Today's Situation

RESPECT, September 18, 2007

Israel's two largest-circulation dailies - Yedioth Ahronoth and Maariv - both lead their Tuesday editions with reports from the scene of the Thai plane crash in which eight Israelis are believed to have lost their lives.

But both papers also find room on their front pages for follow-up stories to the alleged Israeli attack on a Syrian nuclear facility, constructed with the help of North Korea, on September 6.

Maariv carries comments by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who said on Monday night that he is ready for peace talks with Syria and would agree to negotiations without preconditions should the situation present itself. Speaking to reporters from Russian-language media, Olmert added that he respects President Basher Assad and that Damascus has to deal with its own problems, but Israel should not rule out dialog.

Yedioth Ahronoth, meanwhile, reports that Olmert's popularity has risen sharply in the days since the alleged attack. According to the poll, the prime minister's approval rating shot up 10 percent on the back of the reports; 35 percent of the public now says that he is doing a good job. (See Sima Kadmon, below.)

Ynet adds that North Korea strongly denied Tuesday that it provided Syria with secret nuclear cooperation, calling the allegation a fabrication by hard-liners in Washington to block progress in the North's relations with the U.S. The North's Foreign Ministry said the country has upheld its pledge made last October, when it conducted its first-ever nuclear test, that North Korea would be 'a responsible nuclear power' and not transfer any nuclear material out of the country.

Olmert's message contrasted sharply with the lead story in Haaretz on Tuesday, where a senior White House policy adviser is quoted as referring to Syria as 'a vicious brutal regime allied to Iran strategically, not tactically, engaged in helping kill Americans in Iraq, helping the worst Palestinian terrorist forces, desperate to reassert its rule over Lebanon, and sponsoring not simply anti-Zionist but the most barbaric anti-Semitic views.'

The comments came after the official in question was asked by an Israeli academic whether Syria would be invited to participate in the planned Middle East peace summit in November.

The summit is due to focus on a deal between Israel and the Palestinian, and it is the summit that brings U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice back to the region. Rice is to due arrive in Jerusalem Wednesday, where she is expected to increase pressure on the Palestinian Authority and Israel to reach a further agreement in advance of the November meeting, according to Israel Radio.

Meanwhile, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, David Welch, said the November summit in Washington on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is an important moment and the Bush administration believes progress can be made. Speaking to reporters in Washington, Welch said it has been some time since there was an opportunity, with a little hard work, to push the peace process forward. He said that Olmert and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas are reviewing a joint draft of principles.

While Welch sounded optimistic, his boss faces a tough job, because of a hardening of positions by Olmert and Abbas.

This is certainly the case if Haaretz's report on the IDF's proposal for alleviating travel restrictions in the West Bank is true. Olmert promised Rice and Abbas, at a meeting in Sharm el-Sheikh in July, that he would remove roadblocks and ease travel other restrictions, in a gesture designed to strengthen Abbas' hand in his struggle against Hamas.

What the army is now proposing, according to Haaretz, is to remove just 10 to 20 temporary roadblocks in isolated areas of the West Bank, and to examine whether the security situation allows more such gestures. The move is almost certain to upset relations between the sides - already unstable after Olmert said that no declaration of principles would be ready by November and Abbas responded by threatening to boycott the Washington meeting.

One sign that the road ahead is sure to be rocky is that Rice will not hold a three-way meeting with the Israeli and Palestinian leaders, according to The Jerusalem Post.

Quoting Israel and U.S. officials, the paper says that there was preliminary talk a few weeks ago about arranging a tripartite meeting, to be followed by a joint press conference, but that those discussions went nowhere.

Elsewhere, Iran is back in the headlines, with The Jerusalem Post leading with Israel's response to Tehran's claim that it has 600 Shihab-3 missiles aimed at targets throughout the country.

According to the paper, the claim was made by an Iranian Web site affiliated with the regime. The site also said that the missiles would be launched if either Iran or Syria were attacked. 'Iran will shoot 600 missiles at Israel if it is attacked,' the Iranian news Web site, Assar Iran, reported, saying such a barrage would 'only be the first reaction.' According to the report, dozens of locations throughout Iraq being used by the US Army have also been targeted. The Shihab missile has a range of 1,300 km. and can reach anywhere in Israel.

An official in the Prime Minister's Office described the threat as 'rhetoric' and said that 'even the average Iranian does not believe the threats.'

Finally, Army Radio reports on a rare example of Israeli-Iranian cooperation. According to a Western diplomat in Thailand, the Iranian embassy in Bangkok has asked a team of Israeli forensic experts to help with identification of the bodies of 18 Iranians killed in Sunday's plane crash. The Israeli team was the first to arrive at the scene. According to Thai law, identification of victims' bodies must be completed by forensic scientists before they can be released for transport home.

WHAT IS DETERRENCE? Writing in Maariv, Ofer Shelah argues that deterrence is much more than the proven ability to cause damage to an enemy - and says that MI chief Amos Yadlin should know this before he comments in public about Israel's rebuilt deterrence.

"Israel's deterrence capability has been rebuilt since the Second Lebanon War,' Military Intelligence chief Amos Yadlin to the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee in the Knesset on Sunday. Senior officers treat meetings of the committee - unlike gatherings of the various sub-committees that operate under it - like press conference. It seems likely, therefore, that Yadlin was using this sentence to hint to the Israeli people: Yes guys, the foreign sources have got it right. We showed them, and now they know not to mess with us.

Ever since the days of Ben-Gurion, deterrence has been the one of the three pillars on which Israel has based its military doctrine - warning, deterrence and decisive action. But two historic examples are enough for us to understand that the phrase cannot be taken at face value. On would have thought that the Six-Day Way, which saw Israel defeat three Arab armies, would have provided enough deterrence to last for years. But within three years, Nasser imposed a war of attrition on us; three years later, Sadat and Assad launched a planned war against Israel - a war that was broad in its extend and yet limited in its goals (even if it was not perceived thus in Israel).

The opposite example occurred at a time when, according to Yadlin, Israel's deterrence had been damages - last summer. Bashar Assad had several reasons for opening fire on Israel during the Second Lebanon War, including the mistaken killing of several Syrian farmers by Israeli airplanes. He did not do so, since he realized full well that he had everything to lose and little to gain. Assad knew then, as he knows today, that war against Israel, irrespective of the damage that he could cause to the Israeli home front and the territory he could capture, could seriously undermine his unpopular minority regime. This is a more deterring fact that any proof of Israeli strength and no doubt played a key role when the Syrian leadership deliberates how best to respond to the Israeli operation earlier this month.

What can we learn from this? That nations and leaders - theirs and ours - do not operate from some primal sense of fear of arrogance. Deterrence always only exists when the context provides the interests: what do I want to achieve, what price am I willing to pay, what are the chances that I will be able to achieve my goals at this price, given current circumstances. It works for the other side just like it works for us.

Sadat, for example, assumed that in a world of two superpowers, in which war in the Middle East was viewed from within the context of the Cold War (and anyone who has read 'Crisis,' by Henry Kissinger, knows just how much the U.S. at the time was incapable of viewing global events through any other filter), Israel would not be able to respond to Egyptian aggression in any way that would undermine his regime. That is why the proven strength of the IDF did not deter him. While Bashar Assad may not have read the map correctly in terms of how Israel would see itself as committed to responding, but he knew that the world and the rules of the game had changed. This is the true significance of deterrence, not having to kill some Arabs every so often, so that people remember how strong Israel is.

The same thing works here. Israel has interests of its own and there are decisions taken on a national level. One such decision is that Israel will do everything in its power, including the use of military means, to ensure that hostile countries do not get their hands on nuclear technology. What it does in each specific operations depends largely on the situation, the assessment of damage versus benefit and the level-headed analysis of the situation - not the sort some primal need to show off strength that led us into a war in Lebanon that had no clearly defined goals. The head of MI, a sober enough fellow, knows all of this. He should also know that when he makes public comments about Israel's 'deterrence capabilities,' he is merely bolstering the simplistic approach of both the public and the government."

Ends…

GETTING BETTER FOR OLMERT: Writing in Yedioth Ahronoth, Sima Kadmon examines the effect of the alleged Israeli operation in Syria last week, as reflected in an opinion poll published Tuesday.

"What did we ask for? Something that would put the color back in our cheeks and the sparkle back in our eyes. Something that could make us stand up straight. Something like the good old days, when all Israeli planes returned safely to their base and the foreign media would slowly release more and more details about our boys' heroics behind enemy lines.

We wanted Entebbe. We wanted the Iraqi nuclear reactor. We would have made do with just a run of the mill daring operation - justified and sophisticated - inside enemy territory. Something that no other country, apart from North Korea, would condemn. Something that, in terms of morality, is beyond reproach. It's been so long since we've been in that position that we have almost forgotten what it feels like. We've almost forgotten how good it feels.

And indeed, the Israel public is reveling in it. This, at least, is the impression one gets from the latest opinion poll conducted by the Dahaf Institute, which was conducted on Monday evening among Jewish Israeli adults.

According to the poll, a huge majority of Israelis - 78 percent of the entire population - backs the operation in Syria, as it has been portrayed in the foreign media. The biggest winner from the whole story is, of course, the prime minister: 20 percent of the respondents said that they have changed their opinion of Olmert for the better in light of recent events. Or, in other words: one fifth of the public in Israel hold Olmert is higher esteem than they did 10 days ago.

How easy it is to buy the heart of the Israeli public. For a whole year, Olmert fought his unpopularity - without any success. The public turned its back on him in a way that appeared, until now, to be final and irrevocable. And now, over the course of a week, his popularity has shot up by 10 percent. Asked to grade Olmert's performance as prime minister, 35 percent said 'good' in this latest survey, compared to 25 percent who gave the same answer on the eve of Rosh Hashanah, in a survey published on Friday.

On the flip side, 63 percent said that Olmert's performance as prime minister has been 'poor' - a drop of 7 percent compared to the previous survey. It seems that all it takes is for the air force to take off and fly in the direction of Syria (according to foreign news source), and our prime minister is also flying.

The IDF, too, has improved its standing in the eyes of Israelis. Over 40 percent of the respondents said that the their faith in the IDF's abilities had increased as a result of the alleged operation in Syria. Only 3 percent said that their faith in the army had dropped.

And after the pride, the esteem and the rebuilding of faith - what we have left is the concern. Almost a third of the respondents - 32 percent to be exact - believe that the alleged operation in Syria increases the chances of war with that nation. Only 13 percent say that the operation decreased the chances of war breaking out."

Ends…

FEELING LIKE A MILLION BUCKS: Writing in Yedioth Ahronoth, Aviad Kleinberg argues that, since we do not know what happened in Syria on September 6, there is no reason for the euphoria that seems to be sweeping the nation.

"When I returned to Israel from post-doctoral studies overseas, I received word from one of the government departments ( I forget exactly which one), that as a returning scientist who had made a name for himself on foreign shores, I was entitles to a financial incentive package. The sum in question, I was informed, was NIS 10,000. Unfortunately, the official announcement informed me, the department did not currently have the funds to make good on the offer. I was forced to make do, therefore, with the knowledge that if the budget had allowed it, I would have been awarded a check for NIS 10,000.

I was both saddened and pleased by the announcement. On the one hand, it was good to know that were it not for governmental impecuniousness, I would be NIS 10,000 better off. On the other hand, if I'm not going to get the money in any case, why make do with a meager NIS 10,000. They could have told me that I was getting NIS 50,000 or - why not dream a little - a cool million.

Why am I reminded of that gloomy anecdote at the current time? Because I have noticed that, as time goes by and our leaders continue to remain uncharacteristically silent over the alleged incident in Syria last week, it becomes increasingly grandiose and daring. At first, it sounded like an operational mishap; then like some mysterious test flight; then it was portrayed as an Israel slap on the wrists for Bashar Assad; next it seemed like we had been saved from certain nuclear annihilation; until, finally, we have been informed that our deterrence capabilities vis-?-vis Syria and Iran have been restored. That announcement by military intelligence chief Amos Yadlin to the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee on Sunday came after the chairman of the committee said that there would be no talking about the 'alleged incident' during the session - a clear sign that Yadlin's comments were about exactly that.

That is one possibility. Since we have no idea what really happened, it is possible that the alleged incident was a supreme success. Let us just hoe that it does not turn out to be one of the tactical successes that leads to a strategic embroilment of massive proportions. Maybe not. Those of us who are not in the loop have no way of knowing. Can I say that I sleep well at night? Not exactly. I am kept awake sometimes by the knowledge that I live in a country that does not have proper inspection and supervision mechanisms (as the Winograd Committee pointed out) and in which as handful of leaders - with their short fuses and even shorter vision - make fateful decisions about our future. What worries me even more is that this ambiguity has spread out from issues that it really is better not to discuss in public and now affects all branches of government. What are the prime minister's plans for the country? No one knows. Where does the defense minister stand on key issues? Don't even ask. And what about democracy's watchdog - the media? A bone is thrown every now and again. The newspapers tease and tantalize their readers by hinting that they know more than they are allowed to report. We can feel like NIS 10,000 or we can feel like NIS 1 million. We've never had it so good."

Ends…

NOT WHAT YOU THOUGHT: Writing in Maariv, Gad Shomron says that the Syrian army is not the threatening superpower that it is sometimes depicted as, but an impoverished, ill-equipped organization that is focusing its attention primarily on defensive weapons.

"As part of the media coverage of the tension on our northern border, the average Israeli media consumer is bombarded with worrying assessments about the threatening build-up by the Syrian army. But a more realistic look at the figures shows a rather different picture.

Anyone who wants to see what an army in crisis, an army up to its neck in problems of funding, maintenance and equipment need look no further than the Syrian army during its withdrawal from Lebanon in the aftermath of the murder to former prime minister Rafik Hariri: beat-up and old-fashioned trucks towing artillery piece and soldiers dressed in anything but informs.

The Syrian army is in a state of crisis because of the collapse of the Soviet Union, its one-time sole backer and provider of arms, and because of Russian policy since the early 1990s. It has been forced to make do with a meager and selective flow of weapons. Why? Because Damascus owes Moscow a billion dollars. Just recently, and primarily because of the Vladimir Putin's desire to have the Russian flag fluttering across the globe, including in Syrian ports, Moscow forgave a portion of the debt and started to renew weapons shipments.

But a closer inspection reveals a very interesting phenomenon: offensive weapons - tanks, for example - are not part of the deal and the Syrian army is forced to make do with old T-72s, only a few of which have been upgraded with advanced Italian electronic equipment.

So what exactly is Russia selling Syria? Defensive weapons, such a anti-tank and anti-aircraft systems, including the Chrysanthemum anti-tank systems, which is radar and laser guided and is considered the jewel lint he Russian defense industry's crown. NATO knows this system as the AT-15. The Khrizantema is equipped with a tandem high-explosive anti-tank (HEAT) warhead that can apparently penetrate over 1000 millimeters of steel armor protected by explosive reactive armor. In addition, the Russians developed a special warhead designed to blast open static targets, such as bunkers and structures.

The Syrian air force is mainly made up of old-fashioned planes. The five (some sources say eight) MIG 31s that were purchased recently hardly change the balance of power and it is doubtful that top IDF officers are losing any sleep over them. The same is true of the Iranian-made Sinai missile. While it is true that this was the type of missile used to his the IDF warship off the coast of Lebanon during last year's war, it is nonetheless an outdated missile that hit a sleepy and complacent target.

Assad, it seems, feels threatened. That is why he is preparing his defenses and investing in systems that he believes will provide him with some resilience against Israel's clear supremacy - a large number of surface-to-surface missiles of every type and every range, some of which are equipped with chemical or even biological warheads.

But here is it time to stress the fact that the main goal of the Syrian regime is to survive and Damascus knows full well that if Syria fires a chemical missile at Tel Aviv, Israel would respond with far deadlier force, both for the country and for the regime. So, in effect, even these missiles are a form of defense.

What is the conclusion? That Syria is nothing more than a frightened little lamb? Not exactly. It is, despite the above, still a dictatorship which is allied to Iran, which bankrolls Hizbollah and in which the entire decision-making process goes on between Bashar Assad's ears.

It is a long way from the frightening descriptions of a threatening superpower that we are so often fed."

Ends…

GLOBAL SILENCE: Writing in The Jerusalem Post, Herb Keinon explains why the world has, to a large extent, remained silent after the alleged Air Force strike in Syria: satisfaction that Israel is taking a stand against nuclear proliferation in the Middle East and impatience with North Korea.

"The world, it's fair to say, doesn't like North Korea. Indeed, it's a tough country to love, especially since dictator Kim Jong Il lets his people starve while he tests various nuclear devices.

It is also fair to say that the world, for the most part, dislikes the idea of a nuclear Middle East. Witness French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner's recent comment that France should prepare for the possibility of war over Iran's nuclear program.

So add North Korea together with foreign reports of nukes in the Middle East, and what you get is a situation for which the international community has very little patience.

And that, according to foreign new reports, is what the IAF's excursion into Syrian skies the other night was all about: stopping the proliferation, via North Korea, of nuclear capability to the Middle East.

While on an existential level, the prospect of Syrian President Bashar Assad - deep in cahoots with Hizbollah and Hamas - in possession of anything nuclear is deeply frightening, and if we believe the foreign reports, on a diplomatic level the fact that the world media is writing 'North Korea,' 'nuclear cache' and 'Syria' together in the same sentence could actually be beneficial for Israel.

First of all, if indeed the alleged IAF sortie over Syria had to do with a nuclear shipment from Pyongyang, then Israel's stock has to go up because it will be seen in a few key capitals as the force that will not allow nuclear proliferation in the region.

It is interesting to note, by the way, the resounding lack of condemnation - either in Europe or even in the Arab world - to Israel's alleged attack.

Secondly, the alleged North Korean nuclear connection will put Damascus - already not in the world's good graces - even more on the defensive.

It's one thing to harbor terrorists who want to destroy Israel, it's another thing to allegedly have been involved in the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, but it is something different entirely to get into the same nuclear bed with North Korea.

If the first two offensives are, in the eyes of the world, pardonable because of various bilateral interests, the third would be much more difficult to forgive. The alleged Syrian-North Korean connection could move Syria from being just an unpopular state to being a pariah regime.

And Damascus doesn't want pariah state status. Syria, which has shown that it does want contact with the outside world, has no desire to be quarantined and ostracized as North Korea has been.

Which is where certain diplomatic opportunities just may present themselves.

Damascus, it is safe to assume, will want to shrug off a North Korean image and present itself as a responsible player on the international scene. It has even expressed interest in coming to the international Middle East meeting that the US is planning later this year.

The allegations of a North Korean-Syrian connection could make the time ripe, therefore, for Israel to push the world to place certain conditions on Syria's being accepted back into the international fold.

The conditions are obvious, and ones that Israel has been demanding - without any success at all - for years: kicking the terrorist organizations out of Damascus, first and foremost Hamas and its leader Khaled Mish'al, and an end to the support and the supply of weapons to Hizbollah.

In the past Syria has just ignored these calls. But now, in order to avoid being seen as North Korea's kid brother, it may have no choice but to pay a little attention.

The alleged connection to North Korea makes Syria vulnerable. The question is whether the world will seize the moment."

Ends…

THE LIMITS OF POWER: In its editorial on Tuesday, Haaretz says that satisfaction at the restoration of Israel's deterrence capability - as cited by the head of military intelligence - should be tempered with an understanding of the limitations of force.

"Military Intelligence Chief Amos Yadlin's statement that Israel has restored its deterrence capabilities was premature. Deterrence is a fine and encouraging word, but it is difficult to measure. It is much easier to detect and measure complacency and self-satisfaction.

If the alleged air strike did occur, if it did disrupt the Iranian-Syrian-North Korean cooperation on nuclear arms proliferation, then it can be regarded as an encouraging sign. That is, if the decision to strike took into account the potential risks involved, and if the raid was planned with more care than what we have seen in the Second Lebanon War.

Israel cannot remain indifferent to nuclear cooperation at any level between North Korea - which is pretending to be friendlier to the environment than before - and Syria, which is speaking of peace while supporting every form of terrorism in Lebanon, Iraq and Israel. Especially not when this is done under the auspices of Iran, which is pledging to rush to Syria's defense.

A successful strike - if it did occur - could serve as a statement: Anyone who places nuclear weapons near Israel's borders or within striking distance will have to pay a price. But even if such a strike indeed occurred at the right time and with the right intention, one would err to speak of a restored Israeli deterrence.

The Military Intelligence chief made his statement on Sunday to the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, at a time when the Winograd Committee was in the process of forming its conclusions on a historic failure - the Second Lebanon War. Israel has had severe omissions in a conflict with a relatively small guerrilla organization. Yadlin was a part of that omission.

Israel's deterrence is measured day in and day out in the western Negev, as well. Hundreds of Qassam rockets from Gaza strike the region every month, with Israel unable to come up with a deterrent response. The vulnerability of the Israeli home front cannot easily be forgotten either. Neither can the threat of the suicide bombers, who find nothing deterring.

Deterrence is not an exact science. It ultimately determines whether a well-armed enemy will opt to employ his arsenal or not. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's government had until recently spoken of the Second Lebanon War as a conflict that served to bolster Israel's deterrence. But 12 months later, the MI chief speaks of having restored the damage Israel's deterrence had sustained in the war.

Many factors make up deterrence, stemming from global and local interests of regional countries. They are not necessarily derived from the military capabilities of Israel, which has always been better armed than its neighbors. The ability to sustain damage constitutes one of the components of deterrence - but Syria and Iran may be able to sustain more damage.

Excessive self-satisfaction has led Israel's past governments to numerous failures. It has made the nation's leadership think time is working in our favor. It has persuaded our leaders to miss out on opportunities, to wantonly set up settlements in areas which were supposed to serve as bargaining chips. It compelled Jerusalem to postpone giving back the West Bank to Jordan's King Hussein when he still wanted it back.

Every time Israel relishes in its military might, we must remind ourselves of its limits and its limitations.

Let us hope that Yadlin's words were taken out of full context, and that if a successful action was indeed carried out in Syria, it would not make anyone think that the weakness Israel had demonstrated in the days of the Second Lebanon War has been erased."

Ends…

Today's Situation || Yesterday's Situation