.  It certainly dents the credibility of detention as a deterrent to terrorism.  Kenneth Roth, director of Human Rights Watch, had a hilariously timed oped in Friday’s Washington Post online in which he argued that the Obama administration should declare that the “war against al Qaeda” – yes, that al Qaeda; the one that has our embassies shut down across the Muslim world this weekend – is over.  Instead of acting on a war footing and killing terrorists, says Mr. Roth, we should be going with President Obama’s own expressed preference to “detain, interrogate, and prosecute” them.

Now, I have been a critic myself of Obama’s overreliance on drone killings as a method.  And detention and interrogation, while important for intelligence gathering, are not methods of deterrence, nor is prosecution.  I don’t argue for them as a substitute for drone attacks.

I’m getting those points out of the way so we can focus on what matters here, which is that detention is as close to meaningless as makes no difference, if we’re just going to turn terrorists loose anyway, to everyone we might have a yen to have “talks” with.  The Obama administration, just a few days before his oped appeared, provided Kenneth Roth with a conversation-stopping answer to his proposition that we should kill less and detain more.  The answer leaves Roth in the dust:  whether we stop killing terrorists or not, we should release the ones we have detained in order to get terrorists to have talks with us.

I guess, technically, there would be a purpose for detaining a few from time to time, on the assumption that we may want to have talks with their comrades in terror in the future.  This kind of preemptive hostage-taking is gang-and-guerrilla behavior, of course.  The degrees by which the mode of thinking shifts from “responsible statesman” to “mob boss” are not subtle here.

In any case, we can reassure Mr. Roth that the U.S. ended the war on terror in 2009.  Perhaps that’s not the same thing as the “war against al Qaeda,” but in the latter regard, Roth would do well to try and keep up:  al Qaeda has been “decimated” and has been “on the path to defeat” for a year or more, according to the Obama administration.

The die seems to be cast; we can at least hope that God really does watch out for fools, drunks, and the United States, because our president certainly isn’t doing it.  Given the reigning jumble of confused soundbites and incoherent actions that now masquerades as U.S. policy on the global threat of terrorism, we may justly ask, with our former secretary of state: what difference, at this point, does it make?

Fighter Jets…

Tuesday, August 6th, 2013

Every once in a while, we hear fighter jets flying over head. The first time I came to Maale Adumim – over ten years ago, I heard the jets soaring over the city and thought – wow, not just the beauty of the desert, not just the beauty of the city, but this too? I love the sound of the F15s flying low.

It was only after I moved here that I realized this wasn’t a daily occurrence. The Israeli Air Force is charged with protecting our skies. To do this, they have to fly the length and width of this land (which actually doesn’t take to long).

So they don’t fly regularly over our skies…or maybe they do. I remember friends who had just moved hear hearing them fly low over head. They called me thinking that perhaps war had broken out…

No, no war – just our sons flying our skies and protecting our land!

I once tried with my silly phone to capture it. I got the sound, but couldn’t get the image and then I thought…duh…YouTube. This morning, the jets have been flying and, child that I am inside, I keep going to my balcony and watching them.

There is such joy in seeing them, hearing them. They fly for the purest of causes – defending our land. It’s a beautiful day in August in Israel. I hope as they fly, the pilots are smiling and enjoying the most amazing view (as I am).

May God bless the Israel Air Force – fly safe! – 2 videos – one the sound I am hearing this morning and the second – an amazing, nearly impossible feat…an Israeli pilot – landing with just one wing. The manufacturers of the F15 didn’t believe the Israelis when it was reported. They insisted on seeing the plane for themselves. The proof is in the video. Enjoy.



New Film Highlights Israel’s Strengths

Thursday, August 1st, 2013

In Brad Pitt’s latest offering, World War Z, a virus transforms human beings into zombies determined to overtake the world and destroy every country on Earth. In the film, only Israel has the foresight to build a massive zombie-repelling wall. 

One of the film’s central characters, Mossad agent Jurgen Warmbrunn, explains, “In the ’30s, Jews refused to believe we could be put in concentration camps. In the ’70s, we didn’t believe we could be massacred at the Olympics.” Warmbrunn notes that based on these experiences, Israel remains ready for any security threat, maintaining a defense infrastructure that surpasses all other nations.

Some observers see the zombie-resistant wall as representative of the real life Security Barrier that keeps Palestinian suicide bombers out of Israel. In addition to being proactive in security, the movie portrays Israel as a humanitarian country that permits uninfected Palestinians to enter so that they will not be harmed by zombies. “Every human being we save is one less zombie to fight,” remarks Jurgen. He adds that saving Palestinian lives is good for peace. This too reflects an Israel that honors the rights of its Arab citizens, works to save Palestinian lives, and serves as an inspiration to the Islamic world by treating persecuted minority groups, such as Ahmadi Muslims and Bahais, with dignity.

In World War Z, Israel is also portrayed as a country in which women are given equal opportunities. For example, the film features an Israeli warrior named Segen, played by Israeli actress Daniella Kertesz, who saves lives and helps distribute the zombie vaccine.

In reality, Israel is a pioneer in women’s rights, a country where women proudly serve in the Israel Defense Forces. It is also engaged in humanitarian missions that help other countries across the world, including fighting against gender-based violence in South Sudan, sending agricultural and medical assistance to Haiti, rescuing people trapped under a collapsed shopping mall in Ghana, bringing relief to victims of an Oklahoma Tornado, helping Hurricane Sandy Victims, treating victims of the Boston Marathon Bombing, and assisting first-responders at the Newtown Massacre. In a fictionalized form, World War Z highlights Israel’s innumerable contributions to the world and represents one of the most pro-Israel films ever made.

Visit United with Israel.

Why the Ancient Art of War and Other Strategies Matter

Wednesday, May 29th, 2013

Why is it important to study the strategies of history and the ancient art of war today? Has military strategy essentially changed over the years? In part two of this week’s podcast, Andrew R. Wilson, Professor of Strategy and Policy at the United States Naval War College, and prolific author on the subject of Chinese military history, explains why the lessons of history are so important today.

Israel: Leading the Way

Wednesday, May 29th, 2013

Israel. A country filled with creative minds, bursting with initiative, and teeming with innovation. And it’s not just in the world of start-ups that this picture rings true. One of the areas in which Israel is a true leader and initiator is in the field of emergency, trauma and mass-casualty preparedness.

“Unfortunately, in Israel, we have a lot of experience in the field of urgent care medicine”, explains Dr Moshe Michaelson, Medical Head of Rambam Health Care Campus’s Teaching Center for Trauma, Emergency and Mass Casualty Situations. “Our specific experience with war and terror has led us to possess extensive knowledge in trauma care and a highly developed system in preparation for, and in response to, mass-casualty incidents. A number of years ago we decided that we should share this knowledge with others”.

Thus, in 1999, financed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and in collaboration with other hospitals across the country, Rambam Health Care Campus ran a one-month course for medical professionals from South America. “Doctors and nurses from a range of South American countries flew to Israel and we taught them how best to organize a trauma center and be prepared for a mass-casualty event”, continues Michaelson. “The idea is really very simple. It’s all about having a plan in place so that if a mass-casualty situation suddenly arises, staff are fully prepared and the hospital can cope in terms of having enough resources, space and medical staff. This plan then has to be drilled into all staff members so that they can respond immediately in the event that they are faced with a mass-casualty situation. We taught the group how they could implement a plan like this using very little money and making use of the resources their hospital already has”.

The success of this course led to the establishment of the Teaching Center for Trauma, Emergency and Mass Casualty Situations, which is the only one of its kind in Israel. Each year, twenty-five select doctors and nurses from countries as far-flung as Thailand, India, Ecuador, Mozambique, China and Costa Rica, fly to Israel to attend this course, and to date, over 600 medical professionals have received training at the Rambam Campus in Haifa, and countless others have been trained by the Center in their own home countries.

“Obviously it takes time for each hospital to put the practices we teach them into place and it can be challenging for some staff members who have attended the course to start making these changes, especially in big hospitals”, continues Michaleson. “But we truly believe in its importance. Every country has problems with trauma and mass casualties, whether it’s with car accidents, industrial accidents, military casualties or terrorist attacks—no place is immune. Over the years, and especially since the 2000 Intifada, Israeli hospitals have been fine-tuning their response to these situations, and according to Israeli law, each hospital in the country must have a suitable system in place. In my opinion, Israel is the country best prepared for situations of mass-casualty events in the world, and we are pleased to be able to share our experience with others”.

During the recent Pillar of Defence Operation in the South of Israel, one such an emergency response plan was put into place at Soroka Hospital in Beer Sheva.

Soroka Medical Center is the only tertiary hospital with Level I trauma facilities in Israel’s southern region. As such, it provides medical services and backup in emergency and war situations to other hospitals in the south. The mission of the Soroka Emergency & Contingency Team is to prepare Soroka for mass-casualty events and war situations.

“The way our hospital staff worked during the Pillar of Defence Operation was incredible to witness”, comments Nurit Vaknin, Coordinator of the Emergency & Contingency Team. “Everyone knew exactly what to do and how to do it. Within an hour of the operation being declared, the Home Front Command of the Israel Defence Forces sent us 80 soldiers to help with moving patients to protected areas, transferring medical equipment to where it was needed, and generally help with anything that needed to be done”.

“One of the main challenges that a hospital like ours faces during wartime is how to provide the best possible care to civilian and military casualties at the same time as attending to the regular needs of the general population”, Vaknin goes on to explain. “And thank God we’re doing something right, because when 300 casualties of the rocket attacks entered the hospital, the management of everything — from patient care to hospital resources — all went extremely smoothly”.

Dealing with the threat of rocket attacks in not a new concept in Israel. But what is new is the threat of hospitals themselves being directly hit. “Since January 2009, Soroka itself has repeatedly been targeted by Grad missiles, Katyushas, and other rockets coming from the Gaza Strip, 43 kilometres west of Beer-Sheva”, continues Vaknin. “This means that not only do we have to be prepared for many incoming casualties but we also have to protect the hospital and our patients”.

Soroka’s operating rooms, intensive care units and several other areas have therefore been specially designed so that they are protected from rocket attacks. Other wards that aren’t protected are speedily evacuated at times of high alert. In addition, following the 2009 threats, efforts were stepped up to increase the signage in the hospital so that everyone would know where to go in case of incoming rocket attacks, and in planning new infrastructures, the hospital’s management took into account the need for protected areas.

Protected areas are not just essential in the south of Israel, but up north too. The Sammy Ofer Fortified Underground Emergency Hospital on the Rambam Campus in Haifa takes this concept to a whole new level, being the largest structure of its kind in the world.

“The initiative for a fortified hospital came about following the Second Lebanon War six years ago”, explains Professor Rafi Beyar, Director and CEO of Rambam Health Care Campus. “The hospital itself was under missile attack, and although no one was hurt, we realized that we couldn’t rely on miracles anymore”.

The structure that has been built is an underground three-story, 60,000 square meter facility, which during peacetime will function as a 1,500-vehicle parking lot. The structure is fully fortified against conventional, chemical and biological warfare, which means that not only does it have cement walls and ceilings 40cm thick, but tens of thousands of ventilation and air filtration units have been installed, equipped with carbon and HEPA filters that are 98% effective in filtering out biological and chemical agents.

If war is suddenly declared, the parking lot will immediately transform, within a maximum of 72 hours, into a fully sealed off, self-sufficient emergency hospital, able to store enough breathable oxygen, drinking water, and medical-gas supplies for up to three days. The process for this transformation has been methodically planned—logistically and medically—by a team of expert consultants, so that each and every detail is accounted for.

“As the main referral hospital for over two million people in the North of Israel, we are determined to have the capabilities of providing acute and chronic hospital care under fire to all those who need it”, states Beyar.

Whether a war, terror attack, traffic accident or any other type of mass-casualty event, one of the main problems a hospital has to grapple with is priority management. Due to the fact that a mass-casualty situation can happen at a moment’s notice, hospitals will suddenly have more needs to take care of than resources available. Hospital staff therefore have to be able to think on their feet, quickly access the necessary resources and prioritize patients according to need and severity.

The Israel National Center for Trauma and Emergency Medicine Research (NTDR) was established in 2001. The goal of the NTDR is to reduce illness and mortality due to injury by centralizing the data of almost every single casualty in Israel. The data is analysed for routine quality control of the trauma-care system as well as systematic analyses for research purposes. One of the goals of the research and the conclusions drawn from it is to help hospitals understand how to make decisions and prioritize when they are faced trauma and mass-casualty events.

“Research centers such as ours exist around the world”, explains Dr Kobi Peleg, Director of the Center. “But the ‘added value’ that we have in Israel is that much of our data centers around mass-casualty events due to terror. Therefore a lot of the research we are engaged in focuses on understanding the injuries that come from terror with the goal of aiding hospitals to plan accordingly for these injuries should a terror attack occur. In addition, in comparison to other countries, over 90% of the hospitals in Israel are included in the program, allowing for a much more extensive collection of data”.

Dr Peleg gives an example of a lesson that was learned from recent terror-related events. “We found that blood vessel injuries were eight more times as common in the casualties of this type of trauma than in other casualties. This finding is important because hospitals need to immediately call in extra staff when a mass-casualty happens. Knowing that a case of terror is more likely to cause a blood vessel injury than, say, a motor-vehicle accident, will enable hospital management to call in this specialty as soon as they hear that an act of terror has occurred. This allows them to be as prepared as possible”.

With over one hundred studies published by the Center, Dr Peleg is proud of Israel’s contribution to medical research. “Israel has a responsibility to share its experience, data and knowledge with countries across the world. Although we’d obviously rather not have this experience, we can utilize it positively to ultimately benefit humankind”.

Memorial Day — To Live and Die for Israel

Sunday, April 14th, 2013

I wrote this memoir few years ago:

In March of 1995 my friends and I were drafted to the Israeli army. We had passed some grueling tests and were accepted to the Paratrooper brigades, the Tzanchanim. The image of the red berets liberating the Western Wall was fused into our psyches like it was in so many young Israeli minds, and more than anything we wanted to serve our country honorably and to the best of our abilities. Six painful months of basic training were ahead of us. In this period of time our minds and bodies were converted from civilian use and become the property of the IDF. We learned to push the envelope of our individual human capacity, and to harness the great strength inherent in an indivisible platoon.

We kept our sights to the final day of basic training in which we would hike 86 kilometers, in utter silence with full infantry gear, up to Givat Ha-Tachmoshet, Ammunition Hill in Jerusalem where many Tzanchanim had perished in the 6 Day War, and where we would receive our very own red berets and be inducted into the ranks of the paratroopers.

However, one fine day in May, barely three months after we began basic training, the sergeant major came into our barracks with a large box. We had no clue what its contents were. The sergeant major proceeded to open the box, and much to our surprise, unveiled red berets for each one of us in the platoon. “You don’t deserve to be paratroopers yet,” he told us. “But tomorrow you will leave the base and think of yourselves as full-fledged Tzanchanim for one day. You will not get to keep these,” he added, “but wear them with pride and respect.”

The next day was Yom HaZikaron, Memorial Day, and the whole of the paratrooper brigade, thousands of men, would be released for one day to attend one of the many commemorations of fallen soldiers that took place in the cemeteries of this tiny nation. Each one of us was given precise directions to the cemetery and a plot number was also given to us. We were told that the plot number corresponded to a grave of a fallen paratrooper. We were ordered to stand next to that grave and next to the family of a young man who was once just like ourselves, wearing our red beret as he once did, and in a sense, to represent his memory and soul.

That next day, I had luck hitchhiking, the preferred mode of travel when in uniform. Hitchhiking was by no means a precise science, and though I had tweaked my “I’m a helpless soldier” stance to perfection, some days were better than others. I reached the gates of the cemetery about an hour early and the place was quiet and serene. I loitered at the gate and then wandered in. The large space echoed silence and only the birds chirped in the large trees. Nature had overtaken this resting place and many of the walls were covered in ivy. I tried listening to the graves and heard no cries of pain, no last words, and no fear of death. The dead, it seemed to me, had made peace with their fate, they were no longer bitter at having fallen so young. Alone amongst my dead I stood, a bit in a daydream, under the sun.

Soon, people began to arrive and I straightened my stance and made sure my beret was on right. I was nervous at meeting the family I was assigned to.

Who would they be?

How would they react to me?

Will they cry next to me?

Will they ask me who I am?

Most of all my soul wondered:

What is it like for a parent to stand on the grave of his child?

How would my parents feel if I were that child?

How would I feel, if it were my child?

I thought about my own mother and her reservations about my army service. Soon after, I spotted a family of three: father, mother and son, heading in my general direction. It was my family.

They greeted me kindly, and indeed, the father asked me who I was and where did I serve. The mother, who had been through this before, brought out some fruits and water to nourish the soldier with the red beret standing in front of her, and though she looked at me, I could see that her mind was far away, and that I was a painful reminder of her longing to nourish her own child.

Land for War

Tuesday, April 9th, 2013

President Obama’s recent charm offensive in Israel apparently had two aims: First, to lull Israel into forfeiting timely military action against Iranian nukes in the hope that Obama will act instead; and second, to convince Israelis that now is the time to revisit the land-for-peace formula.

For years, the conventional wisdom — among Israel’s peace camp and its proponents abroad (Obama included) — has been that if Israel just relinquishes enough territory to its enemies, peace will arrive. But on most of Israel’s borders, history has revealed the naïve folly behind an idea that could just as aptly be called “land-for-war.”

Consider Syria. From 1948 to 1967, the Syrians regularly fired artillery shells from their dominant positions on the Golan Heights down at Israeli border communities and Fatah used the territory to launch terrorist raids into Israel, until Israel captured it in 1967. But since the U.S.-brokered talks between Israel and Syria began in 1999, peaceniks have posited that a full withdrawal by Israel from the strategic plateau in exchange for peace with Syria involved a risk worth taking. Their rationale was that — in an era dominated more by aerial threats (jets and missiles) than terrestrial ones (soldiers and tanks) — the territory was no longer vital to Israeli security and could be traded for a double boon: peace with Syria and elimination of Iran’s greatest strategic ally.

Current events reveal the deeply flawed assumptions underpinning the land-for-peace-with-Syria paradigm. No Israeli territorial concession is needed for Iran to lose its only Arab ally; the Syrian civil war will ultimately accomplish that. Basher Assad’s regime will eventually fall because the daily slaughter of one’s own people (with over 70,000 dead) is unsustainable when each atrocity can be instantly uploaded to the Internet. Whoever replaces Assad will be no friend to those who armed, funded, and prolonged his massacres: Iran and Russia. Iran and its proxy Hizballah have also been substantially involved in fighting the rebels on the ground, and thus will be distanced from postwar Syria far more than any Israeli-Syrian peace could have separated Iran and Syria.

More importantly, the land-for-peace formula with Syria would have transferred the strategic territory from Israel to an Alawite-led regime reviled by the mostly Sunni rebels who will eventually overthrow it and likely disavow its commitments — including any peace deal that might have been reached with Israel.

Indeed, the Syrian rebels already control much of the 200 square miles comprising the Syrian side of the Golan Heights (where they recently kidnapped 21 U.N. peacekeepers stationed there) and have openly threatened to attack Israel next. Israel comprises about 8,000 square miles. If those same rebels were on the 500 square miles constituting the Israeli side of the plateau thanks to an earlier “peace deal,” Israel would be that much closer to the errant projectiles of Syria’s civil war, and that much more exposed to whatever terrorist attacks on Israel the Syrian jihadist fighters plan after finishing Assad.

Hence, Israel’s tangible security asset (earned with the blood of its soldiers in the Six Day War) would have been traded for “peace” with Assad, but land-for-war with Syrian Islamists is what Israel may have received just a few years later.

Indeed, “land-for-war” has a compelling record. In 2000, Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon and in 2006 was attacked from there by Hizballah. It was only the force of Israel’s military response in the war that followed — rather than any territorial concession — that prevented any subsequent cross-border attacks by Hizballah, although the terrorist group still pursues murderous plots abroad, including in Europe (which still cowers from labeling Hizballah a terrorist organization).

Since Israel left the Gaza Strip in 2005, Palestinian terrorists have launched almost 10,000 rockets from there at Israeli civilians (most recently on three days of last week and during Obama’s visit to Israel, violating yet another cease-fire agreement). Since the 1993 Oslo Peace Accord requiring Israel to hand over parts of the West Bank to the Palestinian Authority, Palestinian terrorist attacks have killed over 1,000 Israelis.

The 1994 Jordan-Israel peace involved very little land (and heavily depends on survival of the Hashemite Kingdom), so the best precedent supporting the land-for-peace model is Egypt, which agreed to peace with Israel for return of the Sinai Peninsula. That cold peace has held since 1979 mostly thanks to over $60 billion of U.S. aid to Egypt and an unpopular, secular autocrat (Hosni Mubarak). After Islamists hijacked Egypt’s 2011 revolution, the future of the Egypt-Israel peace is less certain, although Egypt now has so many economic and political problems that foreign military adventures seem unlikely.

What if They Mean What They Say?

Monday, March 11th, 2013

The U.S. generally makes allowance for verbal excesses from foreign governments, but if expressions of hatred and incitement to violence are actually harbingers of behavior, destruction and murderousness cannot be far behind.

At the U.N. Alliance of Civilizations [sic], Turkey’s Prime Minister equated Zionism with crimes against humanity. The American response was swift; speaking for himself and the administration, Kerry called the remark “objectionable.” But after expressing dismay, he called for nicer play.

“That said,” he commented, “Turkey and Israel are both vital allies. We want to see them work together to go beyond rhetoric and take concrete steps to change their relationship.” A State Department official concurred, saying the comment was “particularly offensive” and “complicates our ability to do all the things we want to do together.”

But what if Ergodan doesn’t want what the U.S. wants him to want — that is to say, he doesn’t want a changed relationship with Israel? What if harsh rhetoric and open political and financial support for Hamas — a U.S. designated terrorist organization — are part of Turkey’s regional Sunni Islamic ambition, which does not include Israel? What if Turkey’s prior cooperation was a phase to allow it to acquire political and military benefits?

In a similar vein, a few weeks ago, a North Korean diplomat told the U.N. Conference on Disarmament, “As the saying goes, a new-born puppy knows no fear of a tiger. South Korea’s erratic behavior would only herald its final destruction.” He added, “If the U.S. takes a hostile approach toward North Korea to the last, rendering the situation complicated, [we] will be left with no option but to take the second and third stronger steps in succession.” A North Korean general warned of the “miserable destruction” of the United States.

The U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Conference on Disarmament called the comments “profoundly disturbing,” and the Spanish ambassador said he was “stupefied.” Why?

Beginning with President Carter, American administrations have treated North Korea’s pursuit of nuclear capability as defensive: designed to keep South Korea and the U.S. from overthrowing the cultish regime of the North. The U.S. tells itself that since it harbors no plans for any such invasion, it can reassure North Korea on that point and thus lessen its determination to have nuclear capability – hence the U.S. offers food, fuel and a light water reactor, thinking those “gifts” will reassure North Korea of America’s benign intentions.

But what if North Korea is not defensive, but rather Kim Jong Un, like his predecessors, believes that the unification of the peninsula should happen under governance of the North? How then should we understand the diplomat and the general? And how should we understand North Korea’s latest nuclear test?

The British ambassador said of the North Korean diplomat’s remarks, “It cannot be allowed that we have expressions which refer to the possible destruction of U.N. member states.” That is, of course, patently untrue. The U.N. tolerates and sometimes applauds Iranian representatives who have called not for the “possible” destruction of a U.N. member state, Israel, but for its outright annihilation.

“The Zionist regime and the Zionists are a cancerous tumor,” Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said. “The nations of the region will soon finish off the usurper Zionists in the Palestinian land… In the new Middle East there will be no trace of the Americans and Zionists… Cancer must be eliminated from a body (the region).” For Qods Day last year Ahmadinejad told the Iranians, “Any freedom lover and justice seeker in the world must do its best for the annihilation of the Zionist regime in order to pave the path for the establishment of justice and freedom in the world.”

The P5+1, the five permanent U.N. Security Council members plus Germany who are negotiating with Iran, still seem to presume that Iran is pursuing nuclear capability for some reason other than to use it, and that it can, therefore, be dissuaded from developing it. But what if “annihilation of the Zionist regime” really is topmost in the minds of the Mullahs? What if they believe Israel has to disappear and they can make it happen? What will happen, then, when they get nuclear weapons, if they still really believe that?

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/opinions/what-if-they-mean-what-they-say/2013/03/11/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: