fbpx

October 12, 2009

Cases Against Mumbai Suspect Dropped

From NYTimes.com:

A court in the eastern city of Lahore on Monday dismissed two terrorism-related cases against Hafiz Muhammad Saeed, founder of the banned militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba, citing lack of evidence, according to his lawyer.

India and the United States have accused the group of carrying out the terrorist attacks in Mumbai, India, last year, in which more than 160 people were killed.

Read the full story at NYTimes.com.

Cases Against Mumbai Suspect Dropped Read More »

A Chance to Fix LA Schools

Community Advocates’ chairman, former mayor of Los Angeles Richard J. Riordan, has a clear and illuminating” title=”Public School Choice Resolution”> Public School Choice Resolution. The motion allows charter school operators, unions, teacher groups, universities and others to apply to the District to take over low-performing schools and some of the District’s newly built schools.

Riordan describes the new act as a “big step in the right direction.” But he wisely warns that he (and I suspect others who have observed the District in action over the past few decades agree) is “skeptical as to whether the LAUSD will take full advantage of this window for change.” Undoubtedly, he recalls, as do we, the thousands of hours of staff and volunteer time invested in LEARN and other reform efforts that evaporated into an ossified, unresponsive and overly centralized bureaucracy.

Riordan offers concrete steps that ought to be taken to make sure “that this isn’t another wasted opportunity” to effect meaningful change. Among his proposals are holding Board members accountable for low performing schools, granting all new school operators the same powers (i.e. autonomy) as charter schools, and urging that new school operating proposals be judged on merit not politics.

His wish list for change is daunting but it may be our last hope for making the LAUSD work.

A Chance to Fix LA Schools Read More »

Europe, U.S. standing shoulder to shoulder on Iran

When President Obama announced at the G-20 summit in Pittsburgh late last month that Iran had built a secret nuclear plant in Qom, southwest of Tehran, he was followed by a visibly angry French President Nicolas Sarkozy and an unusually harsh British Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

Sarkozy was particularly pugnacious when he spoke, warning the Islamic Republic that it had until December to come clean on its nuclear weapons program or face punishment. The usually reserved Brown accused Iran of “serial deception.”

Again earlier this month, U.S. and European officials stood shoulder to shoulder in Geneva in talks with Iran about its nuclear program.

The united European-American front on Iran is not new, but three relatively recent developments have strengthened the alliance since Iran’s nuclear ambitions became an international preoccupation.

First, Obama’s policy of pursuing talks with Iran while simultaneously warning of harsher measures has brought the United States more in line with Europe’s attitude toward the Islamic Republic. The Europeans believe the threat of sanctions without direct engagement by the United States is a non-starter.

The multilateral meeting with Iran in Geneva represented the first international talks in 30 years where American and Iranian delegates spoke to one another directly. The Bush administration began the move toward this direction in 2006, when U.S. officials agreed to participate in talks involving Iranian officials. Now all members of the so-called P5-plus-1 negotiating team—Britain, China, France, Russia, the United States and Germany—agree on a dual-track approach with incentives and threats.

Second, the election of more conservative governments in France and Germany has helped bring those countries’ leaders more in tune with the U.S. policies on the Middle East both on Iran and on the emphasis on Israel’s security needs. The fiery Sarkozy took over in 2007 from the socialist Jaques Chirac, who often irked Washington and Jerusalem with his sympathetic gestures toward Arab and Islamic leaders.

And when German Chancellor Angela Merkel was re-elected last month, she got a new conservative coalition partner, strengthening her pro-Israel, pro-U.S. positions.

Third, public anger in Europe over the disputed Iranian elections in June and the handling of the protests that followed have helped throw public support behind European leaders’ tough stances toward Tehran.

“Back in 2003, the Europeans thought they had a chance with the moderate Iranian president, Mohammad Khatami. That is not the mood today,” observed Volker Perthes, an Iran expert with the government-funded German Institute for International and Security Affairs.

“Sarkozy and other European leaders are underscoring more than ever before their frustration that Iran is not moving fast enough” on promises to halt uranium enrichment and disclose all its nuclear sites, said Clara Marina O’Donnell, a research fellow at the Center for European Reform, a London-based think tank.

Nevertheless, she said, the shift is one of tone, not substance.

“The stronger message from Sarkozy is also due to the personality involved; he is notoriously combative,” O’Donnell said. “It is not a policy change.”

In one way, the U.S. shift toward negotiations has enabled European leaders to take a tougher line on Iran: Now that Iran can no longer use the absence of the Americans at the negotiating table as a stalling tactic, European leaders feel more comfortable giving Iran ultimatums.

However, the European appetite for sanctions if the Iranians again fail to comply with international demands is not as hearty as in Washington. In the United States, Congress is set to push for harsh new unilateral sanctions if Iran fails to live up to its promises and if U.N. Security Council members China or Russia vetoes additional international sanctions.

In Europe, however, skepticism remains about the effectiveness of sanctions even with the real fear that Iran might cause serious security problems worldwide.

“Europeans look at the U.S. sanctions against Cuba and say, ‘They didn’t work, why should we do this?’ ” Perthes said.

Many suspect tougher sanctions will only help the Iranian regime because the primary victims will be the Iranian people, who likely would blame the West for their suffering. Left-leaning governments such as Spain also likely would find new sanctions hard to swallow.

The distaste for sanctions also may be economic. Italy is Iran’s largest Western trading partner, followed by Germany. Nonetheless, Germany’s sales of machinery to Iran have been on the decline, and Merkel received kudos recently from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Nethanyahu for reducing trade and financial ties with Iran.

“Our foreign minister is saying that the sanctions might not work,” said Simone Hartmann, a spokeswoman in Austria for a group called Stop the Bomb. “That is just an excuse to help Austrian business.”

Austrian exports to Iran rose by 5 percent in the first six months of 2009 compared with the same period of 2008, reaching approximately $220 million.

This isn’t to say that Europe does not regard Iran as a threat. On the contrary: German and French intelligence officials say Iran never stopped working toward nuclear weaponization. By contrast, the official position of U.S. intelligence, put forth in a 2007 National Intelligence Estimate, is that Iran’s covert nuclear weapons program was halted in 2003. The Israeli position is closer to the European position.

While some in the United States favor military action against Iran, Europe holds a stronger aversion to that approach after what most of the continent’s leaders perceive as the wrongful invasion of Iraq.

Sico Van der Meer of the Dutch Clingendale Institute of International Relations said that European leaders believe economic or political incentives might be more effective in keeping Iran from going nuclear than any form of punishment.

“I think if Israel dropped a bomb on Qom today, the Iranians would still find a way—would be even more determined—to continue their nuclear program,” he said.

Europe, U.S. standing shoulder to shoulder on Iran Read More »

‘Lebanon,’ latest film to explore Israel’s Vietnam

From the depths of an Israeli soldier turned middle-aged filmmaker’s haunted memories, the new award-winning movie “Lebanon” consists mainly of scenes shot from inside a sweat- and anxiety-soaked tank of Israeli army conscripts trapped behind enemy lines.

Accepting the prestigious Venice Film Festival’s top prize last month, Samuel Maoz, the film’s writer and director, said the victory was for all those forever marked by the trauma of war.

“I dedicate this award to the thousands of people all over the world who, like me, come back from war safe and sound,” he said after winning the highest international honor ever bestowed on an Israeli film. “Apparently they are fine, they work, get married, have children. But inside, the memory will remain stabbed in their soul.”

“Lebanon,” which opens this week in Israel, is part of a trilogy of internationally acclaimed Israeli movies on the first Lebanon War to have come out in the past three years.

The films—“Beaufort” (2007) and “Waltz with Bashir” (2008) are the other two—are a reminder that the war’s impact on Israeli society and the men who fought it is still being played out 25 years after the first Israeli tanks rumbled across Israel’s northern border and into a different type of war than Israel had ever known.

Launched in an invasion in the summer of 1982, the war became Israel’s first experience fighting a guerrilla war. What originally was sold to the government by then-Defense Minister Ariel Sharon as a swift operation stretched into 18 years of fighting on Lebanese soil. The Israeli public began to question the war’s goals as it stretched into what was called “the mud of Lebanon” and became known as Israel’s Vietnam.

“Lebanon people began to ask themselves why Israel there, and it became symbolic as the Unnecessary War,” Yehuda Stav, a film critic at Israel’s largest-circulation newspaper, Yediot Achronot, told JTA.

That explains its appeal as a storyline, he said, just as Hollywood’s films about Vietnam continue to capture the popular imagination of U.S. audiences.

In films depicting Israel’s earlier wars, there was little hint of the self-doubt and critique of Israeli society that began to emerge after the first Palestinian intifada in the late 1980s, Stav said. Movies at the time started to express an Israeli sentiment that came to be known derisively as “shooting and crying” (in Hebrew, “yorim v’bochim”)—a label bestowed by anti-war Israelis on left-wingers who took part in what they viewed as questionable military missions only to return and criticize the army and the government for what they themselves had participated in.

The current wave of Lebanon movies in some ways continues the trend, Stav said, in particular “Lebanon” and “Waltz with Bashir.” Both wrestle with individual soldiers’ internalized, suppressed emotions reflecting traumatic events the filmmakers themselves experienced fighting in Lebanon.

A common denominator in the films is their viewpoint limited to one slice of the war: the experiences of individual characters. In the case of “Beaufort,” it’s the characters at the Crusader-era fortress of the same name on the eve of Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000. The audience sees no more than the characters do from their hilltop perch.

“Waltz with Bashir,” an animated documentary that made the Academy Awards finals in the Best Foreign Film category last year—“Beaufort” had reached that milestone the previous year—explores what the Israeli role may have been during the massacre of Palestinians at Lebanon’s Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in a narrative drawn from the repressed memories of filmmaker Ari Folman and his fellow soldiers.

In “Lebanon,” the war is viewed from the perspective of four soldiers manning a tank that has been dispatched to search a hostile town only to become lost amid Syrian forces. The film shows little more than what the soldiers themselves see: a limited line of vision to fighting outside the tank and the dynamic of terror inside the tank, as four young men try to navigate their vehicle—not just a machine of war but a potential death trap—back to safety.

Yvonne Kozlovsky-Golan, an academic who researches the theme of war and film and teaches at Sapir College in southern Israel, says it’s not surprising that it has taken awhile for films to be made about the war.

“Post-trauma usually takes about 10 years to come out, not only in film but literature too,” she said.

Lebanon War-related films are coming out now because of financial reasons, too. In recent years, as Israel’s film industry has grown and received more recognition,  Israeli productions have drawn greater investment from abroad. Even though all three films were made on relatively limited budgets, they had the support of European co-producers.

Some have described the films as anti-war treatises and one of the reasons liberal European funders—and audiences—found them palpable.

But Kozlovsky-Golan sees them differently.

“It may be fashionable to call them anti-war movies, but in the very origins of these films is a theme of the Jewish value of being a pursuer of peace, a ‘rodef shalom,’ ” she said.

“In the Talmud, a debate emerged that concluded that Jews should refrain from confrontation and not be involved in war-like situations,” Kozlovsky-Golan said. “And even though these filmmakers are secular Jewish Israelis, I see that this tradition is also rooted in them, this feeling that somehow war is not a Jewish thing.”

Meir Schnitzer, a film critic for Israel’s daily Ma’ariv, said the films promote the image Israelis would like to see of themselves.

“The films are a continuation of the feeling that Israel is the victim in the Middle East conflict,” he said. “They act as a salve against charges that we are war criminals.”

David Silber, the producer of “Beaufort” and “Lebanon,” said the films on the Lebanon War serve a social function.

“They help people understand the misery of war, the need to explain again and again that it’s a terrible thing and should only be chosen as a last resort,” Silber said. “I don’t know if we are still paying a price specifically for the Lebanon War, but the far bigger issue is that we have been at war for the past 100 years here.

“On one level we are a post-traumatic society,” he said, “and these films give expression to that.”

‘Lebanon,’ latest film to explore Israel’s Vietnam Read More »

Dan Glickman, Hollywood’s rep in Washington

Dan Glickman, the chairman and CEO of the Motion Picture Association of America and an 18-year veteran Democratic congressman from Kansas, told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency that liberal Jews are losing their edge in Hollywood.

There are “more and more conservative Jewish people in the business,” he told JTA. “Ninety-nine percent of Hollywood is not out defending Roman Polanski. They’re normal people who do their job, work hard and want to help their families as best they can.”

Presumably at JTA’s prodding, Glickman debunks some of our favorite Hollywood-Jewish myths.

For example, “Do Jews-run-Hollywood?” To which Glickman points out that most modern day movie studios are owned by giant corporations that are “not Jewish controlled at all.”

As for a predominance of Jews in entertainment, Glickman reminds us that the bulk of the movie business is oiled by a wide spectrum of ethnic anomalies, from camera operators to delivery truck drivers.

These days, there are few who would argue with the notion that Jewish power in Hollywood just ain’t what it used to be, but that hasn’t stopped a tiny elite from monopolizing the creative executive positions along the upper ranks of the industry.

Glickman, who is 64, was raised in a small Jewish community of 1,000 in his hometown of Wichita, Kansas. He admits he doesn’t get to synagogue often; in terms of observance, he’s a high holiday Jew, though he told JTA he credits Judaism for giving him “a value system of treating people well” and teaching him to “follow the golden rule.”

How sweet. It’s delightful to hear that someone with a mixed Washington-Hollywood pedigree is concerned with virtuousness, but just imagine how BORING Hollywood would be if more people were nice, like Glickman.

“Everyone likes Dan Glickman,” his friend, Rabbi Levi Shemtov, Washington director of the American Friends of Lubavitch, told JTA.

Not so, says Nikki Finke, who wrote on her blog in March 2009 that many studio toppers were unimpressed with Glickman.

“The unhappiness focuses on the fact he’s a bad and boring speaker who has not repped the movie business well in Washington,” Finke wrote, quoting one of her many anonymous (and therefore, unverifiable) sources.

“The moguls in particular blame him for not being able to keep those $246M in tax breaks for studios and filmmakers intact within the stimulus package. The thinking is that Glickman, a Democrat like Jack Valenti (although that’s where the comparison ends), got outmaneuvered by Republican lawmakers,” Finke qualified.

To his credit, Glickman told JTA that being Jewish never hurt his career as much as being a Democrat. In 2004, when he took over the MPAA position, he was contending with a Republican president and Republican control of congress, who aren’t exactly adoring fans of Hollywood (Just ask Sarah Palin).

Finke added that she “wouldn’t be surprised if the MPAA looks for a GOP lobbyist” and speculated that Glickman may not hold his post much longer. (During the most recent negotiation, rumor has it Glickman’s contract was extended 18 months.)

To be fair, being well liked in Hollywood is almost as stunning an accomplishment as winning an Oscar. Which is why we’ll have to reserve judgment on Glickman until we speak to him ourselves.

Read more about Glickman from JTA:

Dan Glickman, Hollywood’s rep in Washington Read More »

Seth Green mugging for Butterfinger?

Last week’s video of “Robot Chicken” creator Seth Green freaking out on camera after getting mugged and a second video purporting to be Green getting mugged in a parking lot has many wondering whether this YouTube sensation is real or a hoax.

The Hollywood Reporter’s Andrew Wallenstein has a theory:

While sources told us this is a staged stunt, the continuation of the hoax begs the question: What’s this all about, anyway?

Here’s a theory: These video are an elaborate viral marketing campaign for Butterfinger. Green signed on as spokesman for the Nestle candy bar just last month. What little is known about Butterfinger’s future creative direction going forward, as spelled out in this press release, is the brand’s intent on reviving the tagline made famous by Green’s predecessor, Bart Simpson: “Nobody better lay a finger on my Butterfinger.” The product was already treated to an online campaign, ProtectYourButterfingerBar.com.

Hmmm, all this talk about “laying a finger” and protecting the bar. Could it be that videos about a pitchman being attacked is a new spin on a familiar campaign? Strange as it may sound to trot out videos that don’t feature the product being promoted, it’s exactly that kind of anti-ad that’s likely to lure Gen Y-ers in, presumably before somehow working Butterfinger into some future installment of this intriguing series.

Just you wait. Either we’ll be eating crow or crispy, crunchy, peanut-buttery chocolate real soon.

Seth Green mugging for Butterfinger? Read More »

Italian Jews launch new Jewish newspaper—for non-Jews

When Italy’s first national Jewish newspaper launches this month, Italy will get what few Jewish communities around the world offer: a Jewish newspaper geared toward non-Jews.

Sponsored by the Union of Italian Jewish Communities, or UCEI, the umbrella organization that links Italy’s 21 established Jewish communities, the newspaper and an online Jewish information portal launched last year are part of a multi-dimensional media offensive aimed at bolstering the Jewish voice in Italy and creating a constructive dialogue between Jews and non-Jewish Italians.

“Italian Jews are very representative of Italian society in general,” said journalist Guido Vitale, who directs the newspaper, Pagine Ebraiche (Jewish Pages), and the Web site, Moked.it. “I want to construct a piazza, an agora, where they can interact with each other and with Italian society.”

The impetus behind them is the UCEI’s desire to confront a seeming paradox: Italians are fascinated by things Jewish even though the country’s 30,000 Jews comprise a tiny fraction of the population of 60 million.

“There is a huge interest in Jews and Jewish culture here,” said Emanuele Ascarelli, who directs “Sorgente di Vita” (“Source of Life”), a biweekly Jewish television program co-produced by UCEI and state-run RAI television that draws 200,000 to 400,000 viewers. Ascarelli estimates that 90 to 95 percent of them are not Jewish.

Ascarelli says the new media initiatives reaching out to the non-Jewish world reflects a new self-confidence among Italian Jews.

“The Jews in Italy have changed a lot in recent years,” he said. “There’s no longer the sense of being in a symbolic ghetto. There is a greater openness to making ourselves known. The desire of non-Jews to know the Jewish reality thus meets with the desire of Jews to be known. This is a dynamic process.”

Numerous Jewish-themed cultural events, including festivals, food tastings, book launches and concerts, take place throughout the year throughout the country. In September, on the annual European Day of Jewish Culture, nearly 60,000 Italians — most of them non-Jews — flocked to Jewish-themed lectures, exhibits and other events held in nearly 50 towns and cities up and down the peninsula.

Scores of articles on Jewish-related topics appear in the mainstream media each week. In one year, Vitale said, the press review on Moked included more than 100,000 articles, most of them in the Italian press. Many, of course, are on Israel and the Middle East. But even elections to Jewish community organizations are apt to make headlines.

At the same time, ignorance about Jewish beliefs, traditions and values — not to mention Israel — is widespread in Italy.

“There is an incredible over-exposure, but the capacity for understanding is generally low,” Vitale said. “In the Italian mainstream media, Jews are usually the objects of news, of something happening. In Pagine Ebraiche, Jews will make their own voices heard.”

To be published monthly and with an initial press run of 30,000, Pagine Ebraiche will be sold at selected newsstands in major Italian cities. Its contents will include news reports, essays, commentaries, historical articles, cultural pieces and other material, all written to be accessible to the general public.

“Its role will be to speak to the external world, not the internal Jewish world,” Vitale said. “We want to open a dialogue with the external world.”

With non-Jewish Italians as its target audience, Pagine Ebraiche will not replace the Jewish print media in Italy, which include glossy monthlies in Rome and Milan with small press runs that are directed at Jewish readers.

The reasons for the prominence of Jews and Jewish culture in Italy are rooted in the long, complex history of Jews in Italy, as well as the symbolism attached to Jews as survivors who have maintained their identity despite waves of violent discrimination.

Jews have lived in Italy since ancient Roman times; the Rome Jewish community is the oldest continuous Jewish community in the Diaspora.

Over the centuries, popes persecuted Jews in parts of Italy. In the mid-19th century, Jews took an active part in the Italian Risorgimento, or liberation process. They won civil rights and became highly acculturated into Italian society.

But fascist dictator Benito Mussolini, allied with Nazi Germany, imposed harsh anti-Jewish laws, and about one-fifth of Italian Jews perished in the Holocaust. After World War II, Italy’s surviving Jews were bolstered by immigrants from many countries, including thousands who came from Libya fleeing anti-Semitic violence in 1967.

More recently, Palestinian terrorists attacked Rome’s main synagogue in 1982, and in 1986 Pope John Paul II made a historic visit there. He embraced Rome’s chief rabbi in a gesture that symbolized a new era in Catholic-Jewish relations.

“Everything that Jews do has a symbolism,” Ascarelli said. “What Jews say counts on issues such as immigration, minority rights, the Shoah, the culture of memory.”

UCEI President Renzo Gattega elaborated on this attitude in a report presented last year to the organization’s leaders in which he laid out the reasons for broadening the Jewish media to reach beyond the community.

“A minority like ours cannot only have the goal of recounting itself and its history, or only reacting to the initiatives and actions of others, be they positive or negative,” he said. “Rather it must act concretely to bear witness of its values, its identity, its vitality.”

Italian Jews launch new Jewish newspaper—for non-Jews Read More »

Dalai Lama visits D.C. sukkah

The Dalai Lama visited the sukkah of a Washington synagogue.

The Buddhist spiritual leader met with the congregation’s worshipers in the sukkah of Adas Israel Synagogue after Saturday’s Sukkot holiday prayers, Ynet reported.

The Dalai Lama told the crowd that it was his first time inside a sukkah, and that he admires Jews very much for their perseverance through years of oppression.

He said he has “a lot to learn from the Jews” and sees them as an example for his own Tibetan people, who have been in exile for 50 years.

President Obama declined to meet with the Dalai Lama during his time in Washington for fear that it might aggravate the Chinese government ahead of the president’s upcoming visit to Beijing. The president hopes to convince China to impose sanctions on Iran in the U.N. Security Council.

Dalai Lama visits D.C. sukkah Read More »

Obama’s Nobel Prize, Israel’s problem?

Although warm and effusive in their congratulations, Israeli officials fear President Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize could limit his options on Iran.

They argue that Obama, having won the prestigious award for restoring the role of diplomacy in international affairs, may be more inclined to take the military option off the table, paving the way for Iran to advance its nuclear plans with relative impunity.

The Israelis have similar concerns on the Palestinian track, fearing the prize might encourage Obama to redouble his efforts for an independent Palestinian state by 2012 by pressing Israel to make far-reaching concessions.

Even before news of the Nobel, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had deep misgivings about the new U.S. diplomatic engagement with Iran.

Successful dialogue could lead to pressure on Israel to dismantle its reputed nuclear arsenal. One Israeli nightmare scenario is that Iran demands Israeli nuclear disarmament as a condition of its agreement to drop its nuclear weapons program.

Were this to happen, the Israelis fear the praise the Norwegian Nobel committee heaped on Obama’s advocacy of a nuclear-free world could exacerbate their predicament.

What worries Israeli strategic thinkers more is the more likely scenario of a U.S.-Iran dialogue that fails to produce conclusive results, sucking the Obama administration into a long-meandering process the Iranians use as a cover to advance their nuclear activities.

The concern persists despite U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s reassurance in London last weekend that “the international community will not wait indefinitely for evidence that Iran is prepared to live up to its international obligations.”

With all these developments, the Netanyahu government seems to be developing a pragmatic Iran strategy. Netanyahu seems resigned to waiting out Washington’s efforts at dialogue and to giving international sanctions a chance if dialogue fails. Some of Netanyahu’s close advisers say the dialogue stage is necessary so that when it fails—as it is bound to do, they argue—Obama will be able to muster an effective and widely backed sanctions regime.

The main plank of the Israeli waiting game, however, is to coordinate throughout as closely as possible with Washington on intelligence and on possible military action.  Netanyahu, who has warned repeatedly that Israel will not tolerate a nuclear Iran, does not want to act without close U.S. coordination.

That’s where this month’s huge joint military exercise in Israel’s Negev Desert comes in. In maneuvers dubbed Juniper Cobra, the Israel Defense Forces, the U.S. European Command and the U.S. Missile Defense Agency will test four defense systems against incoming ballistic missiles, such as those from Iran. The main purpose will be to hone the interoperability of Israel’s Arrow 2 and three state-of-the-art American systems: the high altitude THAAD, the ship-based Aegis and the lower altitude Patriot PAC 3.

All four will be coordinated by American X-Band Radar, deployed in the Negev since last October and capable of tracing an object as small as a baseball from a distance of approximately 3,000 miles. This means that with X-Band and the various interceptor systems, Israel theoretically could shoot down Iranian Shihab missiles shortly after take-off and possibly still over Iranian territory. Israelis also would get warning time of 5 to 7 minutes to take cover after Iranian missile firings.

About 1,000 U.S. soldiers and 15 U.S. naval vessels are taking part in the exercise, the fifth of its kind since 2001 and by far the biggest and most complex.

After the exercise, the Americans may leave behind some PAC-3 interceptors and deploy Aegis vessels in the Mediterranean and Red seas. Washington is considering deploying parts of the missile defense system it had intended for Eastern Europe in Israel, Turkey and the Balkans. U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates says this will enable the United States to have a partial system working by 2011, whereas in Eastern Europe it would have taken until 2017.

All this sends a strong message to Iran. Attacking Israel would mean confronting an Israeli-American defensive umbrella at the very least, and possibly a lethal Israeli-American counter-offensive.

But it also sends a strong message to Israel. If it can count on a strong American umbrella, it should feel less compelled to act against Iran on its own, less concerned about giving up its reputed nuclear arsenal and more inclined to make concessions to the Palestinians.

Of course, that still leaves the $64,000 question unanswered: What happens if the United States gets sucked into a long, seemingly aimless dialogue with Iran, and Israel sees smoking-gun evidence of an incipient Iranian nuclear capability that America chooses to ignore?

That’s the scenario Netanyahu hopes his coordination strategy will help avoid. Otherwise he is facing one of the hardest choices of any Israeli leader: To antagonize America or face the consequences of a nuclear Iran.

Obama’s Nobel Prize, Israel’s problem? Read More »

Senior Hezbollah official killed in Lebanon blast

A senior official of the Hezbollah militant group was killed on Monday evening when an explosion rocked a house apparently serving as a munitions bunker in south Lebanon.

Hezbollah denied that the house was being used as an arms depot and said that the munitions that caused the blast had belonged to the Israel Defense Forces and were left over from the 2006 Second Lebanon War.

Read the full story at HAARETZ.com.

Senior Hezbollah official killed in Lebanon blast Read More »