Yes: Urgency on Iran

Imagine how dangerous, how potentially destabilizing a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities could be to the region and the world. And yet any such attack would be infinitely less dangerous and less destabilizing than allowing nuclear bombs to fall into the mullahs' hands.
Now, with the civilized world at a crossroads, imagine being able to prevent both such chilling scenarios by making tough yet wise decisions in the next weeks and months.

That was the message Prime Minister Ehud Olmert brought to the annual policy conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee on Tuesday: "We must stop the Iranian threat by all possible means. Each and every country must understand that the long-term cost of a nuclear Iran greatly outweighs the short-term benefits of doing business with Iran."
The urgency of Iran was probably the reason Olmert travelled to Washington to meet with President George W. Bush so soon after seeing him in Jerusalem, and despite his political travails at home.

LAST WEEK the International Atomic Energy Agency essentially announced that Teheran was stonewalling the agency. And still Mahmoud Ahmadinejad continues to travel around the world - on Tuesday he was in Rome for a UN food summit - spewing hatred and talking genocide. Israel, he said, is "doomed to go." This from a leader who has repeatedly threatened to wipe Israel off the map, and who last month referred to the Jewish state as a "stinking corpse... on its way to annihilation," which has "reached the end like a dead rat."

To their credit, both Italian Premier Silvio Berlusconi and Pope Benedict XVI refused to meet Ahmadinejad.

THE IRANIANS know they are playing with fire. Defense Minister Mostafa Mohammad Najjar has warned that "any attack on Iran would... result in painful consequences for the attacker... I believe the Zionist regime degraded itself when it proved powerless against Hizbullah - to such an extent that it would never be able to bear the first response of Iran."

Such saber-rattling accompanies Iran's gloating in the knowledge that it will very soon reach the point of no return in its acquisition of nuclear weapons.

Teheran continues unabated to build centrifuges (Ahmadinejad has boasted of 3,000 already in operation), enrich uranium, test high-explosive triggers for nuclear devices and redesign the nose-cone of the Shahab-3 rocket to accommodate nuclear warheads.

At this critical juncture, as time runs out, the reasons why the Iranians must not get the bomb bear repeating.
• Iran acts as a leading sponsor of terrorism in the world. It trains, finances, and equips Hamas, Hizbullah and extremists in Iraq.
• Iranian proliferation of nuclear technology to terrorist groups is a terrifyingly real possibility.
• Iran is not like the former Soviet Union. It is a fundamentally unstable regime. There are power struggles between the presidency, the parliament, the Revolutionary Guards and the office of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei. The country's foreign polices are often dangerously erratic.
• Finally, even the doctrine of mutual assured destruction (MAD) that governed the Cold War does not necessarily apply to a regime ruled by religious fanatics for whom martyrdom may well be not a deterrent, but an inducement.

WHAT THEN is the civilized world to do?

It must pressure the Iranian leadership - relentlessly - by imposing severe political, social and economic sanctions. It must freeze assets and outlaw business with the Central Bank of Iran. It must bar Iranian airliners from landing at major airports. Iranian leaders must be made personae non grata at international forums.

The commonwealth of nations has to know that if it does not change course and continues with the modest sanctions now in place, Iran is on track toward nuclearization.

Brazenly, Teheran has defied successive Security Council resolutions calling on it to suspend its uranium enrichment - including a round of sanctions approved by the council in December 2006, and a "tougher" round authorized three months later. It has rejected European offers of generous economic incentives, including support for a civilian nuclear energy program.

In his AIPAC address the premier spoke for all Israelis, when he declared: "The international community has a duty and responsibility to clarify to Iran, through drastic measures, that the repercussions of its continued pursuit of nuclear weapons will be devastating."

Another bad deal

How astute is it to trade an unreconstructed killer for what, it is now increasingly feared, are the remains of two IDF fallen? When that killer continues to swear loyalty to the blood-soaked path of jihad? And when the exchange would further bolster Hassan Nasrallah's stranglehold on Lebanon?

This is the dilemma facing Israeli policymakers: whether to trade Samir Kuntar for Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser. Hizbullah has provided no sign of life from the soldiers since they were abducted on June 26, 2006 in the cross-border aggression that ignited the Second Lebanon War.

On Sunday, amid rumors of a far broader deal, Israel released Nissim Nasser after he completed a six-year espionage sentence and shipped him back to Lebanon. Nasser is a small fish, who did no irreparable harm.

At roughly the same time, in a step arranged via German mediation - but which both Israel and the Red Cross claim surprised them - Hizbullah released some of the assorted IDF body parts it had ghoulishly harvested from the battlefields of the war.

Nasser's release and the handover of body parts, plus recent statements by Nasrallah that Kuntar would soon be brought home all heightened speculation that a prisoner swap involving Goldwasser and Regev was in the offing.

Then Der Spiegel OnLine published the shattering report, based on German intelligence sources, that Regev and Goldwasser "are believed to be dead." The paper described the outlines of a deal proposed to the Israeli government: Jerusalem would release the last four Hizbullah terrorists in its custody - Kuntar included. It would hand over the remains of all other Lebanese from previous wars and provide maps detailing the location of minefields in southern Lebanon. After a suitable interval, it would also release dozens of Palestinian prisoners.

In return, Hizbullah would turn over the bodies of Goldwasser and Regev and provide unspecified data on Ron Arad. How this arrangement would impact ongoing efforts to free Gilad Schalit from Hamas captivity is unclear.

KUNTAR, a Lebanese Druse, is serving four life sentences for the 1979 deaths of Danny Haran, 28, his two daughters, four-year-old Einat and two-year old Yael, and the killing of police officer Eliahu Shahar in Nahariya. Some reports say Kuntar bashed Einat's head in with a rifle butt, or smashed her against a rock before her father's eyes, before shooting him dead at close-range.
Kuntar's actions are rendered even more monstrous by the way little Yael met her end. Haran's wife, Smadar, hid herself and the toddler from Kuntar and his gang in a crawl space above the couple's bedroom. In an effort to muffle Yael's cries, Smadar smothered the child.

Even if Goldwasser and Regev are alive, releasing this soulless unrepentant in exchange for their safe return would hardly be an easy decision. For he may represent Israel's last leverage in obtaining information about our other missing soldiers.

The enemy had claimed it had no more information about IAF navigator Ron Arad, who disappeared over Lebanon in 1986. Now it is reportedly offering such information. And next week marks the 26th anniversary of the battle of Sultan Yakoub, where Yehuda Katz, Tzvi Feldman and Zachary Baumel went missing. Eleven summers ago this August, Guy Hever disappeared near the Syrian border.

One senses that the enemy is not telling all it knows about these men. But beyond that, Israeli policymakers need to reevaluate their willingness to engage in lopsided prisoner exchanges. We recoil at them, and at the history of released captives returning to carry out further attacks. Yet such deals occur not infrequently. It is not only the exchanges themselves that are so trouble, but Israel's bargaining ineptitude: Too many living terrorists are being exchanged for dead bodies.

ARGUABLY the most egregious of the "crazy" exchanges so castigated by the Winograd Committee earlier this year was the May 1985 "Jibril deal," which traded 1,150 Palestinians for three live IDF soldiers. Granted, not all exchanges have been as lopsided: In 1998, Israel obtained the bodies of three naval commandos for 60 Shi'ite prisoners and 40 corpses, including Nasrallah's son. Other deals remain acutely hard to fathom. In 2004, 400 enemy combatants were exchanged for renegade IDF colonel Elhanan Tannenbaum and the remains of three IDF soldiers.

Israel's enemies know that Judaism attaches the highest priority to freeing captives and bringing closure to the families of fallen fighters. Isn't it time they also learned that Jews understand a thing or two about bargaining?

Jerusalem Day

There is not a stone in the city but has been reddened with human blood; not a spot but where some hand-to-hand conflict has taken place; not an old wall but has echoed back the shrieks of despairing women. Jew, Pagan, Christian, Mohammedan, each has had his turns of triumph, occupation and defeat...
For Jerusalem has been the representative sacred place of the world; there has been none other like unto it, or equal to it, or shall be, while the world lasts.
- 'Jerusalem' by Walter Besant and E.H. Palmer, 1870

This recollection helps us put into context why, 41 years after the reunification of Jerusalem under Jewish sovereignty, the passions, tensions and controversies surrounding our magnificent capital remain largely unresolved.

The successes and failures of Israel's administration of the city are best understood in the framework not only of the contemporary Arab-Israel conflict, but as part of an ancient, almost metaphysical struggle for the soul of Jerusalem. In other words, the conflict resolution lessons applied to modern contested cities - Berlin, Dublin, Gdansk, Trieste, Brussels, Montreal, Belfast and Nicosia - are not necessarily applicable to Jerusalem.

Centuries before Christianity and Islam came into history, the Psalmists wrote: "If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning." This haunting Psalm, 137, recited daily in the Grace after Meals, begins with the poignant: "By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat, sat and wept, as we thought of Zion."

Jews continued to remember Zion even after Israel's hard-fought War of Independence, when Jordan controlled east Jerusalem and Jews were barred from visiting the Western Wall and Temple Mount. Thus, in January 1950 the Knesset, meeting in west Jerusalem, declared the city Israel's capital.

On June 5, 1967, Jordan attacked Israel. King Hussein's legionnaires occupied UN headquarters, bombarded Mount Scopus (the Hebrew University enclave), and attacked Kibbutz Ramat Rahel. In this war of self-defense Israel threw back the invaders and unified the city.

TODAY the city flourishes. It is home to 746,000 souls, of whom 257,000, or 34 percent, are Arabs. Birthrates (Jewish and Arab) are booming and nearly identical. Fewer residents than in the past are leaving town. Health care for all is outstanding. On a summer weekend, you would be hard-pressed to find a hotel room, or a table at one of the city's fine restaurants. Tourism has never been better. The city's cultural attractions and trendy neighborhoods make Jerusalem an altogether delightful place. Even our gazelles were recently granted a secure area in which to flourish.

Yet all is not rosy.

The city desperately needs more jobs and affordable middle-class housing. Too many citizens work in the public sector. A disproportionate number of haredim are outside the workforce. Too many residents live below the poverty level - the city is Israel's poorest - and too many elderly rely on charity. While city managers have made driving in the center of town hellish, a much promised light rail system has been years in the offing.

WHILE ONE can evaluate conditions within the city using the criteria one would with any urban center, Jerusalem is unlike any other place: It is a focal point in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Solutions which may seem obvious from far away are impractical here on the ground. Those across the political spectrum who speak of "dividing" or "sharing" Jerusalem; of keeping it "united"; or of "east" as opposed to "west" Jerusalem are treading on dodgy semantic, political and geographical ground.

The city, spread out across hills and valleys, does need to be better integrated. With sovereignty comes responsibility - even over such mundane concerns as sewers, street paving and garbage collection. It is unacceptable that Arabs should live in more dilapidated neighborhoods, even though they have boycotted every municipal election and rejected representation at city hall. Mayors Teddy Kollek, Ehud Olmert and now Uri Lupolianski all failed to proactively provide equal services to Arab and Jewish areas, across the board. However, this is now beginning to change. More schoolrooms are being built, more housing units are to be approved.

Today, rejoicing that Jerusalem is again in our hands, we pray for the wisdom that will allow Israelis to help make it a true city of peace.

Britain vs. Islamism

When political scientist Samuel P. Huntington wrote his seminal "The Clash of Civilizations" in the Summer 1993 issue of Foreign Affairs, he took academia and the punditocracy by storm. The Berlin Wall had come down (1989), the Soviet Union had collapsed (1991) and the Cold War, which had divided nations over ideology and economic philosophy, had ended.

Since politics, like nature, abhors a vacuum, Huntington forecast another great clash which would be dominated less by ideology than by conflicts over culture, religion and tradition. Islam factored into his analysis, but was by no means central. He advocated that America spread its values and pursue a policy of accommodation where possible, but not shy away from confrontation where necessary.

The article appeared after the first attack on the World Trade Center in February 1993. Since then, Muslim extremists, whether inspired by Shi'ite Iran or Sunni al-Qaida, have sought to prove that their ideas are ascendant within Muslim civilization.

Day in, day out since "Clash" was published, Islamist violence has been ubiquitous, even outside the horrors perpetrated against Israel: Two deadly attacks against Jewish targets in Argentina (1992 and 1994); a Paris metro bombing (1995); attacks against tourists in Egypt (1996 and 1997) and Africa (1998); the crash of an Egyptian airliner off the US coast (1999) and the assault against the USS Cole (2000), culminating in the September 11 atrocities of 2001.

After 9/11, the rationale for these attacks came into better focus, yet many in the West remained in denial. Still the violence continued: Daniel Pearl's murder (2002); the Bali bombing (2002); more attacks in Riyadh (2003); the schoolhouse slaughter in North Ossetia, Russia (2004); killings of Christians in Indonesia (2005); the storming of the Washington state Jewish center (2006), and suicide bombings in Algeria (2007).

Six months into 2008, the onslaught continues. In May alone, Islamists carried out over 100 attacks in some 18 countries.

WESTERNERS in general, particularly Britons, have found it hard to internalize the nature of the aggression. The UK is a multicultural, post-modern and largely post-Christian society, much of whose political and media elite lack a useful frame of reference for analyzing violent religious zealotry. Now, though, Britain just might be taking a lead in confronting the danger.

The challenge has been direct and acute: On July 7, 2005, a series of coordinated bomb blasts carried out by Islamists killed 52 commuters and shut down London's transport system. On a summer morning in 2006, London's Heathrow Airport closed down after police uncovered plots to use liquid explosives to blow up a dozen trans-Atlantic airliners. And last year, Muslim terrorists struck at Glasgow airport using a jeep loaded with petrol. Others left a car bomb to explode in London's West End.

Some Britons, mobilized by a minority of academics, radical Muslims, the hard Left and its gormless fellow-travelers, blame British domestic and foreign policy for Muslim "discontent." These elements are also behind the renewed effort by the University and College Union (UCU) to boycott Israeli academics.

But others are beginning to understand what they are up against, and what they must do to preserve liberal society and the British way of life. Part of the solution relates to security, hence the government's moves to map the clustering of Islamist-oriented populations. Security officials have also called for terrorist suspects to be detained for up to 42 days.

Equally important, however, is empowering moderate Islam. Yesterday the Home Office announced a £12.5 million "de-radicalization" plan targeting Muslims who have been co-opted by radical Islam - people who have "already crossed the line" in terms of ideology, but not yet committed violent acts. The program offers mentoring and a form of amnesty for participants. British-born Muslim scholars would be called upon to teach the Islamic path toward tolerance and non-violence in state schools. The goal is not to have Muslims abandon their religion, but to systematically offer them a more moderate interpretation.

It is not clear whether Gordon Brown's shaky government will be able to implement these proposals, or even whether such brave and moderate Muslim educators can be found. But on the 15th "Clash of Civilizations" anniversary, Britain appears, finally, to be recognizing the menace radical Islam presents and willing to do something smart about it. The rest of the free world has an immense stake in its success.

Waiting for Livni?

You know Ehud Olmert's political days are numbered when the only people appearing on radio and television to say a good word about him are the lawyers in his employ.

The political wisdom in Israel is that the premier cannot possibly carry on in the wake of the coverage of the Morris Talansky deposition in Jerusalem District Court on Tuesday. Polls show that 70% of Israelis do not believe Olmert's protestations that not one penny he took from Talansky went into his own pocket.

But even those who believe him or don't know what to believe must surely be scratching their heads wondering what sort of man would ask a political acquaintance to rescue him from the indignity of flying business class when seats were to be had in first class, from the ignominy of a luxury hotel room when a suite was to be had. They will wonder about his apparent sence of entitlement. They will reflect about how different his lifestyle is from theirs.

And even they will loose patience with him.

Yet, having survived the Winnograd Commission report which exposed his government's mis-handling of the Second Lebanon War, and having held on as one perturbing legal investigation after another raised questions about personal and professional probity – let's do not discount the possibility that our tenacious prime minister will try to hang on a while longer.

He says he will only resign if indicted. In the interim, he will want to hold on until July when his lawyers will have the opportunity to cross-examine the magnanimous Mr. Talansky.

His attorneys will remind us that Ehud Olmert has not even been indicted, much less been tried and convicted.
All this is true, but none of it really matters.

There is a strong sense – across the political spectrum -- that Israel needs another prime minister. Not in July. Not if this one is indicted. But as soon as is pratical.

That is why, for the good of the country Ehud Olmert must go.

On Wednesday, Defense Minister and Labor Party leader Ehud Barak finally climbed off the fence. At a brief afternoon news conference in the Knesset, Barak called on Olmert to leave. He cited a number of the difficult security challenges facing Israel: the Palestinian front; the issue of IDF captives in enemy hands; the burgeoning threat from Hizbullah-controlled Lebanon and the menace posed by Iran.

Even without his referencing the more “mundane” domestic agenda, Barak is right that Israel simply cannot afford a part-time prime minister who finds himself diverted by the extraneous issue of keeping himself out of prison.

BARAK CALLED on the governing Kadima Party to choose a replacement from within its ranks as soon as possible. This seems me like a reasonable interim approach.

After all, Israelis do not vote for a prime minister but for a party. In the Knesset elections held two years ago, Kadima's the top slots were held by Olmert, Shimon Peres, Tzipi Livni and Meir Sheetrit. With Peres now in the President's House, the likely candidate to replace Olmert is the foreign minister.

Polls show that almost a third of Israelis think she would be a suitable prime minister – which ties her with Likud Party leader Binyamin Netanyahu. Only 15% of citizens think Barak would make the most suitable leader. Shaul Mofez, Kadima's No. 8 comes in with 16% and Sheetrit currently polls hardly any support at all.

Now it is indeed up to Kadima to move promptly in selecting a new leader. My doubts about whether she has the fire in the belly necessary for the job notwithstanding, the party would be reflecting popular sentiment if it selects Tzipi Livni. Of all of the likely contenders for the leadership she has two qualities sorely needed: popularity and a clean police record.

Were lineage a determinative factor, it does not hurt that the her father, Eitan Livni, was a leader of the Jabotinsky movement. Yesterday, at memorial for Irgun commander David Raziel she referened the Olmert scandals by remarking that "The state has a vision and values which obligate its citizens and also its leaders."

At least on paper, Livni is the kind of pragmatic centrist many Israelis would like to see at the helm.

Israelis have become used to leaders who do a lot of swaggering, brim with self-confidence, allude to their military accomplishments and display no small amount of arrogance. Livni would make for a different kind of premier altogether.

She has a Hamlet-like indecisiveness that is troubling.

It is anyway premature to talk about what Livni should do or about how soon she should commit to holding new elections if she takes over. But one thing is clear, the sooner Ehud Olmert leaves the stage and someone of Livni's caliber takes charge the better.