UGH... SYRIA - DOOMED TO REPEAT HISTORY!

All one can say about the current conflict in Syria is UGH...

It's that simple. There is absolutely no upside anywhere to this.

As I wrote in this article: Heads You Win... Tails I Lose

Honestly, there are no good answers here. On one hand the Assad regime cannot be allowed to stay in power given their heinous use of Weapons of Mass Destruction. If they have indeed done this, there is really no way that they can be allowed to stay in power. At the same time as amply showed above, any active move to take them out doesn’t necessarily improve the situation for anyone, including the Syrian people.

Personally, I can’t think of any good solutions, just solutions that are less bad and none of them involve “sitting on hands”. If we do nothing we are faced with either a victory by Iran, Hizbollah and one of the worlds worst offenders of Human Rights, the Assad regime…. OR we are faced with the likely creation of an al-Qaeda / Jihadi client state.

We then see this story: 

U.S. concludes Assad's forces used chemical weapons against Syrian rebels

U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded that Syrian President Bashar Assad's forces used chemical weapons on a small scale against rebel fighters in Syria's civil war, Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes told reporters. 

"Our intelligence community has high confidence in that assessment given multiple, independent streams of information," he said. "The intelligence community estimates that 100 to 150 people have died from detected chemical weapons attacks in Syria to date; however, casualty data is likely incomplete."

As result, the U.S. will seek to increase military support to the Syrian rebels fighting against Assad.

"The president has made a decision about providing more support to the opposition, that will involve providing direct support to the (Supreme Military Council), that includes military support," Rhodes said. "This is going to be different in both scope and scale in terms of what we are providing to the SMC than what we have provided before."

EGADS...  Military aid to people tied to al-Qaeda? Where have we seen this before? OH RIGHT... Afghanistan, where we armed and trained what became the Taliban to fight against the Russians. How'd that work out for us? Yet here we are again

This is just stupidity. I get that we should take action against a regime that uses chemical weapons against it's own populace, but giving aid to rebels who would also use chemical weapons if they had them and are tied to a terrorist network that is fighting against our own soldiers in Afghanistan has to be one of the all time dumbest things that our government could possibly do.

So far be it from me to simply criticize without offering an answer to the question: "Well, what do you suggest we do?"

Therefore... I suggest that if we truly want to influence things in a positive way, we offer aid to Syrian Refugees and non-military assistance to Syrian civilians in the form of food, medicine and clothing. We can set up areas in Iraq and with the cooperation of the Turks to aid people fleeing the fighting and the horror. IF we want to take an active role, we could tighten sanctions against Iran and or attempt to physically block aid from reaching the Assad regime.

I also suggest that we coordinate with the IDF, to make sure that they Assad regime does not receive it's shipment of S-300 Russian missiles. And working to make sure that this war does not spread into Turkey, Israel or Jordan (Lebanon through Hizbollah is already involved). This is, if we really give a hoot about honestly stopping the criminal Assad regime.

Humanitarian aid would show the Syrian people that the West can be a positive influence and would do more to undermine the both the brutal Assad dictatorship and those al-Qaeda supported rebels who are doing most of the fighting in Syria. It would in effect change the way the Syrian people view us in light of the propaganda of both sides.

 But military aid to a force that supports hardcore Jihad and is fighting our own troops in Afghanistan.. One would think this is a really poor joke.

I will not however, go overboard on the Obama bashing because yes, while I  think this is a really stupid decision, his opponents, the Republicans would be much worse on this issue. Were they in the White House, G-d knows what they would be doing. STILL, the President and his administration do deserve criticism for this but not from Republicans - they should just STFU because honestly - they propose nothing better and maybe even a bit worse.

In the end, all one can say is UGH - there are (as I wrote) absolutely ZERO good options here because repeating history is sure not one of them.

Know Thine Enemy

Whether this phrase be the word of G-d or Sun Tzu, it is solid advice.

It is even better when your enemy actually tells you that he is your enemy and tells you that you must beware. So, you may be asking… How does this relate to Israel? Well, earlier this month when speaking to Hizbollah affiliated T.V. (Al – Mayadeen) in Lebanon, Jabril Rajoub, a member of Fatah’s Central Committee had this to say: 

"We the Palestinians are the enemies of Israel….

….."At present, we are satisfied by the popular resistance," Rajoub added, but explained, "We the Palestinians are a source of concern for Israel. We are in this country, and this country is ours. They are our enemy and our battle is against them.”…

…."Until now we have not had nuclear weapons, but in the name of Allah if we had nuclear weapons, we’d be using them”.

And there we have it or do we?

Is this all there is to this commentary? Are the Palestinians really so die-hard that they are the mortal enemies of Israel and can’t live in peace with the Israelis? For a guy like Jibril who signed on to the Geneva Initiative, is this really his stance? I think it is important that we understand what is really going on here.

First of all, we need to determine what made Jibril say this, particularly now. Is it that he merely needed to tell the truth and it needed to burst out or is there more to it? I believe there is. Of course, I actually do believe that Jibril is talking about how he sincerely feels. You don’t make a comment with such far reaching implications like that if you don’t mean it.

That said, I can think of a number of reasons though why he made that comment, and here they are:

1. Domestic Political Considerations: Unity Government talk brokered by Qatar is in the air and as of today, Hamas and Fatah have agreed to form a unity government within three months (for the 873^rd time </snark>). What does this mean? This means that now Fatah is competing with Hamas for who can be the voice of “the resistance” against the Israelis. Remember there are two recent polls out that show the Palestinian Polity supports “armed resistance” as either a first or second choice of tactics against the Israelis. In the latest Pew Poll (cited here)

“Palestinians are more likely to say armed struggle is the best way for their people to achieve statehood (45%) than they are to say negotiations or nonviolent resistance offer the best prospect for the creation of a Palestinian state (15% each). Another 22% volunteer that a combination of these three approaches would be most effective.”

This coupled with a high favorability rating for radicals like Islamic Jihad (58%) is forcing Fatah (who does enjoy a strong position in the polls) to move it’s position to one that is more radical. Hamas and Palestinian radicals are constantly hammering Fatah and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas as collaborators or as “lap dogs” for the Israelis. I think this kind of rhetoric is geared to stem that in part.

2. Regional Considerations: I think another part of this is the unrest that once again is roiling throughout the region with the rise of Islamist parties. Look where Jibril gave this interview. On Hizbollah T.V.  Look at what is happening in Egypt and in Jordan within their parliaments particularly with the rise of Islamist Political movements, where these people who have Peace Treaties with Israel are demanding their governments abrogate their agreements. The P.A. (or P.L.O.) does not want to get caught outside of these movements that are threatening to either force regime change or force regime radicalization in the region.

Of course, don’t forget Syria. Either way Syria is heading for a more radical future. If Assad wins the revolution, he will have his Iranian masters and his Hizbollah allies to thank. If the Palestinians in Syria and Lebanon don’t radicalize with regards to Israel they will be facing a ton of problems in how they are perceived by Beirut and Damascus. IF Assad loses well then, there will be an al-Qaeda state which will then push to radicalize Jordan. What will happen to the Palestinians then if they are seen as being allies with Israel?

Related to this, remember who is hosting Palestinian reconciliation talks: Qatar. Who just decided to bankroll Hamas and Egypt? The Qataris. Oh yes, and who is financing the Syrian Rebellion. Yep, that would be Qatar. They are using their economic power to become a broker in the region. Jibril is seeing an opportunity for the broke Palestinian Authority to “get his foot in the door”. Keep in mind that right now there is strong unrest focused on the P.A. for not paying wages to civil servants.

So, one has to look at what Jibril is saying and understand against the regional backdrop of what is happening.

Does this excuse anything he said? Absolutely not. It is quite obvious that the Palestinian Polity (or at least those who lead the Polity) have zero interest in settling the conflict permanently with the Israelis in a peaceful manner. I think there are those in the P.A. / P.L.O. that would settle for a peaceful Two State Solution, but, only as an interim step towards a Palestinian State from the Mediterranean to the Jordan.

And, given that only 29.3% of the Palestinian polity supports a Democratic One State Solution where Jews and Arabs live together in peace, I think there is very little that currently speaks to a permanent peace solution from the Palestinian side.

Interestingly enough there are reports that Prime Minister Netanyahu spoke to the P.A. regarding the Olmert plan last year in a secret meeting. So there is that…

In the end is Jibril “grandstanding”. Maybe. Still, one would hope that someone in the Palestinian polity would stand up and say “What the…. NO!”. If there has been this reaction I haven’t seen it.

So yes, until there is a denunciation by the Palestinian leadership for this remark AND I can’t see that coming from a unified Fatah, Hamas, PIJ leadership… I think the phrase “Know thine enemy is quite appropriate.

Heads You Win... Tails I lose

So Syria has used Chemical weapons in its civil war… now what?

U.S., British and Israeli Intelligence all seem to be stating that the Syrian Government of Bashir al-Assad has used Sarin gas against rebels (and civilians) in its on-going civil war.

According to Israeli Military Intelligence:

“To the best of our understanding, the regime used lethal chemical weapons,” said Brig. Gen. Itai Brun, head of the Research and Analysis Division at the IDF Military Intelligence Directorate.

Speaking at a security conference in Tel Aviv, Brun said further that based on the pictures of the victims — the size of their pupils, “and the foam coming out of their mouths” — the army believed that Assad’s troops had used the lethal nerve gas Sarin as a weapon.

 

The British have also reached this conclusion:

Britain's Foreign Office said on Thursday it had information showing chemical weapon use in Syria, and called on Assad to cooperate with international bodies to prove he had not sanctioned their use

"We have limited but persuasive information from various sources showing chemical weapon use in Syria, including Sarin. This is extremely concerning. Use of chemical weapons is a war crime," a Foreign Office spokesman said in a statement. 

And an un-named Israeli source had this to say:

A second senior Israeli military officer, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters, said on Tuesday that chemical weapons appear to have been used in five cases. He said “dozens” of people were killed in the attacks when a “Sarin-type” chemical was dispersed.

So now Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel and Secretary of State John Kerry have weighed in with the following commentary:

US intelligence has concluded "with some degree of varying confidence," that the Syrian government has used Sarin gas as a weapon in its two-year-old civil war, Defense Secretary Chuck

Both the U.S. and Britain are now doing assessments to see if indeed the intelligence matches with actual events, though for this to come out so definitively means that both the U.S. and the British are inclined to believe the Israeli report.

 But all this said… What next? 

Syrian resistance calls on the U.S. to act decisively here and actively enter the fray to take out the Assad dictatorship. Now certainly this dictatorship ranks amongst the worst in human rights violators on the planet (though strangely enough human rights groups are remarkably silent about this). Estimates have the placed over 70,000 deaths in the course of the two year civil war.

This information seems to create a fairly compelling case for U.S. involvement to help end the misery that the Syrian people suffer at the hands of the murderous Assad dictatorship. After all, how could we “sit on our hands” while watching the Syrian government use Chemical weapons on its’ own populace.

But, the decision in this case is not that easy due to the fact that the Syrian resistance is littered with and to a large degree influenced by Salafist and al-Qaeda elements. Active U.S. and Western European involvement in this conflict on the part of the rebels could in fact cause a worse set of outcomes.

How?

1. Should the U.S. and Europe get involved there is no doubt that this would change the course of fighting in Syria, and that the regime in Damascus would be seeing its last days. But what of the government afterwards? Right now rebel groups are split amongst themselves as far as “end results”, the majority of them certainly want nothing to do with the West and an alliance with us. There is a strong Salafist presence in these groups and what would they do once they won? It is my opinion that we could be looking at the recreation of a second Taliban like government in Syria.

Remember, these groups are heavily supported and funded by Conservative / Reactionary Wahabite regimes. In this case our involvement would be creating a more problematic regime than the brutal Assad dictatorship. Given the presence of al-Qaeda in the ranks of the rebels, I am not sure that this would be any kind of improvement over the current situation.

2. Should the rebels win, they have promised to spread their “Jihad” to U.S. ally (and one of the last remaining nations at peace with Israel) Jordan. Though some rebel elements are training in Jordan (supposedly with the help of U.S. Special Forces and the CIA), parts of the Jihadist elements of the rebel forces have threatened to take the fight to Jordan in an effort to create a Muslim Brotherhood sponsored “wall” (for lack of a better term) around what they like to call the “Zionist Entity” (Israel to you and I).

The Jordanian regime is not that powerful that they can fight off a sustained and asymetrical jihadist effort, particularly one backed by a State government, without radically changing their political orientation (away from the West and certainly OUT of their Peace treaty with Israel). They are already facing hardships from inside their own polity. So, as we can see…. a rebel victory could put a Salafist, Neo-Jihadi government in place of a reliable Western ally.

3. With respect to Israel, a rebel win means that on the Northern border Israel would face Lebanon / Hizbollah (Iran’s last and strongest client in the area), and an unstable Islamist Syria. Should the rebels win there would be strong regional pressure on Jordan (or see above total collapse) to abrogate its peace agreement with Israel, a move that would certainly de-stabilize the Central Front. And in the South of course there is the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood government that while sticking to the 1979 Camp David peace treaty (they would lose all that needed aid from the U.S. if they didn’t) certainly could change that at any time.

4. The Assad regime is a last stronghold of Russian influence in the Middle East, not too mention an outpost for the Iranian theocracy. While Iran couldn’t step into the war in any effective manner (the Revolutionary Guard already is on the ground there) against Western Military forces, Russian military involvement (through advisors not ground troops) could complicate matters. The Russians have provided the Assad regime with cover in the U.N. but if the Russians saw their interests in the Mediterranean threatened I would not be surprised to see their military advisors begin to get involved.

5. Finally, should the rebels win, there are two places that these chemical weapons can end up. The first is in the hands of the rebel military, basically this would mean that al-Qaeda and/or Muslim Brotherhood factions in Syria would end up with a stockpile of Chemical Weapons. OR the weapons would end up in the hands of Hizbollah as the Syrian government would reward their allies with some choice military technology. Either way, that is incredibly bad news for both the U.S. and Israel.

Basically, what I am saying is that a rebel win in Syria could very easily destabilize the entire region and cause a much larger than regional problem.

BUT at the same time… the Assad regime is using Chemical Weapons on his own people. How can anyone sit back and watch that when they have the power to change it? In reality, how can our consciences rest at ease watching the slaughter of men, women, and children at the hands of a brutal dictatorship? Given our history, how can we as Jews do anything but stand against this kind of horrific behavior of a government against its own citizens?

Honestly, there are no good answers here. On one hand the Assad regime cannot be allowed to stay in power given their heinous use of Weapons of Mass Destruction. If they have indeed done this, there is really no way that they can be allowed to stay in power. At the same time as amply showed above, any active move to take them out doesn’t necessarily improve the situation for anyone, including the Syrian people.

Personally, I can’t think of any good solutions, just solutions that are less bad and none of them involve “sitting on hands”. If we do nothing we are faced with either a victory by Iran, Hizbollah and one of the worlds worst offenders of Human Rights, the Assad regime…. OR we are faced with the likely creation of an al-Qaeda / Jihadi client state.

It’s head’s You win or tails.. I Lose.

Whoa... PM Netanyahu just apologized to Turkey over the Mavi Mamara - Relations back to normal?

Well now, the web of Middle East Politics gets even thicker... According to reports out of the Middle East, Prime Minister Netanyahu just apologized to Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan.

Ynet Reports:

In what can be called the first direct result of US President Barack Obama's visit, minutes after his departure, news of a US orchestrated reconciliation between Israel and Turkey breaks.

Reuters reported that Israel apologized to Turkey on Friday for killing nine Turkish citizens in a 2010 naval raid on a Gaza-bound flotilla leading Israel and Turkey, both US allies, to agree to normalize relations.

Prime Minister Netanyahu expressed an apology to the Turkish people for any error that may have led to the loss of life, and agreed to complete the agreement for compensation," an official Israeli statement said. 

Netanyahu and Erdogan "agreed to restore normalization between the two countries, including returning their ambassadors (to their posts)," the statement added.

A US official said "Erdogan accepted the apology on behalf of Turkey."

In addition at the Times of Israel

Erdogan also “withdrew” recent comments calling Zionism a crime against humanity, though he did not apologize for them, an informed source said.

“Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke today with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. The two men agreed to restore normalization between Israel and Turkey, including the dispatch of ambassadors and the cancellation of legal steps against IDF soldiers,” Netanyahu’s office said in the statement

.

Netanyahu told Erdogan that he had “good talks” with Obama “on the issue of regional cooperation and the importance of Israeli-Turkish relations. The prime minister expressed regret over the deterioration in bilateral relations [with Turkey] and noted his commitment to working out the disagreements in order to advance peace and regional stability,” the statement added

.

“The prime minister made it clear that the tragic results regarding the Mavi Marmara were unintentional and that Israel expresses regret over injuries and loss of life. In light of the Israeli investigation into the incident, which pointed out several operational errors, Prime Minister Netanyahu apologized to the Turkish people for any errors that could have led to loss of life and agreed to complete the agreement on compensation,” the statement continued.

 So now the guessing game begins... What does this all mean?

My  take is that Iran and Hizbollah just got served a severe notice. You may ask "What does Iran have to do with this?".. Well let me tell you. This is an exercise so far in U.S. diplomatic power. First Kerry to Egypt.. and Egypt then immediately cuts off the tunnels at Rafah, and arrests Seven Palestinians planning a terror strike after stealing some Army uniforms.

Now we have this reconciliation with Turkey. This is starting to look like a regional agreement to stop Iran in it's tracks. With the Assad regime teetering and involved in a brutal Civil War (Syrian forces near the Golan were just recently overrun), Iran is running out of allies. And Israel and Turkey have been taking steps (independently) to control that.

IF Israeli and Turkish reconciliation could hold, this would be a powerful stopgap against both Hizbollah and either the Assad Regime (should it survive) or the Jihadi / Muslim Brotherhood State that seems to be emerging from the wreckage of the Assad Regime.

It is a bit curious that Erdogan would immediately promise full reconciliation though in light of his recent rhetoric (that earned a hearty "FUCK YOU") from this site. For those unfamiliar, Erdogan claimed that that Zionism was as bad as anti-Semitism and other "crimes against humanity".

Given this, I think we can assume that the U.S. either put heavy pressure on both Erdogan and Netanyahu, or he did something behind the scenes that made this all "magically disappear".

Please feel free to discuss. 
:

Charting American Foreign Policy through "Shark Infested" Waters

The Zionist Shark on Patrol off of Sharm

And no... those are not "Mossad Sharks" in those waters.

They are the "Sharks" of Middle Eastern Diplomacy. Maybe though a minefield would be a better analogy as no matter what one does there are tricky "explosives" waiting with each step.

Either way, this week has featured the AIPAC Conference and a host of speeches from American Leaders as to what our course may take for the next few years.

Now first off we Secretary of State Kerry, who visited the troubled Egyptian Regime of Mahmoud Morsi reiterate the American commitment to the struggling Egyptian Government. This government headed by the Islamist government of the Muslim Brotherhood has been struggling with a number of different issues including crushing debt, an opposition that is seeking real domestic political reform, but also dealing with the issue of the rhetoric of the street and the Islamic Movement versus the realities of running a country. So far the U.S. in my opinion has acted as wisely as possible given all of the alternatives. And given that the U.S. right now is trying to build an effective alliance to counter Iranian Hegemony in the region seems to be on a prudent path.

Vice President Biden went on about this at the AIPAC Conference this week in Washington:

Vice President Joe Biden on Monday tried to end any questions pro-Israel activists have about President Barack Obama’s commitment to doing whatever necessary to block Iran’s nuclear program.

Obama’s policy “is to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. Period. Period. End of discussion,” Biden told attendees at the American-Israel Public Affairs Council conference in Washington. “Prevent. Not contain — prevent,” Biden added emphatically.

“Big nations can’t bluff and presidents of the United States cannot and do not bluff and President Barack Obama is not bluffing,” Biden declared, in what he said was a preview of remarks Obama will make during a trip to Israel scheduled for later this month. “We are not looking for war [but] all options, including military force, are on the table,” Biden said.

and talked about where Egypt fit into the equation..

We have no illusions -- we know how difficult this will be and how difficult it is. There’s been -- obviously been a dramatic change in Egypt. A lot of it has given us hope and a lot of it has given us pause, and a lot of it has caused fears in other quarters.  

 It’s not about us, but it profoundly affects us. We need to be invested in Egypt’s success and stability. The stable success of Egypt will translate into a stable region. We’re not looking at what’s happening in Egypt through rose-colored glasses. Again, our eyes are wide open. We have no illusions about the challenges that we face, but we also know this: <strong>There’s no legitimate alternative at this point to engagement </strong>(vb1 emphasis). 

and he is right... There is no legitimate alternative but to engage. What other alternative can there be. Were we to disengage or actively involve ourselves in Egypt's civil dispute we would face repercussions that would be detrimental to our interests at the current time. Like it or not, so far (despite any rhetoric), Egypt has been maintaining the Peace Treaty and has kept Hamas in check to a degree. Yes, there are some very disturbing stories coming out of Egypt about... well everything. That said, what is the alternative?

To not engage would be a disaster. Given events in the North around Syria and a potential Islamist Government there which would threaten not only Israel but Jordan as well, or in Lebanon where Hizbollah is gathering up what it can of Assad's "nasty" weaponry an unstable Egyptian regime would a nightmare that would create all kinds of problems again not only for Israel but for the KSA as well. Just imagine if the U.S. did not engage with the Morsi government. Who do you think would be in there in a heartbeat providing the Egyptians with everything they need? RIGHT... The Iranians (who by the way are arming and training Hamas - something that is pissing off the Egyptians).

So now, you would have the Egyptians / Iranians sitting in the Sinai, Hizbollah and Iran sitting in the North in Lebanon, Jihadis in Damascus putting pressure on Jordan. It would be a total "clusterfuck". How does that situation look now? With Egypt in check (and it has been so far) and the Canal in "friendly hands", The U.S. only has to worry about Syria and Lebanon as the last vestiges of Iranian Imperialist dreams.

Head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Robert Menendez (D-NJ) had this to say (which I think is extremely well said) in regards to Egypt:

The November 2012 Israeli military operation in Gaza is a reminder of the critical importance of Egypt as a mediator in the Arab World.

We should be focusing more of our efforts on keeping Egypt stable by helping a struggling Egyptian economy, which is the context in which I accept Secretary Kerry’s announcement over the weekend pledging $250 million in non-military assistance.

Still, we must be ever-vigilant in monitoring the situation. American security assistance to Egypt can’t be a blank check.

That’s why Congress made it abundantly clear – in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2012 – that US assistance to Egypt would be contingent upon upholding its 1979 Peace Treaty with Israel. That is our bottom line, and it will remain our bottom line when it comes to the US-Egyptian relationship.In short, for the good of the region — for the good of Israel, and for our own security interests – we must work with Egypt and help steer it in the right direction. (vb1 emphasis).

So stabilizing the area is one of the goals. The other is maintaining our strong support for our Israeli allies. And despite the troubles with budgeting the U.S. will rightly continue to support funding for Israel to continue to develop its missile defense systems. Meeting with outgoing Defense Minister Ehud Barak, new Secretary of Defense Hagel there was this:

WASHINGTON — US Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel told his Israeli counterpart Ehud Barak Tuesday that while the US continues to believe there is still time to address the threat of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons through diplomacy, that window is closing.

In his first meeting with a foreign defense chief, the newly appointed Hagel expressed his strong commitment to Israel’s security, including maintaining Israel’s qualitative military edge and continued US support for missile and rocket defense systems in spite of fiscal constraints...

....Both leaders agreed that the United States-Israeli defense relationship has never been stronger than during the Obama administration and that both nations will continue this unprecedentedly close cooperation.

Now is this a course I as an American citizen can agree with? Definitely. I am not happy with what I see coming out of Egypt but, frankly I see (as Joe Biden so rightly says) no legitimate alternative, unless we want to crap out of the region, pick up our bags and go home. There is simply no way around it.

The most important thing for the region and for the U.S.A. is to continue our presence in a meaningful way and to make sure that Iran DOES NOT have the ability or means to threaten any of our friends and allies in the area.

Shells in the North, Shells in the South - An Israeli Dilemna

As we have all been seeing of late, Palestinian Militants in Gaza have once again begun raining shells on Southern Israel. Additionally, now shells from the Syrian Civil War have begun to fall on the Golan. As of yesterday, Gunners from the FSA (The Free Syrian Army - an odd collection of Social revolutionaries and, and Al-Qaeda operatives funded by the reactionary Gulf States) missed their mark and dropped mortars into the Golan. After numerous warnings the IDF reacted with Tanks stationed on the border and scored a direct hit on the mortar position. From YNET:

Twenty-four hours after the IDF first retaliated against a mortar that was fired from Syria and hit Israeli territory, another shell struck the Israeli side of the Golan Heights, just north of Tel Hazeka. No injuries or damage were reported.

Shortly thereafter, the IDF returned fire, using tanks deployed along the border to target two D-3 mortar launchers belonging to the Syrian army. A direct hit was identified.

This return of fire drew criticism from the FSA, a claim of partisanship by the Israelis on the side of the Butcher Assad. 

At the same time civilian communities in the South face heavy rocket fire from Militant groups in Gaza. According to Ma'an News, A group of Israeli tanks and Bulldozers were operating on the Gaza border around the security fence when gunmen from the Popular Resistance Committees opened fire on the Israelis.

Israeli military vehicles briefly penetrated the southern Gaza Strip earlier Thursday morning, leading to clashes with Palestinian militants.

The Popular Resistance Committees said its gunmen had confronted an Israeli force of four tanks and a bulldozer involved in a short-range incursion beyond Israel's border fence with the Gaza Strip.

"Terrorists opened fire at IDF (Israeli army) soldiers while they were performing routine activity adjacent to the security fence," an Israeli military spokeswoman said in Jerusalem. She said reports of Palestinians injuries were being checked.

A military official said the soldiers responded by firing at "suspicious locations" and said an Israeli soldier was lightly injured by mortar fire.

Palestinian fighters said they detonated an explosive device by an Israeli military vehicle near Khuzaa, east of Khan Younis.

In this case the Israelis struck back and since then the shells have been falling in the South. Of course, in recent months, militants from the South have been launching rockets into Israel on a regular basis and while no one has been killed there has been damage and fear in these civilian areas. On a personal note, having a friend at a kibbutz in the area - he tells me that the fire has been incessant and has caused damage.

Of course (and rightly so), the Israeli government has vowed to take steps to defend both borders and has done so. I don't think anyone in their right mind can argue with that. SO... where do they face any dilemma's?

Well... in the South, another Cast Lead Operation style runs the risk of bringing the Egyptians into the conflict OR if not actually into the conflict brings a potential abrogation of the Peace Treaty with Israel and return to the "Cold War" days of Nasser (and in the beginning Sadat). Currently the Egyptians are working with both the Israelis and Hamas to broker a cease fire deal and to be honest it is in the Egyptian regimes interest to get that cease fire. They can ill-afford a potential conflict with Israel as they continue to deal with an economy that has been shattered by greed and abuse.

However, the Muslim Brotherhood (the Parent organization of the ruling Freedom and Justice Party) has been out in the streets whipping up opposition to the Peace treaty in order to distract the Public from the economic woes of the nation AND to push an introduction of strict Sharia into the Egyptian Legal system.

SO, Egypt of course is in a dilemma in which should the Israelis respond in "Cast Lead" Fashion - the Egyptians in order to avoid a full scale internal political crises need to respond with gestures of their own. If they don't, they will face open revolt (a revolt that they are really to blame for by stoking crowds), and if they do they respond - they will face all the problems that come from the SCAF (the armed forces) losing commercial deals not too mention a conflict with their main benefactor; the U.S. Government.

At the same time the Israelis, heading into an election face issues of their own. PM Netanyahu HAS to do something regarding the Rocket Fire in the South. Today, Amos Harel and Avi Isaacheroff in Haaretz talked about the possibility that while there would not be a Cast Lead response - there might be a retaliation based around targeted assassination.

I suggest reading Harel and Isaacherof here as there is great insight into this dilemna where right now the only political winner is looking Hamas (who simply doesn't care what happens to Gaza or the local population as long as they can remain in the vanguard of "resistance"):

Gaza, however, remains the main problem for Netanyahu. The more intensely the southern residents protest what they see as the government's abandonment of their security, the more seriously he will have to consider taking tougher measures, with a resumption of targeted killings the most likely possibility. 

Netanyahu, who is preparing for January's election, is already being attacked in the political arena for not responding more forcefully. But he knows that his range of options against Hamas is limited. Israel is at this stage trying to avoid a ground operation a la Cast Lead. One reason is that the diplomatic reality now is far different than it was when that offensive was launched in 2008: Israel fears a direct confrontation with the new regime in Egypt and it knows that neither the United States nor Europe will be as tolerant of a large-scale military operation this time around.

There was no evidence Sunday along the Gaza border that the IDF was making any special preparations for an operation. Assassinations don't require very much preparation, though. All that's needed is a decision, but that, too, is a gamble, because it's hard to know how Hamas would react to such an initiative. Right now Hamas is looking pretty sure of itself. Its leaders didn't hesitate to take responsibility for some of the attacks over this past week, in a way that Israel saw as particularly provocative

Now, as for the North... Well, getting drawn into a civil war with a country that no matter who wins, will be hostile to Israel is yet another issue. If the FSA wins and ends the cruelty and barbarism of the Assad regime towards it's own people, chances are that an Islamist government (funded by the Saudi Wahabi regime and conservative Gulf States) would take control and in the chaos that would ensue, Israelis would face a Syrian regime with ties to Al-Qaeda on it's Southern Border.

On the other hand should Assad and his Iranian allies win in Syria, Israel would then face a solid Iranian alliance in the form of the Government of Syria AND the quasi Hizbollah State (formerly known as Lebanon </snark>) on their Northern border. A situation that can lead to nothing but no good.

If the Israelis intervene here (and as Harel and Isaacheroff report that they have no desire to do), they will immediately give a boost to whomever they intervene against. If they intervene against FSA and Al-Qaeda militants they give the militants the mantle of being the folks who are resisting not only Assad but also the "hated Israelis", and that would go a long ways to keeping the money and equipment flowing to the Rebels. At the same time should they intervene against Assad and the military, they make the rebels look like "Israeli tools" and hand the Assad regime an invaluable political point to justify it's continued war against it's own population.

SO.... we are left with this: "What is the answer?". Personally, I see no good responses here but I do see some opportunities. NOW, is a time when Israel can completely deflate Hamas by dealing with the Palestinians in the West Bank and working for a comprehensive Peace deal. This is a chance to open negotiations and for the Israelis to illustrate just WHY their security concerns need to be paramount. It can be a diplomatic win for them and if progress is achieved in negotiations in the West Bank can serve to show just how ineffective violent resistance is.

As for Syria, Israel needs to simply defend it's borders but should avoid anything further the more they simply respond yet not engage unless engaged the better it is. The Syrian situation is just one that can spin completely out control and cause massive havoc for the Israelis.

Finally as for Gaza, Personally I favor the Harel and Isaacheroff response (targeted assassinations) towards a Cast Lead style incursion. It may come to that in the end but, I think once the Hamas and Militant leaders get the message that if they show their heads in public they might just lose those heads.... they will be at the table with the Egyptian Leadership (and SCAF) telling them to make a deal. Because if the Israelis can isolate Hamas and separate them from the Palestinian polity. The Rocket fire just might possibly end.

President Obama, President Peres at AIPAC: U.S. and Israel share common visions in Mid-East

Speaking at the AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) annual conference speakers U.S. President Barak Obama and Israeli President Shimon Peres reiterated their message that the U.S. and Israel share views and goals not only on Iran but on peace in the Middle-East between Israelis and Palestinians.

Speaking on the U.S. and Iran, President Peres , who received a lifetime achievement award from AIPAC, had this to say:

"President Obama made it clear that the U.S. will not permit Iran to become nuclear," Peres said, adding that Obama has also made it clear that "all options are on the table".

Then going on to talk about the relationship between the U.S. and Israel Peres had this comment:

"Mr. President, I know your commitment to Israel is deep and profound," Peres said. "Under your leadership, security cooperation between the U.S. and Israel has reached its highest level (vb1 emphasis).. Ladies and gentlemen, we have a friend in the White House. He reflects the values that make American great and make Israel secure. Thank you President Obama on behalf of my people."

According to a recent Jerusalem Post poll, the Israeli people seem to agree with him as they (like their diaspora Jewish brothers and sisters here in the U.S.) favor President Obama over ALL of his Republican challengers.

President Obama



speaking right after President Peres added the following:

"We all prefer to resolve this issue diplomatically," Obama said in an address at the pro-Israel lobby group AIPAC's policy conference in Washington. "Having said that, Iran’s leaders should have no doubt about the resolve of the United States, just as they should not doubt Israel’s sovereign right to make its own decisions about what is required to meet its security needs. I have said that when it comes to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, I will take no options off the table, and I mean what I say."         

"That includes all elements of American power. A political effort aimed at isolating Iran; a diplomatic effort to sustain our coalition and ensure that the Iranian program is monitored; an economic effort to impose crippling sanctions; and, yes, a military effort to be prepared for any contingency."

Unlike his Rightwing opponents though both here in the U.S.and in Israel the President urged caution and responsible action:

"Already, there is too much loose talk of war," Obama said. "Over the last few weeks, such talk has only benefited the Iranian government, by driving up the price of oil, which they depend upon to fund their nuclear program. For the sake of Israel’s security, America’s security, and the peace and security of the world, now is not the time for bluster; now is the time to let our increased pressure sink in, and to sustain the broad international coalition that we have built. Now is the time to heed that timeless advice from Teddy Roosevelt: speak softly, but carry a big stick."

Again, even the Israeli public agrees with President Obama as ONLY 19% of them favor a strike on the Iran happening without U.S. backing.     

As for the Presidents messages of Peace and the Two State Solution, President Peres had this to say:
         

"The Palestinians are our neighbors for life," Peres said. "Peace can and must be achieved. A peace based on a two-state solution, a Jewish state - Israel, and an Arab state - Palestine."

"We want to preserve an Israel that is Jewish, democratic and attractive. I meet from time to time with President Abbas and PM [Salam] Fayyad. They need and want peace. I believe that peace is possible. They are our partners for peace. Not Hamas."

Apparently President Peres did not get the memo from Republicans, ODS'ers. Israeli Rightists and U.S. ChickenHawk bloggers that the P.A. will not make Peace with Israel. Now, in fairness to that group (although g-d knows, they don't deserve it) the Palestinian Authority IS making peace negotiations difficult with their insistence on the full return of East Jerusalem and their refusal to curb the rampant anti-Semitism in their ranks, NOT to mention their continued efforts to bring Hamas into their government. Yet, so far the attempts to bring in Hamas have resulted in failure and the P.A. has still admitted it's willingness to go to the table and hammer out a Peace deal.

In this passage though I think President Obama "nails it" (so to speak):

"I make no apologies for pursuing peace. Israel’s own leaders understand the necessity of peace," Obama said. "Prime Minister [Benjamin] Netanyahu, Defense Minister [Ehud] Barak, and President Peres – each of them have called for two states, a secure Israel that lives side by side with an independent Palestinian state."

"I believe that peace is profoundly in Israel’s security interest. The reality that Israel faces - from shifting demographics, to emerging technologies, to an extremely difficult international environment - demands a resolution of this issue. And I believe that peace with the Palestinians is consistent with Israel’s founding values - because of our shared belief in self-determination; and because Israel’s place as a Jewish and democratic state must be protected."

YES! Exactly,  because it vital to protect Israel as a Jewish, and Democratic State. And as the great statesman Abba Eban and others have stated that Israel can only be Two of the Three following things:

1. Israel can be a Jewish State

2. Israel can be a Democratic State

3. Israel can be a State from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea

The President gets that in the long term interests of Israel - it must maintain it's Jewish character while recognizing that it's Palestinian neighbors also have the legitimate right to self determination.

Meanwhile, back in Israel, never one to be left out of the spotlight, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman had told reporters that "Israel will decide independently whether to strike Iran". If that is the case (and it certainly is Israel's right to do that), then I guess that they will also decide if they want U.S. aid in that strike as well. Perhaps the Foreign Minister should listen to 81% of his people when they tell him... DON'T STRIKE W/OUT THE U.S.

Now the question hinges on what will PM Benyamin Netanyahu say. Further what will the meeting on March 5th (tomorrow) bring? We are in for a few very interesting days as the AIPAC conference continues along and Israeli and U.S. leaders meet.

One other important thing of note: In Iran today, President Ahmadinejhad has met with defeat at the polls. While the choice was between hard line candidates Ahmadinejhad's candidates were soundly defeated by those supporting the Grand Ayatollah Khameni. What does this mean for everyone else? Not a lot in the sense that the new group coming in are just as dedicated to Iranian Nuclear Power and regional hegemony as Ahmadinejhad HOWEVER, they are far more rational than the President who many in Iran consider a "loose cannon" (my words).

Also with relation to Iran - not only do their proxies in Hizbollah control the Lebanese/Israel Border but according to the Washington Post (as reported in Haaretz) there are Iranian advisors on the ground in Syria aiding in the slaughter of it's own citizens by Dictator Bashar Assad.

PROGRESSIVE ZIONIST FRY'D DAZE

Our first story today comes from Haaretz and Maan both.

It comes out of news last night that had stated Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu had offered Palestinian Authority President a Settlement Freeze on all government construction. This offer was rejected by the Palestinian Authority which cited that most of the construction was done by private contractors so really, they are saying that it would not be much of a freeze at all.

Palestinians confirm Israel offered partial West Bank settlement freeze in return for talks

Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said on Friday that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu offered to freeze government construction in West Bank settlements as well as construction on government land there in return for an agreement by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to resume direct peace talks.

Erekat told the Associated Press that the proposal was offered to the Palestinians via a third party and that the Palestinians rejected the proposal because it only applied to government construction and most settlement construction is carried out by private contractors.

"If Netanyahu wants to resume negotiations, he has to say that settlement building will stop. Either it stops or it doesn't stop," Erekat said.

During this, Palestinian President Abbas has reportedly threatened to resign if there is no diplomatic progress during the next three months.

Our second story is from Maan News where there are conflicting news stories regarding President Abbas regarding unification talks with Hamas. First there is a report that the date for those talks has not been set: Fatah: No date set for meeting with Hamas

BETHLEHEM (Ma'an) -- No date has been set for President Mahmoud Abbas' meeting with Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal to discuss national unity, Fatah official Azzam al-Ahmad said Friday.

Al-Ahmad, who heads Fatah's reconciliation delegation, told Ma'an that the meeting would be held after the president's regional tour.

He said Abbas initiated the meeting with Mashaal to implement the reconciliation agreement signed in Cairo in May to end years of bitter rivalry between Hamas, which rules the Gaza Strip, and Abbas' Fatah party, which heads the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank.

The president also hoped to discuss Palestine's future with Mashaal, who leads the Hamas movement from exile in Damascus.

Abbas left for Cairo on Friday to meet with Egypt's military ruler Hussein Tantawi, head of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces.

However... in these "non-existent meetings" Report: Abbas to offer January elections

BETHLEHEM (Ma'an) -- President Mahmoud Abbas will propose elections in upcoming meetings with Hamas officials, Time Magazine reported on Thursday.

"We're suggesting January, because the law requires 90 days notice," Abbas' spokesman Nabil Abu Rdainah told Time.

The reconciliation agreement signed on May 4 by the president's Fatah party and Hamas set out plan for a unity government of technocrats, the release of political prisoners and holding of elections.

Implementation has stalled as the sides dispute the candidates for the joint government, notably current chief of the Ramallah-based government Salam Fayyad, whom Hamas rejects.

Today's Maan online seems confused however.... For instance, they are reporting that the Palestinians are unaware of Israel's offer for a partial settlement freeze but as we see above they have responded. Either way... interesting developments could be afoot.

Next we have the leader of Hizbollah Sheikh Hasan Nasrallah promising: Next war with Israel will start in Tel Aviv

The next war with Israel will start in Tel Aviv, not on the northern border, Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah warned on Friday, the Lebanese Al-Akhbar newspaper reported. “If Israel decided to wage a war against Lebanon, we will not only break the Israeli soldiers’ bones, we will smash them,” Nasrallah was quoted as saying during a meeting with Hezbollah members.

"The war would be waged without any red lines, and [Hezbollah] would in return commit to the new equations,” Nasrallah said.

“[Hezbollah] has many surprises that will change the face of the region,” he added.

And there we have it more bloviating from the hidden leader of Hizbollah... This part: "The war would be waged without any red lines" is telling. Fortunately this is like a monthly occurance for Nasrallah who generally more than anything likes to hear himself sound tough (all while hiding from the Israelis). Oh the Irony.....

Finally.. spurred on by the events in Libya and the fall of Moammar Gadhafi the Syrian Protest movement is sparked. Gadhafi's killing fuels Syria's Friday protests

The killing of Libya's Muammar Gadhafi fuelled demonstrations across Syria after Friday prayers that called for the ouster of President Bashar Assad, braving a heavier than normal security presence, activists and residents said.

Syrian forces shot dead on Friday at least 13 anti-Assad protesters, according to activists and residents.

Most of the killings were in the central city of Homs and in Hama to the north, scene of some of the largest military operations in a crackdown on the seven month uprising, where a nascent insurgent movement has also emerged, they said.

"Gadhafi is finished. It is your turn now Bashar!" shouted demonstrators in the town of Maaret al-Numaan in the northwestern province of Idlib, according to one witness.

Please feel free to discuss and bring in stories that are relevant to the M.E.

SYRIA Threatens Regional War

Though it is not talked about much, what is turning into a Civil War in Syria is now threatening to become a regional conflict.

Today.. Bashar Assad the brutal Syrian Dictator that threatened Israel and the United States were it to be attacked by anyone (not necessarily Israel or the U.S.) seeking to end the slaughter and repression that the dictatorship is currently engaged in regarding it's citizens.

According to the Israeli Daily Haaretz Online, Assad: Syria will shower Tel Aviv with rockets if attacked by foreign powers

During a meeting with Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, Assad was quoted by the Iranian semi-official news agency Fars as saying that Syria would not hesitate to strike major Israeli cities if it was attacked.

"If a crazy measure is taken against Damascus, I will need not more than 6 hours to transfer hundreds of rockets and missiles to the Golan Heights to fire them at Tel Aviv," Assad said.

In addition, Fars reported indicated that the Syrian president told the Turkish FM that he would also call on Hezbollah in Lebanon to launch a rocket attack on Israel, adding: "All these events will happen in three hours, but in the second three hours, Iran will attack the U.S. warships in the Persian Gulf and the U.S. and European interests will be targeted simultaneously."

Now as Haaretz indicated this comes on the heels of comments made by Turkish Prime Minister Recep Erdogan regarding sanctions against the Assad regime, and at a time when Turkish troops are mobilized for an "exercise" in South Eastern Turkey. The manuvers in Hatay involve the 39th mechanized infantry brigade and 730 reserve soldiers. The 39th is part of the Turkish Second Army VI Corps
Anyhow, there are also many Syrian refugees (approx. 7000 in Hatay one of whom is the Highest ranking Syrian Military Defector; Colonel Riad Asaad:

Colonel Riad al-Asaad told Turkey's state-run Anatolian news agency he had been the target of a Syrian military crackdown in the Rastan region near the city of Homs, but had escaped.

"We live in a safe place in Turkey," he said, thanking the Turkish government for giving him refuge. Anatolian's report was datelined Hatay in southern Turkey, where 7,000 Syrians have fled to escape Assad's crackdown on protesters.

Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan, who has predicted the Syrian people will "sooner or later" overthrow Assad, his former friend, said he would unveil plans for sanctions against Syria after he visits Syrian refugees in Hatay in the next few days.

Turkey also announced a nine-day military exercise in Hatay, a territory long claimed by Syria, starting on Wednesday.

So given Turkey's commentary (which is making Syria nervous), rather than go after the people threatening him, Assad wants to attack a civilian target Tel Aviv (which he says his forces and Hizbollah forces can do within six hours of an attack on him) AND with his allies Hizbollah and Iran want to attack not only American shipping but other Israeli civilian targets as well. Great.

One question one might also ask is what role Hamas would play here? It's political leadership is headquartered in Damascus and despite reported difficulties between Khalid Meshaal and the Assad regime Hamas is still ensconsed in Damascus. Just today Gaza militants attacked an IDF convoy but there were no casualties.

I think the main question then becomes, if Syria and it's allies (Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran) try to ignite a regional war with the U.S. and Israel what do other countries do? I mean attacking Tel Aviv would not be an unpopular move in the MENA region BUT, would it be welcome enough to save the brutal Assad regime? Israel, off course would then fight back. At this point would Assad be able to position himself as a great defender of regional pride, or would people see through this obvious ruse and do the right thing (condemning Syria for this and standing against Iran's regional ambitions)?

PROGRESSIVE ZIONIST FRY'DAZE

Cross Posted at Daily Kos

I took last week off due to the speeches and so forth surrounding the U.N. appearences of Palestinian Authority (P.A.) President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. There was already substantial discussion going on regarding that so I felt it best to not do Fry'd Daze as I think it would simply have gotten lost in the "noise" of the events on that day. Anyhow we are back this week so please read and discuss.

Our first story is one of those that are "so strange it has to be true type stories". I will let the headline speak for itself: Al-Qaida slams Ahmadinejad for blaming 9/11 attacks on U.S.. It seems that Al Qaeda is pissed off because it feels that President Ahmadinejhad is not giving them the credit they feel they deserve for killing 3,000 innocent Americans during the September 11th Terror attacks.

"Why would Iran ascribe to such a ridiculous belief that stands in the face of all logic and evidence?" asked the article's author, Abu Suhail. He said Iran wanted to portray itself as a country that stands up to the U.S.

"For Iran, anti-Americanism is merely a game of politics. It is anti-American when its suits it and it is a collaborator with the U.S. when it suits it," Abu Suhail said.....

.....Abu Suhail said Iran is jealous of al-Qaida's "success" in the Sept. 11 attacks, saying that because Tehran couldn't strike at the U.S. itself, the Iranians want to "to discredit Sept. 11 and what better way to do so than conspiracy theories."

He said Iran and the Shiites opposed giving al-Qaida credit for the 9/11 attacks "because this would expose their lip-service to jihad (holy war) against the Great Satan," a term Iranian officials have used to describe the U.S.

okie dokie.......

Our second story comes out of Syria: Tens of thousands take to the streets across Syria as Assad's army battles defectors A day after Syrian loyalists assaulted the U.S. Ambassador due to their anger at the U.S.' discussions with Opposition leaders:

Tens of thousands of protesters took to the streets across Syria on Friday demanding the removal of President Bashar Assad, as fighting continued between loyalist forces and insurgents in the centre of the country, activists said.

Government troops have been fighting army defectors in the town of Rastan in the first prolonged armed confrontation since protests erupted against Assad six months ago....

....At the United Nations, European members of the Security Council softened a draft resolution condemning Syria's crackdown but Russia said it could not support the new text. The latest version of the resolution showed that drafters Britain, France, Germany and Portugal had deleted a reference to UN human rights chief Navi Pillay's recommendation that the council consider referring the Syrian government's crackdown to the International Criminal Court in The Hague.

Our Next Story comes from Maan News: Fight for votes as UN meets on Palestine. In this fight the U.S. in an attempt NOT to use it's veto is trying to convince the majority of Security Council Nations to vote "NO" on the issue of Palestinian Statehood. Currently five Nations are definite yes': Russia, China, Lebanon, India, and Brazil.  According to Yousef Munayyer, executive director of the Palestine Center think tank in Washington

Because of this exposure, he said the UN initiative “can be a game-changer because it makes returning to Washington-led negotiations for the Palestinian leadership that much more difficult.”

"We know that the United States is working really hard to try to make sure that they don’t get the nine votes, so they won’t have to use their veto, which in itself is a very interesting thing because the United States in the past has never shown a hesitation to be the only vote in the Security Council in support of Israel.”

He also said: “I think what that says to us is that the Palestinians truly hit a nerve with the United States and in the wake of the revolutions going on in the region is truly doing this (opposing the Palestinian bid) recognizing their waning influence in the region.”

Related to this Germany's Chancellor Angela Merkel strongly condemned the latest Israeli announcement that it would be adding on to the Gilo Settlement just outside the Green Line claiming that this building calls into serious question Israel's commitment to Peace talks and a Palestinian State in the West Bank (as if that were not a question at this point already).

German Chancellor Angela Merkel has told Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that the decision to green-light new Jewish housing units in east Jerusalem has "raised doubts that the Israeli government is interested in starting serious negotiations" with the Palestinians, her spokesman said Friday.

Steffen Seibert said in a statement that Merkel called Netanyahu to tell him "it is now necessary to dispel those doubts."

The Prime Minister's Office responded in a statement, saying that "Gilo is not a settlement. It is a Jerusalem neighborhood that is located five minutes from the center of the city, and all of Israel's governments have built in it."

Further related: PLO effectively rejects Quartet proposal to resume talks citing Israel's continued construction on settlement projects as reasons to reject the Quartet's call to resume negotiations.

RAMALLAH (Reuters) -- The PLO on Thursday effectively rejected a proposal by the European Union, the United States and Russia to resume suspended peace negotiations with Israel next month without preconditions.

 The PLO executive committee, meeting in Ramallah, noted the proposal but said, as expected, that Israel must halt all settlement building in the occupied West Bank before they will restart talks, as President Mahmoud Abbas has insisted.

"The Palestinian leadership stresses clearly that it cannot accept holding negotiations that lack the minimum limits of responsibility and seriousness amid the continuation of settlements and stealing of land," said PLO official Yasser Abed Rabbo.

Finally,  we have more bad news coming from deteriorating relationships for Israel with former friends Turkey and Egypt. First, Report: Israel scrambles IAF warplanes toward Turkish ship. Apparently, Israeli F-15's and an Israeli helicopter flew a mission to check out a Turkish research ship. Eventually after repeated warnings two Turkish F-16's were scrambled to track the Israeli jets and the Israeli plans left the area

On September 23, Turkey dispatched its only research vessel, the Piri Reis, to the eastern Mediterranean.

"Piri Reis, escorted by warships, has started research in the same area where Greek Cypriots are exploring," Omer Celik, Vice Chairman of the ruling AK Party who oversees foreign affairs, said on Twitter.

"We have shown clearly to everyone that we will not allow the eastern Mediterranean to become a Greek Cyprus-Israel goal," he said in another message.

Along with this Egypt's envoy to PA: Israel wants to retake Sinai

Egyptian envoy to the Palestinian Authority Yasser Othman said Friday that Israel's escalating rhetoric against Egypt's post-revolution security apparatus suggests of an Israeli plot to retake Sinai.

In an interview with Palestinian news agency Maan, Othman claimed Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak's repeated incitement against the security situation in Sinai indicates of their plan to recapture the peninsula.

The Egyptian envoy noted that Israel has been acting tirelessly to tarnish the reputation of the new government, claiming Egypt is unable to secure its border with Israel in order to mount international pressure that will provide the Jewish State with the necessary pretext to occupy the area.

Othman's statement came days after Egyptian Foreign Minister Muhammed Amr said that Cairo intends to respect its peace treaty with Israel.

The Israelis responded by saying that this is not true and that Israel recognizes and supports the Peace treaty with Egypt.
Anyway, please throw your thoughts into the mix and let's discuss.