Date: Monday, January 6, 2014
New Netanyahu Recruitment Strategy Draws Split Reaction
December 31, 2013|4:54 pm
IDF soldiers at a checkpoint near the West Bank city of Jenin.
Despite just composing a tiny minority of the country's 1.7 million Arab population, Israel has begun to more intentionally recruit Christians to join the Israel Defense Forces (IDF.)
Arab Christians only make up 128,000, or less than 10 percent, of the entire country's population and traditionally have not served in the IDF, where service is mandatory for all Jewish Israeli men and women.
Arab Muslim and Christians are not required to serve (although Druze are) and according to an Associated Press report, the Israeli Christians, the vast majority of whom consider themselves Palestinian despite living in Israel, have long "considered service in the army as taboo." Only 1,500 non-Druze Arabs currently serve in the military, the majority of them from Israel's desperate, poverty-stricken Beduoin community.
Father Gabriel Nadaf, a Christian priest who sides with the government's decision to recruit among his population, said he believes his people have practical reasons -- economic and social integration -- to join the military.
"I believe in the shared fate of the Christian minority and the Jewish state," he said, according to AP.
Nadaf's spokesperson, Shadi Khalloul, an aide, pointed to the persecution of Christians across the Middle East in Egypt, Syria and Iraq and compared it with the status of Christians in Israel.
"They are burning churches, they are slaughtering them (Christians), they are raping the girls," said Khalloul.
But Oudeh Basharat, a Palestinian columnist for the Israeli newspaper "Haaretz," claimed instead that it seemed the Israeli prime minister was only attempting the recruiting campaign as a way to further splinter relationships among Palestinians.
Netanyahu told Christians at a forum recently that joining the IDF would "grant protection to supporters of enlistment and to the conscripts themselves from threats and violence directed at them," which Basharat suggested hinted that the Christian Palestinians' Muslim counterparts would one day turn and target them.
"If you listen carefully to the words of his blessing, it's impossible to shake off the feeling that this recruitment is aimed at achieving internal objectives within Arab society. Netanyahu seems to be playing, with much pomp, the role of the classic colonialist who adopts a policy of 'divide and conquer,'" Basharat wrote in a recent op-ed.
Basharat pointed to the decades that the populations had co-existed with one another and argued that the prime minister was trying to create division for his own benefit.
"Palestinian Arabs, Muslims and Christians, have been living here together for generations in harmony and sharing the same destiny, and now Netanyahu comes to divide them," he continued. "A country that sparks dispute between its sons is not a normal country. The time has come for the prime minister to absorb the fact that before him stands a nation, and not a collection of ethnic groups."
He also said Israel's recruitment efforts had yet to offer Christians "housing," "jobs" or "let the uprooted return."
"Really, how stingy can the Jewish state be: to serve and to bear the burden in return for 'Israeli society is proud of you?'" he wrote.
While numbers have been slow -- only about 50 Christians have joined annually -- those who have chosen have often faced pushback from their communities. Arin Shaabi, who works as a prosecutor in a West Bank military court, said that although she "stands by what [she does]," she has been harassed by others in her home town of Nazareth.
Shaabi has had a rock thrown at her car and she changes into civilian clothes before leaving the military base. Her mother has reported that her family's reputation has suffered.
|
Date: Thursday, January 2, 2014
ByAdi Schwartz
Dec. 27, 2013 7:34 p.m. ET
As Christmas neared, an 85-foot-high tree presided over the little square in front of the Greek Orthodox Church of the Annunciation in Nazareth. Kindergarten children with Santa Claus hats entered the church and listened to their teacher explain in Arabic the Greek inscriptions on the walls, while a group of Russian pilgrims knelt on their knees and whispered in prayer. In Nazareth's old city, merchants sold the usual array of Christmas wares.
This year, however, the familiar rhythms of Christmas season in the Holy Land have been disturbed by a new development: the rise of an independent voice for Israel's Christian community, which is increasingly trying to assert its separate identity. For decades, Arab Christians were considered part of Israel's sizable Palestinian minority, which comprises both Muslims and Christians and makes up about a fifth of the country's citizens, according to the Israeli government.
But now, an informal grass-roots movement, prompted in part by the persecution of Christians elsewhere in the region since the Arab Spring, wants to cooperate more closely with Israeli Jewish society—which could mean a historic change in attitude toward the Jewish state. "Israel is my country, and I want to defend it," says Henry Zaher, an 18-year-old Christian from the village of Reineh who was visiting Nazareth. "The Jewish state is good for us."
LOOKING UP: Celebrating Christmas in Nazareth, December 2012 Reuters
The Christian share of Israel's population has decreased over the years—from 2.5% in 1950 to 1.6% today, according to Israel's Central Bureau of Statistics—because of migration and a low birthrate. Of Israel's 8 million citizens, about 130,000 are Arabic-speaking Christians (mostly Greek Catholic and Greek Orthodox), and 1.3 million are Arab Muslims.
In some ways, Christians in Israel more closely resemble their Jewish neighbors than their Muslim ones, says Amnon Ramon, a lecturer at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and a specialist on Christians in Israel at the Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies. In a recent book, he reports that Israeli Christians' median age is 30, compared with 31 for Israeli Jews and only 19 for Israeli Muslims. Israeli Christian women marry later than Israeli Muslims, have significantly fewer children and participate more in the workforce. Unemployment is lower among Israeli Christians than among Muslims, and life expectancy is higher. Perhaps most strikingly, Israeli Christians actually surpass Israeli Jews in educational achievement.
As a minority within a minority, Christians in Israel have historically been in a bind. Fear of being considered traitors often drove them to proclaim their full support for the Palestinian cause. Muslim Israeli leaders say that all Palestinians are siblings and deny any Christian-Muslim rift. But in mixed Muslim-Christian cities such as Nazareth, many Christians say they feel outnumbered and insecure.
"There is a lot of fear among Christians from Muslim reprisals," says Dr. Ramon. "In the presence of a Muslim student in one of my classes, a Christian student will never say the same things he would say were the Muslim student not there."
"Many Christians think like me, but they keep silent," says the Rev. Gabriel Naddaf, who backs greater Christian integration into the Jewish state. "They are simply too afraid." In his home in Nazareth, overlooking the fertile hills of the Galilee, the 40-year-old former spokesman of the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate in Jerusalem is tall and charismatic, dressed in a spotless black cassock. "Israel is my country," he says. "We enjoy the Israeli democracy and have to respect it and fight for it."
That is the idea behind the new Forum for Drafting the Christian Community, which aims to increase the number of Christians joining the Israel Defense Forces. It is an extremely delicate issue: Israeli Arabs are generally exempt from military duty, because the state doesn't expect them to fight their brethren among the Palestinians or in neighboring Arab countries. Israeli Palestinians, who usually don't want to enlist, say they often face discrimination in employment and other areas because they don't serve.
"We were dragged into a conflict that wasn't ours," says Father Naddaf. "Israel takes care of us, and if not Israel, who will defend us? We love this country, and we see the army as a first step in becoming more integrated with the state."
According to Shadi Khaloul, a forum spokesperson, the total number of Christians serving in the Israeli military has more than quadrupled since 2012, from 35 to nearly 150. This may seem a drop in the ocean, but it was enough to enrage many Palestinian Israelis. Father Naddaf says that his car's tires were punctured and that he received death threats, worrying him enough that he got bodyguards. Hanin Zoabi, an Arab-Muslim member of the Israeli parliament, wrote Father Naddaf a public letter calling him a collaborator and accusing him of putting young Christians "in danger." "Arab Palestinians, regardless of their religion, should not join the Israeli army," Ms. Zoabi told me. "We are a national group, not a religious one. Any attempt to enlist Christians is part of a strategy of divide-and-rule."
Many Arab Christians don't see it that way. "We are not mercenaries," says Mr. Khaloul, who served as a captain in an IDF paratrooper brigade. "We want to defend this country together with the Jews. We see what is happening these days to Christians around us—in Iraq, Syria and Egypt."
Since the Arab revolutions began in Tunisia in 2011, many Christians in the region have felt isolated and jittery. Coptic churches have been attacked in Egypt, and at least 26 Iraqis leaving a Catholic church in Baghdad on Christmas Day were killed by a car bomb. Islamists continue to threaten to enforce Shariah law wherever they gain control.
The Christian awakening in Israel goes beyond joining the IDF. Some Israeli Christian leaders now demand that their history and heritage be taught in state schools. "Children in Arab schools in Israel learn only Arab-Muslim history," says a report prepared by Mr. Khaloul and submitted to Israel's Ministry of Education, "and this causes the obliteration of Christian identity."
Some Israeli Christians even recently established a new political party, headed by Bishara Shlayan, a stocky, blue-eyed former captain in the Israeli navy who told me that he once beat up an Irish sailor in Londonderry who called him an "[expletive] Jew." The new party is puckishly called B'nai Brith ("Children of the Covenant"), and Shlayan says it will have Jewish as well as Christian members. Nazareth's mayor, Ramez Jaraisy, recently told the Times of Israel that Shlayan was a "collaborator" with the Israeli authorities.
"The current Arab political establishment only brought us hate and rifts," says Mr. Shlayan. "The Arab-Muslim parties didn't take care of us. We are not brothers with the Muslims; brothers take care of each other." Mr. Shlayan, who advocates better education, housing and employment for Israeli Christians, says he also dreams of turning Nazareth into an even busier tourist spot by erecting the world's biggest statue of Jesus.
Should this Christian awakening succeed, it would be yet another notable shift in the balance of power among religious groups in the Middle East.
—Mr. Schwartz is a former staff writer and senior editor for the Israeli newspaper Haaretz.
|
Date: Monday, December 30, 2013
December 30, 2013|12:14 pm
LOS ANGELES – The consul general of Israel in Los Angeles believes that Christianity is experiencing a rapidly growing renaissance in Israel. With that, he emphasized the biblical mandate that evangelical Christians and Jews have – to be in a favorable relationship with one another.
"We really are a community of believers and we are both mandated with relationship with one another, with relationships to our great religions, and the Promised Land, [and] the Holy Land," Consul General David Siegel recently told The Christian Post. "It's mandated in the Old Testament, it's mandated even stronger in the New Testament. So we are biblically mandated to this relationship."
Pointing to the fact that both faiths have shared foundational values, Siegel noted that in many cases these values are "identical."
"We live in a world that we all understand is a world that needs to be repaired."
Siegel said he believes that Israel has been experiencing a growing Christian population as a result of persecution throughout the Middle East.
"Today, Israel is also a safe haven for the Christians of the Middle East who are being systematically persecuted in all sorts of countries under this guise of this 'Arab Spring,'" he explained.
He pointed out that Christians are setting up bases of operation to continue empowering their communities throughout the Middle East through charitable organizations and use of radio.
"So Christianity is experiencing a huge renaissance in Israel today, both in terms of the numbers of believers, prayer houses and sessions that take place throughout the country in a multitude of languages, but also the people on the ground that are working to save lives in the Middle East," he said. "Much of the blood, unfortunately, is that of Christians. This is the plight of Christians in the Middle East and unfortunately we don't see that much attention put to it."
Siegel told CP that "the evangelical community is probably Israel's closest friend in the world, not a fair weather friend, but a constant friend whether times are good or bad."
He gave an example of this in talking about the 9/11 tragedy.
"I was in this country during 9/11, in Washington [D.C.] with my family," he said. "We moved with my family back to Israel that fall right after the attacks; my term was over and we came right into the very problematic period of Israel's history of suicide bombings. I remember being at a hotel before we were able to move into our house, just in transit from the United States, and the hotel was packed with Christian supporters – there was no one else. So it's that story that is a message that we feel that even when times are bad our Christian friends are with us."
In another example of the existing relationship between Christian and Jewish groups, he pointed to them working side-by-side in the Philippines.
"We have teams on the ground that are protected by U.S. Marines and working hand-in-hand with other NGOs, including Christian NGOs, to repair souls and repair infrastructure," Siegel said. "Now we are in phase two, after the recovery, and the emergency aid that is working on reconstruction, post-trauma treatment, medical treatment, and social care. It shows that it's not just biblical, not that that's not important, but in our everyday lives of modern states Israel has a lot of things on the table in terms of the Christian-Jewish relationship, and that's a wonderful thing to celebrate."
He added that the challenge for both communities of believers is that both are under attack verbally. Siegel explained that Israel had the first field hospital in Haiti on the ground after the massive earthquake and workers were overwhelmed. "Surgeons were actually going into old metal factories to create more medical devices and surgical devices because they were running out of supplies so quickly because of the amount of surgery that had to be done on the ground – amazing stories of human commitment and innovation," he said.
"I remember also that we were partnering with the evangelical groups on the ground, and Al Jazeera television and other voices of extremism were attacking both of us – both Jews and Christians for harvesting organs in Haiti. I remember that as such a defining moment of, here we are, both America and Israel, both Christian and Jewish communities, coming in to help and [at the same time] hear the voices of religious intolerance and hate, not only not being there to help, but coming out and attacking what we were doing and turning it into some sort of work of the devil, rather than being God's work.
"I think that on the informational level it's so important to fight that propaganda and we feel it every day. Our relationship also has risk in that if we don't educate the next generation that (propaganda) is consuming the news and it concerns a lot of misinformation about both of our communities," Siegel explained. "We need to fight that."
|
Date: Monday, December 30, 2013
December 26, 2013|4:54 pm
The Muslim Brotherhood was officially declared a terrorist organization by the Egyptian government on Wednesday, over a year after winning the country's first democratic presidential elections with former leader Mohamed Morsi.
"All of Egypt ... was terrified by the ugly crime that the Muslim Brotherhood group committed by blowing up the building of the Dakahlyia security directorate," the Egyptian government said in an official statement.
The decision came after the latest crackdown on the Islamic party, which is being accused of carrying out a suicide bomb attack that killed 16 people at a police station on Wednesday, Reuters reported.
"This is a turning point in the confrontation. This is an important tool for the government to close any door in the face of the Brotherhood's return to political life," noted Khalil al-Anani, a Washington-based expert on the movement.
The Islamic movement, which rose to political power 18 months ago and helped Morsi become president, suffered a significant blow after protests led to Morsi's ousting in July. It has been accused of inciting violence on several occasions, including urging radicals to attack Christian churches and property in retaliation for Morsi's ousting, but has mostly been driven underground by Egypt's interim government.
In September, Egyptian judges recommended that the Brotherhood be dissolved, accusing it of operating outside the law. The latest move, however, allows authorities the power to charge members or those supporting the Brotherhood with belonging to a terrorist organization.
The Muslim Brotherhood has spoken out against the bombings at the police station, something which was recognized by the White House.
"We condemn in the strongest terms the horrific, terrorist bombing yesterday. There can be no place for such violence. The Egyptian people deserve peace and calm. We also note that the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt condemned the bombing shortly after it occurred yesterday," State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said.
"We are concerned about the current atmosphere and its potential effects on a democratic transition in Egypt," she added.
The Islamic party has also been accused of using fraudulent means to help Morsi win the election in 2012, with accounts that it turned away Christians from the polls.
"I know this firsthand because I know folks on the ground. In thousands of villages, during the election, they stood with guns outside the polling booths. And if a Christian wanted to go in to vote, they would say 'You go in, and we'll kill you.' And so hundreds of thousands of Christians couldn't vote," Dr. Michael Youssef, founding pastor of the 3,000 member Church of the Apostles in Atlanta, shared in an interview with The Christian Post in July.
|
Date: Friday, December 20, 2013
The Iranian Air Force was set to launch large-scale drills Friday, as part of “annual exercises aimed at testing indigenous air defense systems, improving the units’ combat readiness and displaying the country’s military might and achievement,” according to a report in Iran’s semi-official Fars news agency.
The drills involve “different types of interceptor fighters, bomber fighters, transport aircraft and reconnaissance planes,” the air force’s deputy commander, Brig.-Gen. Alireza Barkhor, told Fars.
The exercises “seek to send a message of peace, friendship and security to the regional countries,” he added.
The drills came just as expert-level representatives from Iran and the P5+1 world powers were expected to resume nuclear talks in Geneva on Friday, for a second day of negotiations.
On Thursday, a bipartisan group of US senators introduced new sanctions legislation that the Iranians had warned could “kill” its interim nuclear agreement with the six world powers reached last month in the Swiss capital.
The bill, which came as talks over the implementation of the interim agreement resumed after a nearly week-long hiatus, would impose sanctions that will come into effect should Iran violate the interim deal or fail to reach a final agreement.
The Obama administration has campaigned heavily against such legislation, arguing that it would make a comprehensive deal with Tehran more difficult to achieve.
The White House on Thursday vowed to veto the legislation if it passes. Speaking an hour after the senators announced the bipartisan Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act, White House spokesman Jay Carney slammed the legislation, describing it as potentially “damaging and destructive to the diplomatic effort.”
Carney implied that lawmakers were out of step with American voters in proposing legislation that, he claimed, “will undermine our efforts to reach a diplomatic solution and greatly increase the chances for military action.
“I think that there is overwhelming support in the country and in this congress for a diplomatic resolution to this conflict,” added Carney.
Characterizing the legislation as “unnecessary,” he said that “if it passed, the president would veto it.”
Earlier Thursday, days after the Iranian government withdrew from the expert-level talks over the recent nuclear deal in protest at continued US punitive measures, the sides returned to the table in a bid to get the negotiations back on track.
The talks, brokered by representatives of the United States, China, Britain, France, Russia and Germany, revolve around the on-the-ground implementation of the guidelines established in the November 24 interim agreement.
While the talks were scheduled for December 19-20, Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister for Legal and International Affairs Abbas Araqchi told Fars that the meetings will continue through Saturday and Sunday if necessary.
The Iranian officials last met with representatives from the six world powers on December 12 in Vienna. However, following a decision by the US government to blacklist 19 companies for evading Iranian sanctions, the Iranian delegation cut the meetings short and flew back to Iran a day before negotiations were set to end, stating that the US move violated the interim agreement.
Days later, top Iranian officials reiterated their commitment to the diplomatic process.
“The process has been derailed, the process has not died,” Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif told CBS News on Sunday. “We are trying to put it back and to correct the path, and continue the negotiations, because I believe there is a lot at stake for everybody.”
Ali Akbar Velayati, a top adviser to Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was also quoted Tuesday saying that Iran was ready for a final agreement.
Under the interim agreement signed in Geneva last month, the world powers must ease sanctions against Iran while Iran is required to scale back its nuclear program over the course of six months. While the deal was heavily criticized by Israeli officials, the US and the additional world powers remain optimistic the interim deal will pave the way for a permanent agreement with the Iranian regime.
|
Date: Monday, December 16, 2013
BY TIMES OF ISRAEL STAFF December 16, 2013
President Barack Obama’s National Security Adviser Susan Rice hosted a series of meetings with Israeli officials over the weekend to discuss the Iranian nuclear deal signed in Geneva last month, Reuters reported Monday.
The talks were aimed at gaining Israeli support for the six-month interim deal which aims to scale back Tehran’s controversial nuclear program in exchange for an easing of international sanctions. The P5+1 world powers and Iran are currently in the midst of negotiations over a more comprehensive, long-term solution.
On Sunday, Iran’s foreign minister said his country would continue nuclear negotiations with world powers, even after pulling out of expert-level talks last week on technical details of last month’s interim deal to protest the US targeting companies it says evaded current sanctions.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Obama administration officials have publicly spared over the interim deal, which the prime minister has labeled a “historic mistake.”
“During the meetings, the US team reaffirmed President Obama’s goal of preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon,” the White House said in a statement.
Rice, along with other officials from the State Department and the Treasury, met with Netanyahu’s National Security Adviser Yossi Cohen and other Israeli officials in Washington on Thursday and Friday.
Reuters reported that the series of meetings were “an initial step toward fulfilling a promise Obama made to Netanyahu in their November 24 phone call that the United States would consult regarding the effort to forge a comprehensive solution with Iran.”
Some in the US Senate have lobbied for increased sanctions on Iran as negotiations for a comprehensive deal continue, a move Obama administration officials have warned would sabotage talks.
Last week, the Republican and Democratic leadership in the US House of Representatives failed to agree on a resolution that would have recommended parameters for the Iran talks.
Speaking at the Brookings Institute’s annual Saban Forum in Washington earlier this month, Obama said it was important for the US and the world to test Iranian intentions in the next six months.
“And if at the end of six months it turns out that we can’t make a deal, we’re no worse off, and in fact we have greater leverage with the international community to continue to apply sanctions and even strengthen them,” he said.
|
Date: Wednesday, December 11, 2013
Senior officials in the administration of President Barack Obama have conceded over the past few days in conversations with colleagues in Israel that the value of the economic sanctions relief to Iran could be much higher than originally thought in Washington, security sources in Israel told Haaretz.
In official statements by the United States immediately after the agreement limiting Iran’s nuclear program was signed in Geneva betweenIran and theF six powers at the end of November it was said that the economic relief Iran would receive in exchange for signing the agreement would be relatively low – $6 billion or $7 billion. Israeli assessments were much higher – about $20 billion at least.
The United States had originally intended to make do with unfreezing Iranian assets in the amount of $3 billion to $4 billion. But during negotiations in Geneva, the P5+1 countries backtracked from their opening position and approved much more significant relief in a wide variety of areas: commerce in gold, the Iranian petrochemical industry, the car industry and replacement parts for civilian aircraft. But the Americans said at the time that this would at most double the original amount.
However according to the Israeli version, the Americans now concede in their talks with Israel that the sanctions relief are worth much more. According to the security sources: “Economics is a matter of expectations. The Iranian stock exchange is already rising significantly and many countries are standing in line to renew economic ties with Iran based on what was already agreed in Geneva.” The sources mentioned China’s desire to renew contracts worth some $9 billion to develop the Iranian oil industry and the interest some German companies are showing for deals with Tehran. “In any case, it’s about 20 or 25 billion dollars. Even the Americans understand this,” the sources said.
The interim agreement is to come into force on January 15. Until then, Iran is not restricted in terms of moving ahead on its nuclear program. Israel was surprised by the public statement by Obama at theSaban Forum in Washington late last week, that the agreements allowed Iran to continue enriching uranium. This is seen as an unnecessary concession considering that negotiations with Iran are still underway. However, the Israeli leadership seems to be seeking to somewhat lower its contentious tones toward Washington after two weeks of public scuffling and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s most recent speech with regard to Iran, also to the Saban Forum, was relatively moderate.
But along with efforts to renew intelligence and diplomatic coordination between the two countries on the nuclear issue, tussles are expected to continue between Obama and Netanyahu in another important arena – the U.S. Congress. The administration is very concerned about the objections to the agreement in Geneva by senators and congress members on both sides of the aisle. A few prominent opponents of the agreement who are experts in foreign affairs and frequently express themselves on the Middle East have articulated doubts about the deal and have called for additional heavy sanctions on Iran if the accord falls through.
Although Israel has not said so publicly, it is clear that Netanyahu’s representatives have also been in touch with these lawmakers in recent weeks. Among them are Republican senators Lindsey Graham, John McCain and Mark Kirk and Congressman Eric Cantor and Democratic senators Chuck Schumer, Robert Menendez and Congressman Steny Hoyer.
The extent of the administrations’ concern can be seen in an editorial in Tuesday's New York Times. The paper reads as if it is quoting Obama’s messages on the Middle East. The article warned against the initiative of senators Kirk and Menendez to prepare new legislation that would complete the very effective sanctions moves they led against Iran a few years ago. According to the proposal, which has the behind-the-scenes support of senior Israeli officials, new sanctions would be instituted if at the end of the six months set out in the interim agreement a satisfactory arrangement is not reached with the Iranians.
The Times warns that the breakthrough attained in Geneva, which it calls the most positive development in relations between the United States and Iran in 30 years, will be put at risk by the initiatives in Congress. The interim agreement is “unquestionably a good deal,” which is preferable to military action and the paper joins the warnings issued both by the White House and the Iranian government against legislation that would sabotage the agreements implementation. According to the Times, moves by Kirk, Menendez and other senior officials are unnecessary and will “enrage the Iranians.” It seems that the U.S. lawmakers are not impressed by this prospect and Netanyahu even less so. In the American-Israeli dispute, the tones may be more muted, but the scene of the next clash is clear – Congress in Washington.
|
Date: Monday, December 9, 2013
(Reuters) - Iran is moving ahead with testing more efficient uranium enrichment technology, a spokesman for its atomic energy agency said on Saturday, in news that may concern world powers who last month agreed a deal to curb Tehran's atomic activities.
Spokesman Behrouz Kamalvandi was quoted by state news agency IRNA as saying that initial testing on a new generation of more sophisticated centrifuges had been completed, underlining Iran's determination to keep refining uranium in what it says is work to make fuel for a planned network of nuclear power plants.
Although the development does not appear to contravene the interim agreement struck between world powers and Iran last month, it may concern the West nonetheless, as the material can also provide the fissile core of a nuclear bomb if enriched to a high degree.
"The new generation of centrifuges was produced with a higher capacity compared with the first generation machines and we have completed initial tests," Kamalvandi was quoted as saying.
"The production of a new generation of centrifuges is in line with the (Iranian atomic energy) agency's approach of upgrading the quality of enrichment machines and increasing the rate of production by using the maximum infrastructure facilities".
Kamalvandi said the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) had been informed of the development.
Iran's development of a new generation of centrifuges - machines that spin at supersonic speed to increase the ratio of the fissile isotope - could enable it to refine uranium much faster.
Under the November 24 interim accord with the six world powers, Iran promised not to start operating them or install any more for a period of six months. But the agreement seems to allow it to continue with research and development activity at a nearby Natanz pilot plant.
Iran earlier this year stoked the West's worries by starting to install a new centrifuge - the IR-2m - at its Natanz enrichment plant. Iran is testing the IR-2m and other models at its research and development facility at Natanz.
Kamalvandi did not specify whether the new centrifuge model he was referring to was the IR-2m.
It is currently using a 1970s model, the IR1, to refine uranium at the main Natanz plant and its efforts to replace this breakdown-prone centrifuge are being closely watched.
Some experts believe the IR-2m can enrich uranium 2-3 times faster than the IR-1.
U.N. inspectors arrived in Tehran on Saturday and are due for the first time in more than two years to visit a plant linked to a planned heavy-water reactor that could yield nuclear bomb fuel, taking up an initial gesture by Iran to open its disputed nuclear programme up to greater scrutiny.
(Reporting by Isabel Coles in Dubai and Fredrik Dahl in Vienna; Editing by Sonya Hepinstall)
|
Date: Friday, December 6, 2013
(Reuters) - The Palestinians rejected ideas raised by visiting U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry on Thursday for security arrangements under a possible future peace accord with Israel, a Palestinian official said.
There was no immediate response from the United States or Israel, which has long insisted on keeping swathes of its West Bank settlements, as well as a military presence on the territory's eastern boundary with Jordan, under any peace deal.
The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity and declined to elaborate on the proposals, said Kerry presented them to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas after discussing them separately with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
"The Palestinian side rejected them because they would only lead to prolonging and maintaining the occupation," the official told Reuters, referring to Israel's hold on the West Bank, where, along with Gaza and East Jerusalem, Palestinians seek an independent state.
In remarks to reporters after his three-hour meeting with Abbas in the West Bank hub city of Ramallah, Kerry commended "his steadfast commitment to stay at the peace negotiations, despite the difficulties that he and the Palestinians have perceived in the process".
Kerry said they had discussed "at great length issues of security in the region, security for the state of Israel, security for a future Palestine".
PESSIMISM
"I think the interests are very similar, but there are questions of sovereignty, questions of respect and dignity which are obviously significant to the Palestinians, and for the Israelis very serious questions of security and also of longer-term issues of how we end this conflict once and for all," he added.
Abbas did not join Kerry at the Ramallah media appearance.
Disputes over proposed Israeli land handovers have bedevilled peace efforts for two decades, along with other issues like the status of Jerusalem and fate of Palestinian refugees. Kerry revived the talks in July and set a nine-month target for an accord, but both sides have signalled pessimism.
Palestinians worry that Israel's settlements - deemed illegal by most world powers - will not leave room for a viable state. Israelis question whether Abbas could commit the rival, armed Palestinian Hamas Islamists who govern Gaza to coexistence with the Jewish state.
Kerry, who met Netanyahu earlier on Thursday and returned to Jerusalem in the evening to confer again with the Israeli leader, said "some progress" had been made in the peace talks.
Acknowledging Israel's fear that ceding the West Bank could make it vulnerable to attack, Kerry said he offered Netanyahu "some thoughts about that particular security challenge".
Neither he nor Netanyahu gave further details, citing the need to keep the diplomacy discreet. Both described Israeli security as paramount, something Netanyahu said would require that his country "be able to defend itself by itself".
Israel quit Gaza unilaterally in 2005, after which Hamas came to power. The sides have repeatedly exchanged fire since.
Israeli media have reported that Kerry's proposals included security arrangements for the Jordan Valley, between the West Bank and Jordan. An Israeli official said that in recent weeks U.S. officials had visited Jordan Valley crossing points.
Kerry was due to depart on Friday after a helicopter tour of the West Bank and other areas with Israeli Defence Minister Moshe Yaalon. In Ramallah, Kerry said he may return to the region for more talks next week "depending on where we are".
"So the discussions will go on, the effort will continue, and our hopes with them for the possibilities of peace for the region," he said.
(Writing by Dan Williams; Editing by Mark Heinrich)
|
Date: Wednesday, December 4, 2013
By Jeffrey Goldberg Dec 3, 2013 5:11 PM ET
The interim nuclear agreement between the Great Powers (such as they are) and Iran is creating a lot of anxiety for people who support the deal, because not much proof has been offered to suggest that it will actually work. And by “not much proof,” I mean, “no proof.”
Why support it, then? Because, so far, the remote possibility that this agreement will lead to the denuclearization of Iran beats the alternative: military action by the U.S. or, worse, by Israel. All options should be on the table, but, really, the military option could be disastrous.
Here are six reasons to be worried about the strength of this interim deal. These worries have to do with the particulars of the agreement, but also with the reality of the Iranian nuclear program, which is already quite well developed.
1. The deal isn’t done. Remember the photos from Geneva of smiling foreign ministers slapping backs and hugging in celebration of their epic achievement? Well, nothing was actually signed. The deal is not, as of this moment, even operational.
U.S. State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki was asked a question last week about when the deal might actually take effect. “The next step here is a continuation of technical discussions at a working level so that we can essentially tee up the implementation of the agreement. So that would involve the P5+1 -- a commission of the P5+1 experts working with the Iranians and the IAEA," shesaid, referring to the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council plus Germany and the International Atomic Energy Agency. "Obviously, once that’s -- those technical discussions are worked through, I guess the clock would start.”
Focus on those last words for a second: “I guess the clock would start.” Do words like those make you worried, or is it just me? What this means is that Iran, at this moment, is still not compelled to freeze any of its nuclear program in place. I’m not sure why American negotiators would leave Geneva without having a fully implemented agreement. I understand that the technical hurdles to implementation are daunting. But equally daunting is the realization that the Iranians are going about their business as if they’ve promised nothing.
2. Momentum for sanctions is waning. It's true that the economic relief the Iranians will receive in this deal is modest, but it is also true that many nations, many companies and the Iranians themselves are seeing this agreement as the beginning of the end of the sanctions regime. Iran is already making a push to recapture its dominant role in the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries. U.S. officials believe they can hold the line on sanctions, but it is reasonable to assume that they will come under increasing pressure from countries such as South Korea, Japan, India and China, which could very easily convince themselves that Iran is preparing to act in a more responsible manner (after all, it replaced its snarling, Holocaust-denying president with a smiling, savvy president) and should be reopened for business.
3. The (still unenforced) document agreed upon in Geneva promises Iran an eventual exit from nuclear monitoring. The final (theoretical) deal, the document states, will “have a specified long-term duration to be agreed upon,” after which the Iranian nuclear program “will be treated in the same manner as that of any non-nuclear weapon state” that is part of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. From what I’m told, the U.S. hopes this eventual agreement, should it come to pass, would last 15 years; the Iranians hope to escape this burden in five. After the agreement loses its legal force, Iran could run however many centrifuges it chooses to run. This is not a comforting idea.
4. The biggest concession to the Iranians might have already been made. Although it is the West’s position that it has not granted Iran the so-called right to enrich, the text of the interim agreement states that the permanent deal will “involve a mutually defined enrichment program with mutually agreed parameters.” Essentially, Barack Obama's administration has already conceded, before the main round of negotiations, that Iran is going to end up with the right to enrich. Realists would argue that Iran will end up with that “right” no matter what, but it seems premature to cede the point now.
Understanding Iran's Uranium Enrichment
5. The Geneva agreement only makes the most elliptical references to two indispensable components of any nuclear-weapons program. The entire agreement is focused on the fuel cycle, but there is no promise by Iran in this interim deal to abstain from pursuing work on ballistic missiles or on weaponization. A nuclear weapons program has three main components: the fuel, the warhead and the delivery system. Iran is free, in the coming six-month period of the interim deal, to do whatever it pleases on missiles and warhead development.
6. The Iranians are so close to reaching the nuclear threshold anyway -- defined here as the ability to make a dash to a bomb within one or two months from the moment the supreme leader decides he wants one -- that freezing in place much of the nuclear program seems increasingly futile. When asked this week by al-Jazeera about the impact of sanctions, the very smart Iranian foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, said, “When sanctions started Iran had less than 200 centrifuges. Today Iran has 19,000 centrifuges so the net product of the sanctions has been about 18,800 centrifuges that has been added to the Iran's stock of centrifuges, so sanctions have utterly failed.”
Zarif is wrong in one regard: Sanctions placed the Iranian economy under enough pressure to force its negotiators to Geneva. But he is right when he asserts that Iran moved closer to nuclear breakout at the same time it was suffering under what Obama has long called “crippling sanctions.”
One of Israel’s most prominent experts on the Iranian nuclear program, a former military intelligence chief named Amos Yadlin, said this week that “Iran is on the verge of producing a bomb. It’s sad, but it’s a fact.” Yadlin suggested that no one, and no agreement, can stop Iran from reaching the nuclear threshold. I fear he is right.
There are, of course, compelling arguments to be made -- and ones that have already been made -- by the Obama administration and its foreign partners in favor of this deal. Because I am both fair and balanced, I will do my best to represent those arguments in a coming post.
|
