Monday, November 26, 2012
This is a more recent time RUSSIA is skirting our coast!
AGAIN!
REPORT: Russian Nuclear Submarine Within 200 Miles Of The East Coast When Sandy Hit
Nov. 6, 2012
For the second time in three months Bill Gertz at The Washington Free Beacon claims to have sources confirming a Russian nuclear submarine was sailing near the U.S. coast.
Gertz is a renowned Washington defense insider and says the most recent spotting of a Russian Sierra-2 class submarine, believed to be with Russia's Northern Fleet, happened as Hurricane Sandy swept up the East Coast.
This would be the first time a Sierra-2 class attack submarine has been detected near a U.S. coastline and if the report is true, shows Russia is determined to regain its naval projection power.
The Russian vessel is said to have been conducting anti-submarine exercises near the U.S. submarine base Kings Bay in Georgia, but did not threaten a nearby U.S. aircraft carrier strike group.
From The Washington Free Beacon:
Kings Bay Naval Submarine Base, north of Jacksonville, Fla., is homeport for two guided missile submarines and six nuclear missile submarines. The submarines are known to be a target of Russian attack submarines. Meanwhile, the officials also said that a Russian electronic intelligence-gathering vessel was granted safe harbor in the commercial port of Jacksonville, Fla., within listening range of Kings Bay.
The Russian AGI ship, or Auxiliary-General Intelligence, was allowed to stay in the port to avoid the superstorm that battered the U.S. East Coast last week. A Jacksonville Port Authority spokeswoman had no immediate comment on the Russian AGI at the port.
The Sierra carries two types of anti-submarine and torpedoes that it can replace with 42 naval mines.
The Beacon reported in August that an Akula class Russian submarine sailed into the Gulf of Mexico. That story was widely circulated as proof of Obama's failure to reset Russian relations, and illustrate the crippling nature of looming U.S. defense cuts.
Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan W. Greenert wrote of that incident to Sen. John Cornyn (R., Texas) saying “based on all of the source information available to us, a Russian submarine did not enter the Gulf of Mexico.”
The Washington Free Beacon is a nonprofit publication funded by the Center for American Freedom, which was profiled earlier this year as the conservative counterweight to the Center for American Progress by Politico’s Ben Smith.
Russian attack submarine sailed in Gulf of Mexico undetected for weeks, U.S. officials say!
Silent Running
August 14, 2012
It is only the second time since 2009 that a Russian attack submarine has patrolled so close to U.S. shores.
The stealth underwater incursion in the Gulf took place at the same time Russian strategic bombers made incursions into restricted U.S. airspace near Alaska and California in June and July, and highlights a growing military assertiveness by Moscow.
The submarine patrol also exposed what U.S. officials said were deficiencies in U.S. anti-submarine warfare capabilities—forces that are facing cuts under the Obama administration’s plan to reduce defense spending by $487 billion over the next 10 years.
The Navy is in charge of detecting submarines, especially those that sail near U.S. nuclear missile submarines, and uses undersea sensors and satellites to locate and track them.
The fact that the Akula was not detected in the Gulf is cause for concern, U.S. officials said.
The officials who are familiar with reports of the submarine patrol in the Gulf of Mexico said the vessel was a nuclear-powered Akula-class attack submarine, one of Russia’s quietest submarines.
A Navy spokeswoman declined to comment.
One official said the Akula operated without being detected for a month.
“The Akula was built for one reason and one reason only: To kill U.S. Navy ballistic missile submarines and their crews,” said a second U.S. official.
“It’s a very stealthy boat so it can sneak around and avoid detection and hope to get past any protective screen a boomer might have in place,” the official said, referring to the Navy nickname for strategic missile submarines.
The U.S. Navy operates a strategic nuclear submarine base at Kings Bay, Georgia. The base is homeport to eight missile-firing submarines, six of them equipped with nuclear-tipped missiles, and two armed with conventional warhead missiles.
“Sending a nuclear-propelled submarine into the Gulf of Mexico-Caribbean region is another manifestation of President Putin demonstrating that Russia is still a player on the world’s political-military stage,” said naval analyst and submarine warfare specialist Norman Polmar.
“Like the recent deployment of a task force led by a nuclear cruiser into the Caribbean, the Russian Navy provides him with a means of ‘showing the flag’ that is not possible with Russian air and ground forces,” Polmar said in an email.
The last time an Akula submarine was known to be close to U.S. shores was 2009, when two Akulas were spotted patrolling off the east coast of the United States.
Those submarine patrols raised concerns at the time about a new Russian military assertiveness toward the United States, according to the New York Times, which first reported the 2009 Akula submarine activity.
The latest submarine incursion in the Gulf further highlights the failure of the Obama administration’s “reset” policy of conciliatory actions designed to develop closer ties with Moscow.
Instead of closer ties, Russia under President Vladimir Putin, an ex-KGB intelligence officer who has said he wants to restore elements of Russia’s Soviet communist past, has adopted growing hardline policies against the United States.
Of the submarine activity, Sen. John Cornyn (R., Texas), member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said, “It’s a confounding situation arising from a lack of leadership in our dealings with Moscow. While the president is touting our supposed ‘reset’ in relations with Russia, Vladimir Putin is actively working against American interests, whether it’s in Syria or here in our own backyard.”
The Navy is facing sharp cuts in forces needed to detect and counter such submarine activity.
The Obama administration’s defense budget proposal in February cut $1.3 billion from Navy shipbuilding projects, which will result in scrapping plans to build 16 new warships through 2017.
The budget also called for cutting plans to buy 10 advanced P-8 anti-submarine warfare jets needed for submarine detection.
In June, Russian strategic nuclear bombers and support aircraft conducted a large-scale nuclear bomber exercise in the arctic. The exercise included simulated strikes on “enemy” strategic sites that defense officials say likely included notional attacks on U.S. missile defenses in Alaska.
Under the terms of the 2010 New START arms accord, such exercises require 14-day advanced notice of strategic bomber drills, and notification after the drills end. No such notification was given.
A second, alarming air incursion took place July 4 on the West Coast when a Bear H strategic bomber flew into U.S. airspace near California and was met by U.S. interceptor jets.
That incursion was said to have been a bomber incursion that has not been seen since before the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991.
It could not be learned whether the submarine in the Gulf of Mexico was an Akula 1 submarine or a more advanced Akula 2.
It is also not known why the submarine conducted the operation. Theories among U.S. analysts include the notion that submarine incursion was designed to further signal Russian displeasure at U.S. and NATO plans to deploy missile defenses in Europe.
Russia’s chief of the general staff, Gen. Nikolai Makarov, said in May that Russian forces would consider preemptive attacks on U.S. and allied missile defenses in Europe, and claimed the defenses are destabilizing in a crisis.
Makarov met with Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in July. Dempsey questioned him about the Russian strategic bomber flights near U.S. territory.
The voyage of the submarine also could be part of Russian efforts to export the Akula.
Russia delivered one of its Akula-2 submarines to India in 2009. The submarine is distinctive for its large tail fin.
Brazil’s O Estado de Sao Paoli reported Aug. 2 that Russia plans to sell Venezuela up to 11 new submarines, including one Akula.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Moscow’s military is working to set up naval replenishment facilities in Vietnam and Cuba, but denied there were plans to base naval forces in those states.
Asked if Russia planned a naval base in Cuba, Lavrov said July 28: “We are not speaking of any bases. The Russian navy ships serve exercise cruises and training in the same regions. To harbor, resupply, and enable the crew to rest are absolutely natural needs. We have spoken of such opportunities with our Cuban friends.” The comment was posted in the Russian Foreign Ministry website.
Russian warships and support vessels were sent to Venezuela in 2008 to take part in naval exercises in a show of Russian support for the leftist regime of Hugo Chavez. The ships also stopped in Cuba.
Russian Deputy Premier Dmitri Rogozin announced in February that Russia was working on a plan to build 10 new attack submarines and 10 new missile submarines through 2030, along with new aircraft carriers.
Submarine warfare specialists say the Akula remains the core of the Russian attack submarine force.
The submarines can fire both cruise missiles and torpedoes, and are equipped with the SSN-21 and SSN-27 submarine-launched cruise missiles, as well as SSN-15 anti-submarine-warfare missiles. The submarines also can lay mines.
The SSN-21 has a range of up to 1,860 miles.
There is another article I will post after this and people we need to ask why Russia has been in our airspace 35 other times this year?
Russia to Conduct Open Skies Surveillance Flight
over US for the 36th time this year!
MOSCOW, November 24 (RIA Novosti) – Russian
military inspectors will begin a survey flight this week above the United States
under the international Open Skies Treaty, Russia’s Defense Ministry has
said.
Russian experts will conduct the survey
flight over the US territory in a Tupolev Tu-154 M/LK-1 aircraft during the
period from November 25 and December 3, a spokesman said.
The flight will start from the Travis Air
Force Base, California. Its maximum range will be 4,250 kilometers (2,600
miles).
During the flight, Russian and US
specialists will operate surveillance equipment on board of the aircraft as set
out in the international Open Skies Treaty.
This will be the 36th survey flight this
year made by Russian specialists over the territories of the Open Skies Treaty
member states. Russia ratified the treaty in May 2001.
The Open Skies Treaty, which entered into
force on January 1, 2002, establishes a regime of unarmed aerial observation
flights over the territories of its 34 member states to promote openness and the
transparency of military forces and activities.
This is important so you understand the next few articles I am gonna post about RUSSIA! WHY ARE WE A CONCERN TO RUSSIA?
Open Skies Treaty
Fact Sheet
Office of the
Spokesperson
Washington, DC
March 23, 2012
The Department of State welcomes the 20th Anniversary of the
signature of the Treaty on Open Skies on March 24, 1992.
Origin and Purpose
The Treaty on Open Skies entered into force on January 1, 2002, and currently has 34 States Parties. The Treaty establishes a regime of unarmed aerial observation flights over the entire territory of its participants. The Treaty is designed to enhance mutual understanding and confidence by giving all participants, regardless of size, a direct role in gathering information about areas of concern to them. Open Skies is one of the most wide-ranging international efforts to date to promote openness and transparency of military forces and activities.
The original concept of mutual aerial observation was proposed by President Eisenhower in 1955 and the Treaty concept was re-introduced as a multilateral initiative of President George H.W. Bush in 1989. The Treaty was negotiated by the then-members of NATO and the Warsaw Pact, and was signed in Helsinki, Finland, on March 24, 1992. The Treaty has been in effect for a decade, following an extended provisional period of application. Since 2002, States Parties have successfully conducted over 840 observation flights over each other’s territory.
Since signature of the Open Skies Treaty in 1992, the security environment in Europe has changed significantly. The Open Skies Treaty continues to contribute to European security by enhancing openness and transparency among the Parties.
Membership
The 34 States Parties to the Open Skies Treaty are: Belarus, Belgium, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, United Kingdom, Ukraine, and United States. Kyrgyzstan has signed but not yet ratified. The Treaty depositaries are Canada and Hungary.
The Treaty is of unlimited duration and is open to accession by other States. States of the former Soviet Union which have not already become States Parties to the Treaty may accede to it at any time. Applications from other interested States are subject to a consensus decision by the Open Skies Consultative Commission (OSCC), the Vienna-based organization charged with facilitating implementation of the Treaty, to which all States Parties belong. Eight states have acceded to the Treaty since entry into force: Finland, Sweden, Latvia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Slovenia, Estonia, and Lithuania. One application for accession is pending before the OSCC.
Basic Elements of the Treaty
United
States OC-135B
Implementation of the Treaty
In June 2010, the U.S. chaired the Second Review Conference for the Treaty, at which all States Parties confirmed their commitment to full Treaty implementation. The United States considers the Open Skies Treaty to be a key element of our Euro-Atlantic security architecture. The broad cooperation by all Treaty Parties, especially in sharing observation flights, is but one hallmark of the Treaty’s success. Future implementation depends on the sustainability of the aircraft fleet and transition to digital sensors. Enhanced cooperation among States in this area is under consideration in the OSCC.
The OSCC continues to address modalities for conducting observation missions and other implementation issues. The OSCC has monthly plenary meetings during three several-month sessions each year. The OSCC has several informal working groups that take up technical issues related to sensors, notification formats, aircraft certification and rules and procedures. The OSCC main functions are to:
The OSCC was established by Article X and Annex L of the Treaty, and has been
in session since Treaty signature in March 1992. The OSCC takes decisions by
consensus, and has adopted 160 Decisions since its inception. OSCC Decisions
enter into force with the Treaty and have the same duration as the Treaty.
For further information on the Open Skies Treaty, visit http://www.state.gov/t/avc/cca/os
Origin and Purpose
The Treaty on Open Skies entered into force on January 1, 2002, and currently has 34 States Parties. The Treaty establishes a regime of unarmed aerial observation flights over the entire territory of its participants. The Treaty is designed to enhance mutual understanding and confidence by giving all participants, regardless of size, a direct role in gathering information about areas of concern to them. Open Skies is one of the most wide-ranging international efforts to date to promote openness and transparency of military forces and activities.
The original concept of mutual aerial observation was proposed by President Eisenhower in 1955 and the Treaty concept was re-introduced as a multilateral initiative of President George H.W. Bush in 1989. The Treaty was negotiated by the then-members of NATO and the Warsaw Pact, and was signed in Helsinki, Finland, on March 24, 1992. The Treaty has been in effect for a decade, following an extended provisional period of application. Since 2002, States Parties have successfully conducted over 840 observation flights over each other’s territory.
Since signature of the Open Skies Treaty in 1992, the security environment in Europe has changed significantly. The Open Skies Treaty continues to contribute to European security by enhancing openness and transparency among the Parties.
Membership
The 34 States Parties to the Open Skies Treaty are: Belarus, Belgium, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, United Kingdom, Ukraine, and United States. Kyrgyzstan has signed but not yet ratified. The Treaty depositaries are Canada and Hungary.
The Treaty is of unlimited duration and is open to accession by other States. States of the former Soviet Union which have not already become States Parties to the Treaty may accede to it at any time. Applications from other interested States are subject to a consensus decision by the Open Skies Consultative Commission (OSCC), the Vienna-based organization charged with facilitating implementation of the Treaty, to which all States Parties belong. Eight states have acceded to the Treaty since entry into force: Finland, Sweden, Latvia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Slovenia, Estonia, and Lithuania. One application for accession is pending before the OSCC.
Basic Elements of the Treaty
Territory: The Open Skies regime covers the
territory over which the State Party exercises sovereignty, including - land,
islands, and internal and territorial waters. The Treaty specifies that the
entire territory of a State Party is open to observation. Observation flights
may only be restricted for reasons of flight safety, not for reasons of national
security.
Aircraft: Observation aircraft may be
provided by either the observing Party or by the observed Party (the "taxi
option"), at the latter's choice. All Open Skies aircraft and sensors must pass
specific certification and preflight inspection procedures to ensure that they
are compliant with Treaty standards. Certified Open Skies aircraft include:
Bulgaria An-30
Hungary An-26
POD Group C-130 (Benelux, Canada, France, Greece, Italy, Norway, Portugal, Spain)
Romania An-30
Russian Federation An-30 and TU-154
Sweden Saab-340
Turkey Casa CN-235
Ukraine An-30
Hungary An-26
POD Group C-130 (Benelux, Canada, France, Greece, Italy, Norway, Portugal, Spain)
Romania An-30
Russian Federation An-30 and TU-154
Sweden Saab-340
Turkey Casa CN-235
Ukraine An-30
Sensors: Open Skies aircraft may have video,
optical panoramic and framing cameras for daylight photography, infrared sensors
for a day/night capability, and synthetic aperture radar for a day/night, all
weather capability. Photographic image quality will permits recognition of major
military equipment (e.g., permit a State Party to distinguish between a tank and
a truck), thus allowing significant transparency of military forces and
activities. Technology advancements have made film cameras increasingly obsolete
and, consequently, the United States is actively preparing for the transition to
digital electro-optical sensors. Sensor categories may be added and capabilities
improved by agreement among States Parties. All equipment used in Open Skies
must be commercially available to all participants in the regime.
Quotas: Each State Party is obligated to
receive a certain number of observation flights, i.e., its passive quota. Each
State Party may conduct as many observation flights – i.e., its active quota -
as its passive quota. The Russian Federation and the United States each have an
annual passive quota of 42, while the other States Parties have quotas of 12 or
fewer. The Parties negotiate the annual distribution of the active quotas each
October for the following calendar year. Around 100 observation flights are
conducted each year. Typically, the United States receives 6-8 observation
flights from Russia each year, while we conduct 14-16 flights in Russia.
Data Sharing/Availability: Imagery collected
from Open Skies missions is available to any State Party upon request, with the
cost being covered by the requesting party. As a result, each State Party may
obtain more data than it actually collects under the Treaty quota system.
In June 2010, the U.S. chaired the Second Review Conference for the Treaty, at which all States Parties confirmed their commitment to full Treaty implementation. The United States considers the Open Skies Treaty to be a key element of our Euro-Atlantic security architecture. The broad cooperation by all Treaty Parties, especially in sharing observation flights, is but one hallmark of the Treaty’s success. Future implementation depends on the sustainability of the aircraft fleet and transition to digital sensors. Enhanced cooperation among States in this area is under consideration in the OSCC.
The OSCC continues to address modalities for conducting observation missions and other implementation issues. The OSCC has monthly plenary meetings during three several-month sessions each year. The OSCC has several informal working groups that take up technical issues related to sensors, notification formats, aircraft certification and rules and procedures. The OSCC main functions are to:
-- consider questions relating to compliance with
the Treaty;
-- seek to resolve ambiguities and differences of interpretation that emerge during Treaty implementation;
-- consider and decide on applications for accession to the Treaty;
-- review the distribution of active quotas annually.
-- seek to resolve ambiguities and differences of interpretation that emerge during Treaty implementation;
-- consider and decide on applications for accession to the Treaty;
-- review the distribution of active quotas annually.
For further information on the Open Skies Treaty, visit http://www.state.gov/t/avc/cca/os
TEACHING OUR KIDS TO BE CONFUSED ABOUT SEXUALITY...Way to go WORLD! WE SHOULD BE SO PROUD!
Swedish toymaker publishes 'gender-neutral' children's Christmas catalogue
"With the new gender thinking, there is nothing that is right or wrong. It's not a boy or a girl thing, it's a toy for children," Top Toy director of sales Jan Nyberg told TT news agency.
The Danish catalogue showed a boy wielding a toy machine gun, which was replaced by a girl in the Swedish version. The "Hello Kitty" page of the Swedish catalogue also replaced a girl with a boy, and a one girl's pink t-shirt was turned into light blue.
Since then, Top Toy has modified its strategy based on RO's advice.
"We have produced the catalogues in a completely different way this year," Nyberg said. "For several years, we have found that the gender debate has grown so strong in the Swedish market that we… have had to adjust."
The country also proposed a new single gender-neutral pronoun – 'hen' – to replace 'he' and 'she' in order to minimize gender stereotyping.
In January 2012, children's author Jesper Lundqvist's release 'Kivi and Monster Dog,' a book that uses 'hen.' The move sparked debate in Sweden and worldwide about the proper place of gender roles.
Elise Claeson, a columnist and a former equality expert at the Swedish Confederation of Professions, claimed that the use of the word hen is an example of notions of gender equality going too far.
Claeson argues that mixed messages about their gender can be harmful for kids: "It is important to have your gender confirmed to you as a child. This does not limit children; it makes them confident about their identity,” she told the Christian Science Monitor.
(ISRAEL)New pillar of defense: Israel successfully test fires David's Sling.
 |
The Stunner missile, part of the David's Sling missile defense system, seen here on one of its early test launches performed in 2009.
Israel has successfully test fired the David's Sling missile defense system, bringing the country’s multi-pillared air interception capabilities one step closer to the potential to intercept all enemy fire, the country’s military has announced.
The David's Sling battery, stationed at an undisclosed desert location in Southern Israel, fired and destroyed the incoming missile with a two-stage interceptor.
“The Israel Missile Defence Organisation and the US Missile Defense Agency completed the first phase of the development of the David's Sling Weapon System, by conducting a successful interception,” the statement said.
The complex, also known as the Magic Wand, is a military system developed jointly by the Israeli military contractor Rafael Advanced Defense Systems and the American contractor Raytheon. It is designed to intercept medium- to long-range missiles fired from 40 km to 300 km away.
The system is also designed to fill the gap between the other two functioning pillars of Israeli air defense: the Iron Dome short-range protection and the Arrow 2, a ballistic long-range defense system. The next generation of the Arrow is also being developed, and is set to be deployed in 2016. The military states that David's Sling will “provide an additional layer of defense against ballistic missiles.”
The new technology utilizes Stunner interceptors installed in 16-missile launcher. It works jointly with the Israel Aerospace Industries multi-mission radar (MMR) and could also be ormatted to be used against enemy aircraft.
Projected to be fully operational by 2014, the new arsenal would be used to defend Israel’s border against oncoming missiles such as the Fajr and Fateh 100, M 600 and the Zelzal, which are often used by Lebanon's Hezbollah, which Tel Aviv calls a threat to its national security.
The announcement of the successful completion comes just four days after a ceasefire that saw the end of an eight-day scuffle between Israel and Hamas. The military claimed that during the recent escalation, 1,354 rockets were fired into Israel from the Gaza Strip, of which only 421 were intercepted by the Iron Dome – once again highlighting the need for a better Israeli defense of the skies.
Nevertheless, the IDF considers the 31 per cent interception rate to be a major success – but admits the country’s missile defense requires improvement.
“The major success of Iron Dome batteries in Operation Pillar of Defense clarifies beyond all doubt the huge importance of missile defense programs,” Israel's defense minister was quoted by Jerusalem Post as stating.
The IDF estimates that around two hundred thousand rockets are pointed at Israel from Syria, Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah. Because of such high estimates, the Magic Wand trials have been “given a sense of urgency,” a source from the country’s defense ministry said.
|
(ISRAEL) Has Ehud Barak finally run out of options for holding onto the job he believes nobody does better? Or does he yet have one last trick up his sleeve?
 |
| Defense Minister Ehud Barak during a press conference in his office in the Defense Ministry, Tel Aviv, November 26, 2012, announcing he is resigning from politics.
As a military man, Ehud Barak’s secretive and maverick maneuvers, and his capacity to organize an effective and loyal hierarchy, brought him much success, honor and fame. He was sometimes able to muster the same skills to good effect in his position as defense minister. But in the undisciplined, constantly shifting realm of Israeli politics, where personal flaws are mercilessly exploited by rivals, and loyalties and leverage can shift overnight, Barak was not quite so effective.
Ultimately, his readiness to break alliances and shift his political agenda in order to try to retain power and influence, for what he would insist is the wider interest of all Israelis if only they knew it, left him staring at political oblivion as Israel moves into the January 22 election campaign. So on Monday, his tiny Independence party isolated, short on voters and bereft of political allies, he announced his retirement. He may even have meant it.
Given his predilection for the unexpected, it is not surprising that some pundits see the 70-year-old’s announcement that he would not be running in the upcoming elections – that he plans instead to devote himself to “learning, writing, living, and also enjoying life, if I may” — as another political ploy. This is the man who less than two weeks ago fatally duped Hamas’s Ahmed Jabari into thinking a minor flare-up of Gaza-Israel hostilities was over. But whatever Barak has in mind, it is almost impossible to discern how he might wind up again in his beloved defense minister’s post after election day.
Born on Kibbutz Mishmar HaSharon, Barak entered the IDF when he was 17 and quickly made an impact. During the Yom Kippur War, he commandeered a tank regiment. But his claim to military fame stemmed from his time as a formative force in the then-nascent, elite Sayeret Matkal commando unit, where he led a succession of audacious, successful missions (some of them still classified), including the 1972 operation when he and his fellow commandos, disguised as technicians, overpowered the hijackers of a Sabena airliner.
Ehud Barak, left, disguised himself as an aircraft technicians during the 1972 Sabena highjacking.
Mythically remembered too is Operation Spring of Youth in 1973, for which Barak dressed up as a woman to target PLO terrorists in Lebanon. He is further credited as one of the key architects of the 1976 Operation Entebbe, during which more than 100 hostages were rescued from the hands of Uganda’s Idi Amin.
Barak – the country’s most decorated soldier — rose all the way through the ranks to become the IDF’s chief of staff in 1991. About half a year after Barak left that position, in July 1995, then-prime minister Yitzhak Rabin appointed him interior minister. After Rabin’s assassination, Barak became foreign minister under Shimon Peres. It was at that time that he coined the description of Israel as a “villa in the jungle.”
Barak came from nowhere to take over the Labor Party and was elected prime minister in 1999, beating Benjamin Netanyahu by a wide margin on a promise to accelerate peace efforts with the Palestinians. But after 610 days in office, in which he struck a coalition deal with the ultra-Orthodox Shas party and made a far-reaching offer under Bill Clinton’s auspices at Camp David to the Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat for the creation of an independent state — and was rebuffed — the outbreak of the second intifada meant he lost the 2001 elections to Ariel Sharon.
At which point he resigned as Labor chairman and quit politics. Twice.
“After he lost the election for prime minister on Feb. 6, Mr. Barak unexpectedly announced on election night that he was going to take a timeout from politics. But in a week, he was taking charge of the coalition negotiations with Mr. Sharon and forging an agreement on behalf of his party,” The New York Times wrote on February 21, 2001, after Barak had again resigned as party leader and quit his Knesset seat, for the second time in a month.
Ehud Barak, left, with Bill Clinton and Yasser Arafat
In 2005, Barak attempted a comeback but failed to gain enough support to win the Labor chairmanship. He was more successful two years later, and was later sworn in as defense minister (to prime minister Ehud Olmert), a position he has clung to ever since.
It wasn’t easy holding onto the coveted portfolio for five years, as governments and ministers changed all around him. In 2009, Netanyahu’s Likud won the elections and formed a right-wing coalition. Labor, which under Barak had ended up with a record-low 13 Knesset seats, joined the coalition so Barak could continue serving in the job he so loved, and in which he believed he was so crucial to Israel’s well-being. But as it became clear to many of his party’s MKs that Netanyahu’s policies on the Palestinians were not in tune with Labor ideology, pressure grew on Barak to leave.
Instead, he split Labor in two, taking four loyal MKs with him to the newly created Independence party, while the remaining eight went into the opposition.
“We are leaving a party and a home that we love, and respect its members,” Barak said at the press conference announcing the breakaway. “Many of those members experienced with us the daily travails of the party, and they fell victim to the endless fighting within it… We have reached the decision that this anomaly in political life, where they were in essence two Labor factions, had to stop.”
For Israel’s sake, Barak plainly believed, he simply had to be defense minister. After all, look what a mess his predecessor Amir Peretz had made of the 2006 Lebanon War. And thank goodness he was around to steward what foreign reports said was the 2007 Israeli strike on a Syrian nuclear reactor.
Naturally, his former Labor colleagues were furious at the political betrayal: MK Shelly Yachimovich, who now heads the party, slammed the “corrupt and opportunist” way in which Barak divided the party that had ruled Israel in the first decades of its existence. “Barak brought tragedy to the Labor Party, sullied it and broke it apart. The name ‘Independence’ is no less cynical: independent of a platform, of values and obligations to the public, loyal to a [coalition] seat,” she said.
As a dove on political matters, he was now the odd man out in a coalition built around right-wing, ultra-Orthodox and ultra-nationalist parties. Already unloved by Labor, his opposition to unfettered settlement growth and his support of a Palestinian state (he even suggested a unilateral Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank) drew the ire of many in the coalition.
“Barak’s pro-Palestinian agenda shows how little he understands of his Jewish heritage. His actions are extremely dangerous and if not curtailed may lead us on the path of a civil war that no Israeli wants,” Likud MK Danny Danon sniped back in April, after Barak had ordered the surprise evacuation of settlers from a contested property in Hebron.
And his Independence party was plainly a less than spectacular success with the public. Most polls predicted that, at best, it would barely pass the 2% electoral threshold to make it into the 19th Knesset, with only a few recent polls — notably after Operation Pillar of Defense — offering the prospect of four or five mandates.
Without Barak, his abandoned Independence colleagues — Industry, Trade, and Labor Minister Shalom Simhon, Agriculture and Rural Development Minister Orit Noked, MKs Einat Wilf and Shachiv Shnaan — now have no hope of getting back into parliament unless they can find themselves new political homes.
Will Barak really retire from public life? He did leave a certain loophole Monday, in opting not to rule out a professional appointment as a non-MK defense minister, if the job were to be offered to him again after the elections. But given the fact that the Likud and Yisrael Beytenu parties, which are running on a united ticket and are expected to form the basis of the next coalition, have more than enough candidates for the job, Barak’s generous willingness to be considered would seem unnecessary. Another former IDF chief of staff, current Strategic Affairs Minister Moshe Ya’alon, is the frontrunner. But according to the agreement between Likud and Yisrael Beytenu, Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman could demand the position.
Ehud Barak and Tzipi Livni in 2009
Netanyahu has relied heavily on Barak’s defense expertise — in dealing with the Palestinians, and in strategizing on Iran. And Barak was a convenient deflection when hawkish critics slammed the government for ostensible neglect of the settlements. But he brings no political clout anymore. When Netanyahu appointed Barak in 2009, he had 12 Labor loyalists with him.
Perhaps Barak will yet seek to enter the Knesset with a different party, one that is closer to home ideologically. A few hours before his press conference on Monday, some smart money was on Barak announcing that he would be running on a new centrist party ticket to be created by former Kadima chair and ex-foreign minister Tzipi Livni.
Maybe by announcing his retirement, he could now give the appearance of being reluctantly wooed back by Livni — for the good of the country, of course.
With Barak, anything is possible. The deadline for all parties to submit their final lists for the January 22 elections is in 10 days. Then we might know for sure.
|
Iran warns Turkey not to deploy Patriot missiles!
(Reuters) - Iran said
Turkey's plans to deploy Patriot defensive missiles near its border with Syria would add to the region's problems,
as fears grow of the Syrian civil war spilling across
frontiers.
Turkey asked
NATO for the Patriot system, designed to intercept aircraft or missiles, last
week after talks about how to shore up security on its 900-km (560-mile)
border.
"The installation of such systems in the region has negative effects and will
intensify problems in the region," Iranian parliament speaker Ali Larijani said
on returning from a trip to Syria, Lebanon
and Turkey on Saturday evening, according to Iranian state news agency
IRNA.
Ramin Mehmanparast, Iran's foreign ministry spokesman, told the Iranian
Students' News Agency (ISNA) on Sunday that deploying the Patriot system "will
not only not help solve the situation in Syria, it will actually make the
situation more difficult and complicated as well".
Syria has called Turkey's request for the Patriot missiles "provocative", and
Russia said the
move could increase risks in the conflict.
Iran has steadfastly supported Syrian President Bashar al-Assad throughout
the 20-month-old uprising against his rule.
Turkey's missile request may have riled Damascus because it could be seen as
a first step toward implementing a no-fly zone over Syrian airspace.
Syrian rebels have been requesting a no-fly zone to help them hold territory
against a government with overwhelming firepower from the air, but most foreign
governments are reluctant to get sucked into the conflict.
Turkey fears security on its border may crumble as the Syrian army fights
harder against the rebels, some of whom have enjoyed sanctuary in
Turkey.
Hezbollah 101 Then scroll down for article titled "Hezbollah says could hit all of Israel in future war"
Hezbollah 101: Who is the militant group, and what does it want?
The Shiite militant group and political party is a player not just in Lebanon, where it is based, but across the broader Middle East. It remains a staunch opponent of Israel, which it fought to a standstill in 2006, and a close ally of Iran and Syria – despite both regimes' crackdowns on citizens Hezbollah purports to champion.
 |
| Iranian-backed Hezbollah guerrillas, wrapping themselves with explosives, parade in a show of force in the southern Lebanese market town of Nabatiyeh on May 27, 1996 on the holiday of Ashura. In The background is Hezbollah's flag. (Mohamed Zatari/AP/File) |
What are the origins of Hezbollah?
Hezbollah was founded by a small group of Lebanese Shiite clerics as a response to Israel's 1982 invasion of southern Lebanon. They were inspired by the teachings of two radical religious scholars: Mohammed Baqr as-Sadr of Iraq and Ruhollah Khomeini, who led the 1979 Islamic revolution in Iran.With the assistance of Iran's Revolutionary Guards, Hezbollah's early leadership mobilized Lebanon's Shiite population to resist the Israeli occupation. Beginning in the Bekaa Valley in eastern Lebanon, hundreds of new recruits were given military training and religious indoctrination. During the 1980s, Hezbollah's influence spread from the Bekaa to Beirut, where it was blamed for the 1983 suicide bombings of the US Embassy and the US Marine barracks, in which more than 300 people perished, as well as the kidnappings of foreigners. Hezbollah denies any role.
Lebanon's civil war ended in 1990, and all the militias were obliged to disarm. Only Hezbollah was permitted to keep its weapons so that it could continue resisting Israel's occupation in south Lebanon.
Hezbollah says could hit all of Israel in future war
(Reuters) - Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah warned Israel on Sunday that thousands of rockets
would rain down on Tel Aviv and cities across the Jewish state if it attacked
Lebanon.
Speaking four days after the ceasefire which ended a week of conflict between
Israel and the Islamist Hamas rulers of
Gaza, Nasrallah said Hezbollah's response to any attack would dwarf the rocket
fire launched from Palestinian territories.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)