Raymond E. Stauffer was shopping at a New Jersey mall when he noticed something peculiar about the bow ties on display at Brooks Brothers: They were labeled with old patent numbers.
Mr. Stauffer, who calls himself a "sharp-dressed man," also happens to be a patent lawyer. He sued Brooks Brothers Inc. in federal court, claiming it broke the law by marking its adjustable bow ties with patents that expired in the 1950s.
Matthew Craig/The Wall Street Journal
A Brooks Brothers bow tie
.He figured the retailer would have to pay a nominal amount for violating a law that bars companies from marking products with erroneous patent numbers.
A federal appellate court ruling on Tuesday breathed new life into his case by upholding his right to sue—and could pave the way for hundreds of similar suits against major companies to move forward. A separate ruling in December raised the stakes in such cases, potentially exposing product makers to huge liabilities.
Already, lawsuits claiming false patent markings have been brought against companies that make turkey pop-up timers, toilet plungers, fabric softener, flashlights, staplers, Frisbees, kites, telecommunications equipment, bubble gum and a toy called The Original Wooly Willy.
Defendants include companies such as Procter & Gamble, Bayer Healthcare LLC, Cisco Systems, Scientific-Atlanta, Merck & Co., Pfizer Inc., 3M Co., DirecTV, Medtronic Inc. Merck said no one was available to comment. The other companies didn't respond to requests for comment.
Marking a tube of toothpaste or paper cup with a patent that is out of date or doesn't exist has been against the law for years. It is considered anticompetitive. Until late last year, the most a violator had to worry about was paying a $500 penalty for misleading the public.
But in December, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington ruled that defendants could be held responsible for up to $500 per offense.
.Lawyers for product manufacturers now fear clients are liable for up to $500 for every tube of mascara or box of garbage bags marked with an expired patent—an error that turns out to be quite common.
In recent months, would-be plaintiffs have been fanning out across retail stores and the Internet searching for expired patent numbers on everything from toothpaste to toilet plungers.
"It absolutely is a startling development in the interpretation of that provision," says Michael C. Smith, a defense lawyer from Marshall, Texas, who is representing Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and mouse-trap maker Kness Mfg. Co. in suits claiming false patent marking. "A lot of these products always have patent numbers on them, and it never occurred to anyone to take them off."
Mr. Smith, who declined to discuss the lawsuits he is handling, says he generally advises clients: "Now is a good time for you to have somebody run down your products" and check their patent numbers.
Patents have a life span of 17 or 20 years. To keep them valid, companies must pay maintenance fees every four years. Once they expire, the holder is expected to remove the numbers from products.
According to Chicago-based merchant bank Ocean Tomo, which tracks patent suits, nearly 350 federal lawsuits have been filed since the December appellate court ruling.
Would-be plaintiffs have been searching retail stores and the Internet for expired patents, then filing lawsuits against product makers. Suits have been filed over allegedly erroneous patent numbers on such products as Etch A Sketch toys, Crest toothpaste, Depend underwear and L'Oréal mascara.
Matthew Craig/The Wall Street Journal
..Some of the suits have been dismissed. Many had been stayed, pending the outcome of Mr. Stauffer's case against Brooks Brothers.
On Tuesday, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court ruling that had dismissed Mr. Stauffer's case saying he didn't have standing to bring it.
"Every plaintiff who brings one of these cases is a private attorney general who is doing a service to the United States, and I'm doing the same," says Mr. Stauffer, a lawyer in Roseland, N.J.
Brooks Brothers and a lawyer who represents it in the case didn't respond to requests for comment.
The way Mr. Stauffer calculates it, the liability could be huge. Brooks Brothers had erroneously marked 120 different styles of ties, which sell for about $45 to $100 a piece, according to Mr. Stauffer. He says he doesn't know how many individual ties were falsely marked.
"I would have settled this case for $25,000 back in December of 2008," Mr. Stauffer says. "Brooks Brothers, however, seemed eager to want to litigate the case, and I was delighted to give them the opportunity."
So far, none of the suits have reaped the gigantic awards that plaintiffs say could be possible.
But corporations are spooked, according to numerous attorneys who represent manufacturers of consumer products. They are checking the status of patents and scrambling to review the product lines on shelves to be sure labeling is up-to-date. And they are contacting suppliers to make sure their patents are valid.
"These cases have forced companies to spend time, money and resources investigating claims where there really isn't any injury to anybody," says Chicago lawyer Jason C. White, who is defending more than a dozen companies from such suits. "Companies are spending a lot of time investigating this, even ones who haven't been sued. It has captured the attention of a large cross section of corporate America."
Some of the cases have settled because companies fear a bad outcome or don't want to incur large legal fees fighting them.
"You're paying the hostage fee," says Mark Willard, a lawyer who represented hand-tool manufacturer Ames True Temper Co. in a suit involving a shrub rake. "It was manufactured in China using an old mold that still had the expired patent number on it," says Mr. Willard, adding that the company has long had in place a policy of monitoring patents. "This one fell through the cracks."
The company settled the case for an undisclosed amount. Mr. Willard says the suit has cost the company in other ways. Ames had to thoroughly review its inventory to be sure more outdated patents weren't on the market. "They have a very large product line," he says.
One defendant, Solo Cup Co., was accused in a lawsuit of erroneously marking 21 billion items, including lids for Starbucks coffee cups. The company had more than 3,000 molds for its products that were stamped with the erroneous patents, and they had a plan in place to phase out the molds, according to filings in the case. Solo declined to comment.
The suits are affecting how companies tend their intellectual property. Robert Koch, an intellectual-property lawyer in Washington, says he advises his clients to stop marking patents on their products. That would limit companies' ability to seek damages from infringers. But it eliminates having to closely monitor every package and brochure to avoid a lawsuit.
The law on false patent markings is similar to whistle-blower laws. Anyone can file a claim on behalf of the government, and plaintiffs must split any fine award evenly with it. The Justice Department has argued on the side of plaintiffs in some of the claims.
"We do think that these suits have directed industry attention to the need to adopt procedures to assure that patent markings are accurate and to remove the numbers of expired patents from products," says Charles Miller, a Justice Department spokesman. "This should result in more accurate information on products and their packaging, which would be beneficial to consumers."
The people behind the suits say they see themselves as consumer advocates, helping to protect legitimate inventors from giant corporations who are pretending to have patents to keep competitors from stepping on their turf.
"It chills competition, it misleads the public and takes away from the credit patent holders deserve," says Daniel Ravicher, founder and executive director of New York nonprofit Public Patent Foundation, which has filed numerous suits.
Mr. Ravicher says he found one defendant, Johnson & Johnson's McNeil-PPC unit, by perusing his local drugstore shelves, where he found a bottle of Tylenol he says had an expired patent. Johnson & Johnson declined to comment.
L'Oréal USA Inc. has been hit with at least two suits over its Double Extend Mascara. One of the tubes with an expired patent was still on the shelves of a Midtown Manhattan pharmacy last week. L'Oréal declined to comment.
The lawsuits have been filed by relatively few people or entities, many of whom have close ties to plaintiffs' lawyers who work on patent suits. Some are filed in the name of organizations owned by patent attorneys.
One plaintiff, Sarah Tompkins, who has sued more than a dozen companies, is the wife of Allen, Texas, patent lawyer George Tompkins.
Mr. Tompkins says he heard about the December federal-court ruling from lawyer friends. He and his wife then spent hours poring over Internet advertising to check for outdated patents on products, a process that can be relatively simple because patents are numbered chronologically. Patents that start with the number 4, for example, have expired in recent years.
The couple trekked to retail stores to find falsely marked products on shelves. Their lawsuit against multiple companies also contains false advertising claims.
"We decided what companies were doing was wrong, so we filed a lawsuit," Mr. Tompkins says.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
U.S. Auto Sales May Hit 28-Year Low as Discounts Flop
U.S. auto sales in August probably were the slowest for the month in 28 years as model-year closeout deals failed to entice consumers concerned the economy is worsening and they may lose their jobs.
Industrywide deliveries, to be released tomorrow, may have reached an annualized rate of 11.6 million vehicles this month, the average of eight analysts’ estimates compiled by Bloomberg. That would be the slowest August since 1982, according to researcher Ward’s AutoInfoBank. The rate would be 18 percent below last year’s 14.2 million pace, when the U.S. government’s “cash for clunkers” incentive program boosted sales.
“Home sales are way down, the stock market is way down, the unemployment report is very disappointing and consumer confidence is sputtering,” Jesse Toprak, vice president of industry trends at TrueCar.com, said in an interview. “People just don’t want to make big-ticket purchases because they’re uncertain about their jobs and the value of their homes.”
While automakers increased discounts by 1 percent from July to an average of $2,864 per vehicle, sales to individuals probably fell 7 percent from last month, according to Santa Monica, California-based TrueCar.
Consumers are avoiding showrooms as fear of a double-dip recession grows following the 27 percent plunge in existing home sales in July, said Mike Wall, an analyst for IHS Automotive. The U.S. unemployment rate in July held at 9.5 percent, near a 26-year high of 10.1 percent. The Conference Board’s consumer sentiment index, due to be reported today, was little-changed this month at 50.9 after 50.4 in July, according to the median forecast in a Bloomberg survey.
‘Tough Sell’
“When you’ve got that sentiment, that fear hanging over the market, it makes it a tough sell for consumers” to spend $25,000 or more on a vehicle, said Wall, who is based in Grand Rapids, Michigan.
Ford Motor Co. may have posted a smaller sales decline from last August than the overall industry, and Chrysler Group LLC may have increased deliveries.
Ford, helped by new models such as the Fiesta small car, will post a 5.2 percent sales drop, the average of six analysts’ estimates. Chrysler, aided by deliveries to large buyers such as rental-car companies, will have sales increase 3 percent, the average of six estimates. General Motors Co. will fall 19 percent, the average of four estimates, in line with the industrywide drop.
Ford doesn’t expect a double-dip recession, and sales to fleet buyers have been “robust” this year, said Mark Fields, the automaker’s president of the Americas.
“We’ve said it’s going to be a modest recovery,” Fields said Aug. 25. “We’re seeing a modest recovery.”
Fleet Sales
Sales to rental-car companies, business and government, also known as fleet sales, will account for 20 percent of August deliveries, up from 15 percent in July, Credit Suisse Group AG auto analyst Chris Ceraso wrote in an Aug. 26 report.
Fleet sales, especially to rental-car companies, have helped prop up the market as individual customers stay away, said Sophia Koropeckyj, managing director of Moody’s Analytics.
“Consumers are still under a considerable amount of strain and they do not have much appetite or ability to purchase new vehicles,” said Koropeckyj, who is based in West Chester, Pennsylvania.
Sales in August have dropped from July at Carl Galeana’s three Chrysler dealerships in Michigan, South Carolina and Florida.
‘Doom and Gloom’
“There’s still that psychology out there of doom and gloom,” he said. “People who are buying the cars now, need to buy a car. If you don’t need to buy a car, you’re probably sitting back.”
United Auto Workers President Bob King said Congress needs to pass a stimulus package that creates jobs and bolsters consumer confidence.
Auto sales “are not going as well as they should,” King told reporters Aug. 27 in Wayne, Michigan. “Consumers are not going to buy vehicles if they don’t have jobs or aren’t confident in their job.”
Sales by Japanese automakers, which benefited from the “cash for clunkers” program, will fall more than the overall market, analysts said. Toyota Motor Corp.’s deliveries may drop 29 percent and Honda Motor Co. may decline 27 percent, the average of four analysts’ estimates. Nissan Motor Co.’s sales may slide 24 percent, the average of four estimates.
Toyota’s share of the U.S. auto market will sink to 15.6 percent from 17.9 percent a year ago, the largest decline among major automakers, TrueCar estimates. Toyota recalled 1.1 million Corolla and Matrix models last week for problems with stalling, which adds to the more than 8 million vehicles it recalled in the last year for defects linked to unintended acceleration.
‘Surprisingly Weak’
Toyota’s “surprisingly weak” sales also could be driven by “sharply increased competition from Honda, which started offering very generous deals to buyers,” Barclays Capital analyst Brian Johnson wrote in a note last week.
Honda boosted discounts by 66 percent from a year earlier while Nissan raised incentives 28 percent, and Toyota lifted them 27 percent, TrueCar said.
Chrysler was the only U.S. automaker to reduce sales discounts from last year, with a 22 percent decline, while its average of $3,798 per vehicle still was the highest in the industry, according to TrueCar.
U.S. Incentives
GM increased incentives 18 percent to $3,763 per vehicle and Ford boosted discounts by 25 percent to $3,008 per vehicle, according to TrueCar.
“The deals are out there,” said Jessica Caldwell, director of pricing and industry analysis for researcher Edmunds.com in Santa Monica, California. “People just can’t be bought or enticed.”
Frank Ursomarso, a GMC-Buick and Honda dealer in Wilmington, Delaware, said he is doubling his marketing budget to try to stimulate sales. He’s offering no-money-down leases, a back-to-school discount to teachers and advertising a $6-a-day payment on Honda Civics.
“I’m sick and tired of just sitting there day after day and getting beaten down,” Ursomarso said. “It’s a big risk because it’s a lot of money to be spending at a time like this. But I can’t stand this anymore. I’m going to fight.”
The following table shows estimates for car and light-truck sales in the U.S. Estimates for companies are a percentage change from August 2009. Forecasts for the seasonally adjusted annual rate, or SAAR, are in millions of vehicles.
The estimates are based on daily selling rates. August had 25 selling days, one less than last year.
GM Ford Chrysler SAAR
Rod Lache NA -7% -2% 11.5
(Deutsche Bank)
Jesse Toprak -22% -8% -2% 11.7
(TrueCar.com)
Joseph Barker NA NA NA 11.6
(IHS Automotive)
Jessica Caldwell -20% -7% 12% 11.8
(Edmunds.com)
Jeff Schuster NA NA NA 11.6
(J.D. Power)
Brian Johnson -17% 0% 9% 11.5
(Barclays Capital)
Christopher Ceraso -18% -4% 4% 11.7
(Credit Suisse)
Patrick Archambault NA -5% -3% 11.4
(Goldman Sachs)
Average -19% -5.2% 3% 11.6
Industrywide deliveries, to be released tomorrow, may have reached an annualized rate of 11.6 million vehicles this month, the average of eight analysts’ estimates compiled by Bloomberg. That would be the slowest August since 1982, according to researcher Ward’s AutoInfoBank. The rate would be 18 percent below last year’s 14.2 million pace, when the U.S. government’s “cash for clunkers” incentive program boosted sales.
“Home sales are way down, the stock market is way down, the unemployment report is very disappointing and consumer confidence is sputtering,” Jesse Toprak, vice president of industry trends at TrueCar.com, said in an interview. “People just don’t want to make big-ticket purchases because they’re uncertain about their jobs and the value of their homes.”
While automakers increased discounts by 1 percent from July to an average of $2,864 per vehicle, sales to individuals probably fell 7 percent from last month, according to Santa Monica, California-based TrueCar.
Consumers are avoiding showrooms as fear of a double-dip recession grows following the 27 percent plunge in existing home sales in July, said Mike Wall, an analyst for IHS Automotive. The U.S. unemployment rate in July held at 9.5 percent, near a 26-year high of 10.1 percent. The Conference Board’s consumer sentiment index, due to be reported today, was little-changed this month at 50.9 after 50.4 in July, according to the median forecast in a Bloomberg survey.
‘Tough Sell’
“When you’ve got that sentiment, that fear hanging over the market, it makes it a tough sell for consumers” to spend $25,000 or more on a vehicle, said Wall, who is based in Grand Rapids, Michigan.
Ford Motor Co. may have posted a smaller sales decline from last August than the overall industry, and Chrysler Group LLC may have increased deliveries.
Ford, helped by new models such as the Fiesta small car, will post a 5.2 percent sales drop, the average of six analysts’ estimates. Chrysler, aided by deliveries to large buyers such as rental-car companies, will have sales increase 3 percent, the average of six estimates. General Motors Co. will fall 19 percent, the average of four estimates, in line with the industrywide drop.
Ford doesn’t expect a double-dip recession, and sales to fleet buyers have been “robust” this year, said Mark Fields, the automaker’s president of the Americas.
“We’ve said it’s going to be a modest recovery,” Fields said Aug. 25. “We’re seeing a modest recovery.”
Fleet Sales
Sales to rental-car companies, business and government, also known as fleet sales, will account for 20 percent of August deliveries, up from 15 percent in July, Credit Suisse Group AG auto analyst Chris Ceraso wrote in an Aug. 26 report.
Fleet sales, especially to rental-car companies, have helped prop up the market as individual customers stay away, said Sophia Koropeckyj, managing director of Moody’s Analytics.
“Consumers are still under a considerable amount of strain and they do not have much appetite or ability to purchase new vehicles,” said Koropeckyj, who is based in West Chester, Pennsylvania.
Sales in August have dropped from July at Carl Galeana’s three Chrysler dealerships in Michigan, South Carolina and Florida.
‘Doom and Gloom’
“There’s still that psychology out there of doom and gloom,” he said. “People who are buying the cars now, need to buy a car. If you don’t need to buy a car, you’re probably sitting back.”
United Auto Workers President Bob King said Congress needs to pass a stimulus package that creates jobs and bolsters consumer confidence.
Auto sales “are not going as well as they should,” King told reporters Aug. 27 in Wayne, Michigan. “Consumers are not going to buy vehicles if they don’t have jobs or aren’t confident in their job.”
Sales by Japanese automakers, which benefited from the “cash for clunkers” program, will fall more than the overall market, analysts said. Toyota Motor Corp.’s deliveries may drop 29 percent and Honda Motor Co. may decline 27 percent, the average of four analysts’ estimates. Nissan Motor Co.’s sales may slide 24 percent, the average of four estimates.
Toyota’s share of the U.S. auto market will sink to 15.6 percent from 17.9 percent a year ago, the largest decline among major automakers, TrueCar estimates. Toyota recalled 1.1 million Corolla and Matrix models last week for problems with stalling, which adds to the more than 8 million vehicles it recalled in the last year for defects linked to unintended acceleration.
‘Surprisingly Weak’
Toyota’s “surprisingly weak” sales also could be driven by “sharply increased competition from Honda, which started offering very generous deals to buyers,” Barclays Capital analyst Brian Johnson wrote in a note last week.
Honda boosted discounts by 66 percent from a year earlier while Nissan raised incentives 28 percent, and Toyota lifted them 27 percent, TrueCar said.
Chrysler was the only U.S. automaker to reduce sales discounts from last year, with a 22 percent decline, while its average of $3,798 per vehicle still was the highest in the industry, according to TrueCar.
U.S. Incentives
GM increased incentives 18 percent to $3,763 per vehicle and Ford boosted discounts by 25 percent to $3,008 per vehicle, according to TrueCar.
“The deals are out there,” said Jessica Caldwell, director of pricing and industry analysis for researcher Edmunds.com in Santa Monica, California. “People just can’t be bought or enticed.”
Frank Ursomarso, a GMC-Buick and Honda dealer in Wilmington, Delaware, said he is doubling his marketing budget to try to stimulate sales. He’s offering no-money-down leases, a back-to-school discount to teachers and advertising a $6-a-day payment on Honda Civics.
“I’m sick and tired of just sitting there day after day and getting beaten down,” Ursomarso said. “It’s a big risk because it’s a lot of money to be spending at a time like this. But I can’t stand this anymore. I’m going to fight.”
The following table shows estimates for car and light-truck sales in the U.S. Estimates for companies are a percentage change from August 2009. Forecasts for the seasonally adjusted annual rate, or SAAR, are in millions of vehicles.
The estimates are based on daily selling rates. August had 25 selling days, one less than last year.
GM Ford Chrysler SAAR
Rod Lache NA -7% -2% 11.5
(Deutsche Bank)
Jesse Toprak -22% -8% -2% 11.7
(TrueCar.com)
Joseph Barker NA NA NA 11.6
(IHS Automotive)
Jessica Caldwell -20% -7% 12% 11.8
(Edmunds.com)
Jeff Schuster NA NA NA 11.6
(J.D. Power)
Brian Johnson -17% 0% 9% 11.5
(Barclays Capital)
Christopher Ceraso -18% -4% 4% 11.7
(Credit Suisse)
Patrick Archambault NA -5% -3% 11.4
(Goldman Sachs)
Average -19% -5.2% 3% 11.6
Monday, August 30, 2010
Google in talks with major studios to rent movies via YouTube
The Financial Times is reporting that Google is in talks with major Hollywood studios to bring streaming movie rentals from their catalogs to YouTube by the end of the year. Citing multiple sources with knowledge of the plans, the FT claims that the YouTube on-demand video service will probably launch first in the US, and will offer movies, simultaneous with the DVD release, for about $5.
The movies won't be downloadable, so you'll need a live Internet connection to watch them. But the lack of a download capability isn't as big of a deal as you might think at first. The recently launched Google TV platform, which brings YouTube directly to Internet-connected televisions, presumes a constant Internet connection, so the rumored streaming rental model is a perfect fit for it.
Unbeknownst to most users, YouTube has actually been offering streaming movie rentals from a number of smaller studios since January. YouTube then began quietly expanding the service to a wider number of content partners, adding not just indie films but some major movie releases to its catalog. What will launch later in the year, then, will presumably be a version of the service with most or all of the major studios on board.
The FT's story comes at a time when Apple is set to make a major music-related announcement next week, amid rumors of an A4-based AppleTV built around a new streaming platform.
The movies won't be downloadable, so you'll need a live Internet connection to watch them. But the lack of a download capability isn't as big of a deal as you might think at first. The recently launched Google TV platform, which brings YouTube directly to Internet-connected televisions, presumes a constant Internet connection, so the rumored streaming rental model is a perfect fit for it.
Unbeknownst to most users, YouTube has actually been offering streaming movie rentals from a number of smaller studios since January. YouTube then began quietly expanding the service to a wider number of content partners, adding not just indie films but some major movie releases to its catalog. What will launch later in the year, then, will presumably be a version of the service with most or all of the major studios on board.
The FT's story comes at a time when Apple is set to make a major music-related announcement next week, amid rumors of an A4-based AppleTV built around a new streaming platform.
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Iran develops primitive flying bombs for Israeli cities, nearby US targets
After watching the performance of Iran's new, locally-produced Karrar bomber drone, debkafile's military sources summed it up as a primitive copy of an obsolete unmanned US cruise missile from the 1950s that was derived from the V1 "buzz bomb" which the Germans fired against London at the end of World War II. Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made a big production of unveiling the Karrar (Ambassador of Death) Aug. 22 in a showy ceremony.
Even so, Western intelligence sources believe that mass-produced with extended range, large swarms of these flying bombs could cause death and destruction if released over densely populated Israeli areas and US military facilities and warships in the Persian Gulf, Iraq and Afghanistan.
They would be fired from automatic anti-air artillery or dropped from Iran's outdated F-4 Phantom warplanes. Neither the Israeli Arrow nor the US Patriot missile interceptors are designed for unsophisticated flying bombs. And, if the Iranian claims of its 1,000-kilometer range is exaggerated and it can only reach 400-600 kilometers - short of Israel - the experts believe the Ambassador of Death could be transferred to the Hizballah in Lebanon or fired from an Iranian vessel opposite the Israeli coast.
In any case, American targets around Iran's borders and coasts could be threatened.
Iran's development of this UAV and the possibility of it reaching terrorist hands in Lebanon have sent Israel Air force missile and air defense experts to the drawing board for solutions.
it is possible the may look at reviving the development of the US-Israeli Nautilus Tactical High Energy Laser, a project US and Israel armed forces abandoned in 2006 because of the prohibitive cost of development and inconclusive evidence of its effectiveness. However, its purpose as a weapon and radar guidance system capable of firing highly concentrated laser beams that can destroy low-flying missiles and artillery and mortar rounds, could work against the Iranian Karrar.
While no more than a primitive flying bomb, the Iranian UAV's effectiveness against urban and large targets is undeniable in the same way as small speedboats can menace a large aircraft carrier. The Iranians have fitted it without strong, new jet engines as well as advanced flight control and GBS navigating systems. Ahmadinejad boasted that the Ambassador of Death carries four cruise missiles. As far as is known to Western intelligence, Iran has never fully mastered cruise missile technology.
The UAV he exhibited with such pride lags far behind the products turned out by the US and Israel, which are capable of hovering over a target for 50 hours at a stretch and following orders either to collect intelligence or attack relayed from ground stations thousands of miles away.
The Iranian Karrar cannot return to base or undertake a second mission after its first which is to do the work of a small airborne bomb. The only big difference is that its approach on target is silent and therefore an unwelcome surprise to its victims.
Neither Israeli nor American strategists take its menace lightly.
Six months ago, US Defense Secretary Robert Gates commented: "Those Iranian drones are a concern because it is one of these areas where, if they chose to - in Iraq, in Afghanistan - they could create difficulties for us."
Even so, Western intelligence sources believe that mass-produced with extended range, large swarms of these flying bombs could cause death and destruction if released over densely populated Israeli areas and US military facilities and warships in the Persian Gulf, Iraq and Afghanistan.
They would be fired from automatic anti-air artillery or dropped from Iran's outdated F-4 Phantom warplanes. Neither the Israeli Arrow nor the US Patriot missile interceptors are designed for unsophisticated flying bombs. And, if the Iranian claims of its 1,000-kilometer range is exaggerated and it can only reach 400-600 kilometers - short of Israel - the experts believe the Ambassador of Death could be transferred to the Hizballah in Lebanon or fired from an Iranian vessel opposite the Israeli coast.
In any case, American targets around Iran's borders and coasts could be threatened.
Iran's development of this UAV and the possibility of it reaching terrorist hands in Lebanon have sent Israel Air force missile and air defense experts to the drawing board for solutions.
it is possible the may look at reviving the development of the US-Israeli Nautilus Tactical High Energy Laser, a project US and Israel armed forces abandoned in 2006 because of the prohibitive cost of development and inconclusive evidence of its effectiveness. However, its purpose as a weapon and radar guidance system capable of firing highly concentrated laser beams that can destroy low-flying missiles and artillery and mortar rounds, could work against the Iranian Karrar.
While no more than a primitive flying bomb, the Iranian UAV's effectiveness against urban and large targets is undeniable in the same way as small speedboats can menace a large aircraft carrier. The Iranians have fitted it without strong, new jet engines as well as advanced flight control and GBS navigating systems. Ahmadinejad boasted that the Ambassador of Death carries four cruise missiles. As far as is known to Western intelligence, Iran has never fully mastered cruise missile technology.
The UAV he exhibited with such pride lags far behind the products turned out by the US and Israel, which are capable of hovering over a target for 50 hours at a stretch and following orders either to collect intelligence or attack relayed from ground stations thousands of miles away.
The Iranian Karrar cannot return to base or undertake a second mission after its first which is to do the work of a small airborne bomb. The only big difference is that its approach on target is silent and therefore an unwelcome surprise to its victims.
Neither Israeli nor American strategists take its menace lightly.
Six months ago, US Defense Secretary Robert Gates commented: "Those Iranian drones are a concern because it is one of these areas where, if they chose to - in Iraq, in Afghanistan - they could create difficulties for us."
Potential of 4 Billion Barrels of Oil Offshore
More optimistic reports continue to flow from the giant Leviathan energy field off the Haifa coast. Following previous higher estimates of gas and “signs of oil,” the latest report points to a potential of 4 billion barrels of “black gold.”
The ramifications of the discovery are immense. If the estimates materialize, Israel will become self-sufficient in energy, enjoy a boon of employment for engineers and laborers, and will become an exporter of gas and oil. The shekel, barring a conflict with Hizbullah or Iran, may become rock-solid, dropping the representative rate; Israel's shekel is now worth about 26.3 cents (3.8 shekels) to the dollar.
The announcement of the new estimates states that there is a 17 percent chance of finding reserves equal to 3 billion barrels of oil at a depth of slightly more than a mile undersea. The oil field is slightly beneath the mammoth gas reserves that already have been estimated to contain 13 trillion cubic feet of gas.
There also is an 8 percent chance that another 1.2 billion barrels exist at an even lower level. Earlier this month, oil reserves at Rosh HaAyin, east of Tel Aviv and bordering Samaria, were estimated to have a possible potential of 1.5 billion barrels of oil but that commercial quantities will be much lower, if at all. Israel's estimated oil consumption is slightly less than 100 million barrels a year.
Yitzchak Teshuva, head of the Delek Group that is part of the consortium probing the Leviathan field, has jubilantly exclaimed that the gas reserves will turn Israel into an energy exporter.
Officials added that a decision on whether to drill for the oil reserves will not be made before October, when drilling for the gas reserves at “Leviathan 1” is to begin at a cost of $150 million. The operation will last five months, and a decision on drilling for oil may await the results of the gas exploration; analysts have emphasized that the chances of huge oil reserves are only 17 percent. However, every previous report has so far proven to be overly conservative.
A South African company will head the drilling, but if a decision is made to drill at deeper levels for oil, a North American company with experience at those levels will be contracted.
The estimated gas reserves already have encouraged government officials to sell back to Egypt natural gas that Israel is committed to buy. In addition, Prime Minister Netanyahu reportedly suggested to Greece that it buy natural gas from Israel.
The energy discovery has brought two headaches: several Finance ministry officials want to hike the royalties on gas and oil discoveries to add more money to government coffers, raising heated protests from the energy consortium. Secondly, Hizbullah and Lebanon are claiming that the Leviathan reserves are in Lebanese territorial waters, and have threatened war with Israel over the energy field.
The Leviathan discovery is separate from the Tamar field, located to the south, which also is estimated to contain huge gas reserves that could possibly supply Israel’s gas needs at least until 2030.
(IsraelNationalNews.com)
The ramifications of the discovery are immense. If the estimates materialize, Israel will become self-sufficient in energy, enjoy a boon of employment for engineers and laborers, and will become an exporter of gas and oil. The shekel, barring a conflict with Hizbullah or Iran, may become rock-solid, dropping the representative rate; Israel's shekel is now worth about 26.3 cents (3.8 shekels) to the dollar.
The announcement of the new estimates states that there is a 17 percent chance of finding reserves equal to 3 billion barrels of oil at a depth of slightly more than a mile undersea. The oil field is slightly beneath the mammoth gas reserves that already have been estimated to contain 13 trillion cubic feet of gas.
There also is an 8 percent chance that another 1.2 billion barrels exist at an even lower level. Earlier this month, oil reserves at Rosh HaAyin, east of Tel Aviv and bordering Samaria, were estimated to have a possible potential of 1.5 billion barrels of oil but that commercial quantities will be much lower, if at all. Israel's estimated oil consumption is slightly less than 100 million barrels a year.
Yitzchak Teshuva, head of the Delek Group that is part of the consortium probing the Leviathan field, has jubilantly exclaimed that the gas reserves will turn Israel into an energy exporter.
Officials added that a decision on whether to drill for the oil reserves will not be made before October, when drilling for the gas reserves at “Leviathan 1” is to begin at a cost of $150 million. The operation will last five months, and a decision on drilling for oil may await the results of the gas exploration; analysts have emphasized that the chances of huge oil reserves are only 17 percent. However, every previous report has so far proven to be overly conservative.
A South African company will head the drilling, but if a decision is made to drill at deeper levels for oil, a North American company with experience at those levels will be contracted.
The estimated gas reserves already have encouraged government officials to sell back to Egypt natural gas that Israel is committed to buy. In addition, Prime Minister Netanyahu reportedly suggested to Greece that it buy natural gas from Israel.
The energy discovery has brought two headaches: several Finance ministry officials want to hike the royalties on gas and oil discoveries to add more money to government coffers, raising heated protests from the energy consortium. Secondly, Hizbullah and Lebanon are claiming that the Leviathan reserves are in Lebanese territorial waters, and have threatened war with Israel over the energy field.
The Leviathan discovery is separate from the Tamar field, located to the south, which also is estimated to contain huge gas reserves that could possibly supply Israel’s gas needs at least until 2030.
(IsraelNationalNews.com)
Samsung Epic 4G, an Android SuperPhone With a Big Punch
http://www.buzzbox.com/top/default/preview/android-this-week-droid-2-epic-4g-video-smackdown/?id=5585915&topic=epic%3Aepic-4g
For past 24-hours or so, I’ve been playing around with Sprint’s new Samsung Epic 4G smartphone, which is optimized to use its 4G network, though it switches back and forth to 3G depending on 4G availability. This device is part of the Samsung’s Galaxy S series of smartphones. (Kevin reviewed the AT&T version of Galaxy S recently.) We recorded an unboxing video of this superphone which clearly packs a big punch; leaving Droid 2 in the dust.
It’s pretty thin and has a fantastic slide-out keyboard (better than anything I’ve personally tried from Motorola and HTC). It has a 4-inch Super AMOLED touchscreen, a 5-megapixel camera, a 1-Ghz processor, and most importantly, can act as a hotspot for upto 5 Wi-Fi devices. The phone is going on sale Aug. 31. I suspect this is going to help Sprint retain customers who’ve been looking to upgrade to a smartphone and even attract new ones.
What are my first impressions? I’ve been bowled over by the speed and power of this device, much more so than any other 1 GHz Android phone I have used. The big processor, the 1 Gb ROM and lots of memory are perhaps the reasons why Android feels so snappy and web browsing is smooth and easy. I’m told the Sprint HTC EVO is pretty good, but I haven’t used it, so I can’t quite compare the two phones.
The keyboard on this device is easy to use, overcoming Android’s weakness: the virtual keyboard. I have a Droid 2 sitting on my desk, and it pales in comparison to this device. The camera is pretty good and so is the multimedia playback on the phone, which is the first smartphone to come with a decent pair of headphones.
These are very early impressions, so take them with a grain of salt for now and enjoy the video.
For past 24-hours or so, I’ve been playing around with Sprint’s new Samsung Epic 4G smartphone, which is optimized to use its 4G network, though it switches back and forth to 3G depending on 4G availability. This device is part of the Samsung’s Galaxy S series of smartphones. (Kevin reviewed the AT&T version of Galaxy S recently.) We recorded an unboxing video of this superphone which clearly packs a big punch; leaving Droid 2 in the dust.
It’s pretty thin and has a fantastic slide-out keyboard (better than anything I’ve personally tried from Motorola and HTC). It has a 4-inch Super AMOLED touchscreen, a 5-megapixel camera, a 1-Ghz processor, and most importantly, can act as a hotspot for upto 5 Wi-Fi devices. The phone is going on sale Aug. 31. I suspect this is going to help Sprint retain customers who’ve been looking to upgrade to a smartphone and even attract new ones.
What are my first impressions? I’ve been bowled over by the speed and power of this device, much more so than any other 1 GHz Android phone I have used. The big processor, the 1 Gb ROM and lots of memory are perhaps the reasons why Android feels so snappy and web browsing is smooth and easy. I’m told the Sprint HTC EVO is pretty good, but I haven’t used it, so I can’t quite compare the two phones.
The keyboard on this device is easy to use, overcoming Android’s weakness: the virtual keyboard. I have a Droid 2 sitting on my desk, and it pales in comparison to this device. The camera is pretty good and so is the multimedia playback on the phone, which is the first smartphone to come with a decent pair of headphones.
These are very early impressions, so take them with a grain of salt for now and enjoy the video.
Samsung EPIC 4G: Oh That Screen!
Samsung has a hit with the Galaxy S series of Android smartphones, and they have one on just about every carrier. The EPIC 4G is the new phone on the Sprint network in the U.S., and only the second to have integrated 4G (WiMAX) capability. The most impressive feature of the EPIC is the gorgeous Super AMOLED 4-inch display. The screen is so bright and vivid it’s the first thing folks notice when they see the EPIC. Then they open the sliding QWERTY keyboard and find the second great thing that separates the EPIC 4G from the crowd.
Samsung EPIC 4G Highlights and Specs
4.0″ Super AMOLED touchscreen with 480×800 resolution
1 GHz CPU, 1GB ROM, 512MB RAM, 16GB microSD card
720p video recording, 5 megapixel camera, auto-assist panoramic landscape, 4x digital zoom, auto-focus
Android 2.1
802.11b/g/n Wi-Fi, BT 2.1 +EDR, GPS, CDMA EVDO rev A, 4G (WiMAX) Mobile hotspot ready (optional)
4.9″ x 2.6″ x 0.6″, weight of 5.5 ounces
I’ve been using the EPIC for a few days, and my impression is favorable. Samsung has stuffed some distinctive hardware into the small case that sets the EPIC apart from the crowd: QWERTY keyboard, Hummingbird processor, Super AMOLED display and 4G. The phone is surprisingly light in spite of the 4-inch screen, and is comfortable in the hand. It has a distinctive front that is totally black when idle that is attractive.
Samsung isn’t using one of the common processors found in most phones; it’s using its own 1 GHz Cortex A8 Hummingbird Application Processor. The Hummingbird lives up to its name, with performance as fluid as that of any phone I have tried. I can only imagine how good performance might be once Samsung offers the Froyo update later this year. The EPIC ships with Android 2.1, a bit of a disappointment when other phones are already shipping with Froyo.
Two of the most distinctive features of the EPIC 4G are the keyboard and the Super AMOLED display. The backlit keyboard is the best I’ve used on any phone. The key spacing is perfect; the chiclet-style keys are separated for easy use and Samsung has included big hardware buttons to duplicate the four touch-sensitive buttons on the screen. This is very handy, as it eliminates the need to take your hand off the keyboard to do system functions. What really sets the EPIC keyboard apart from the crowd is the number key row. There’s no need to type a special key to enter numbers, as they’re all right where they should be for simple entry. The only questionable keyboard design decision is including a dedicated “smiley face” key on the keyboard, while the more commonly used “@” key requires a Fn-key to type.
Did I mention how great this display is? The Super AMOLED screen is no Retina Display, but it’s a very nice display that doesn’t seem to cause eye strain. The brightness is stunning, and colors pop. I’d love to see this type of screen on every phone.
There are a few design choices on the EPIC I don’t like, some minor and one very annoying. The microUSB port for charging and connecting the EPIC to a computer is on the top of the phone. This sounds trivial, but I find it inconvenient for plugging the phone in to charge. Power cords for these phones are short enough as it is, and it means the phone usually sits upside down on the desk while charging.
The most irritating thing about the EPIC design is the design of the four touch-sensitive buttons below the screen (used for performing system functions). These buttons are the standard Menu, Home, Back and Search buttons found on most Android phones, and they’re used frequently in operating the handset. Samsung has chosen to go for aesthetics over function, and the buttons aren’t visible unless the screen is touched. Compare pictures 2 and 3 in the gallery to see the buttons disappear. This turns tapping a function button into a two-step process: one step to light the buttons up so you can see them ,and the second tapping the button. There needs to be a setting to keep these four buttons lit all the time, because they time out quickly. I also find the buttons hard to hit properly to activate the functions. There’s haptic feedback to tell you when the button press has been detected, and it’s often the only way to determine your tap didn’t register. The Back button is particularly hard to activate properly, and this button is used all the time on Android phones. I find it necessary to press this button really hard to get it to register: unusual for a touch-sensitive button.
Samsung included a dedicated camera button, something I wish my EVO offered. Hitting the button for a second fires up the camera app, and photos are snapped by hitting it again. The 5 MP camera on the EPIC is a decent performer, but, like most phone cameras, won’t replace your dedicated camera. It has a flash and auto-focus feature that work well, and a 4x digital zoom to get in close. Operating the phone is standard fare: hit the Menu button to access all the settings when you want to configure the shot manually. The auto-focus feature works like that on my EVO 4G, and lets you tap any object in the viewfinder to make it the main object for focus in the shot. A warning is in order for those with privacy concerns: The EPIC had geotagging of photos enabled by default. I didn’t realize this until I took a few test photos and then looked at them in the Gallery app. All were appended with my exact home address, so had I uploaded them somewhere, the location information would have been appended. I wish all OEMs would disable this by default.
Video recording is also standard phone fare, with either VGA or 720p options. I find the quality of recorded video is better than that on my EVO, with everything nicely focused, and the camera handling background lighting variation quite nicely.
The EPIC 4G ships with a 1500 mAh battery, and I’ve seen good battery life so far. The phone easily lasts all day on a single charge, and I haven’t done much tweaking to achieve that performance. It’s easy to access the battery to swap in a fresh one if needed. The microSD card is easily accessed above the battery compartment with the back removed.
The decision to ship with Android 2.1 means no Flash 10.1 is available, which may be an issue for some, depending on which side of that fence you are on. Flash aside, the operation of the phone is fluid, and as fast as any Android phone. The EPIC uses the Samsung TouchWiz interface, which is only slightly different from standard Android or the HTC Sense interface found on many phones. TouchWiz foregoes the Phone and Launcher buttons on the screen, and puts a fixed dock with four icons that provide access to the Phone dialer, Contacts, Messaging and Applications.This dock is visible on all seven of the home screens on the EPIC.
I’ve tried several methods suggested by others for swapping these four icons for others of my choosing. None of these methods have worked, so it seems users are stuck with these four. It’s not a big deal, as there’s plenty of room for icons on the seven screens to customize the interface.
The Applications icon fires up the app launcher, and instead of scrolling up and down, it scrolls right and left by swiping. That took me a little while to get used to, as other Android phones go up and down. Users can toggle between two views in the launcher: grid and list.
A very nice feature that TouchWiz includes (not found on other Android phones) is in the notification slider (see picture 5 in gallery). The top of the notification area always has toggles for all the phone radios to facilitate access. Pull the shade down, and you see toggles for Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, 4G and GPS. Each icon grays out when the radio is turned off and turns green when active. Other Android phone makers should take note of this feature.
Sprint has pre-installed the standard fare it puts on all Android phones. Sprint Navigation is there and free to use. I use it a lot, and find it much better than Google Maps Navigation, as it’s more accurate and easier to operate in the car. There’s also Sprint TV for viewing free content ,which looks incredible on the beautiful screen of the EPIC.
The EPIC also has a mobile hotspot app for sharing 3G/4G connections with up to 8 devices. The service costs $29.99 per month and is unlimited (4G only) for that price. There is a 5 GB cap for 3G sharing.
The EPIC 4G is available for ordering for $249.99 with activation, after a $100 mail-in rebate. Sprint requires the Everything Data plan, which starts at $79.99 per month including the $10 “Premium Data” add-on.
Samsung is pushing the envelope with the Galaxy S line of smartphones, and the EPIC 4G may be the best of the bunch. The big, beautiful screen coupled with the best-in-class QWERTY keyboard make this a very nice phone. The speed of operation on the Sprint 4G network has been great. The touch-sensitive buttons on the front of the phone are poorly designed, and hard to operate, although not a deal-breaker. Some EPIC users have reported problems maintaining good GPS fixes while using that feature. I haven’ seen that problem, but Sprint has acknowledged it’s an issue and has a fix coming soon. Hopefully that fix will have Froyo attached.
To see the EPIC 4G in action, check out our nice unboxing video and the Android smartphone smackdown video.
Samsung EPIC 4G Highlights and Specs
4.0″ Super AMOLED touchscreen with 480×800 resolution
1 GHz CPU, 1GB ROM, 512MB RAM, 16GB microSD card
720p video recording, 5 megapixel camera, auto-assist panoramic landscape, 4x digital zoom, auto-focus
Android 2.1
802.11b/g/n Wi-Fi, BT 2.1 +EDR, GPS, CDMA EVDO rev A, 4G (WiMAX) Mobile hotspot ready (optional)
4.9″ x 2.6″ x 0.6″, weight of 5.5 ounces
I’ve been using the EPIC for a few days, and my impression is favorable. Samsung has stuffed some distinctive hardware into the small case that sets the EPIC apart from the crowd: QWERTY keyboard, Hummingbird processor, Super AMOLED display and 4G. The phone is surprisingly light in spite of the 4-inch screen, and is comfortable in the hand. It has a distinctive front that is totally black when idle that is attractive.
Samsung isn’t using one of the common processors found in most phones; it’s using its own 1 GHz Cortex A8 Hummingbird Application Processor. The Hummingbird lives up to its name, with performance as fluid as that of any phone I have tried. I can only imagine how good performance might be once Samsung offers the Froyo update later this year. The EPIC ships with Android 2.1, a bit of a disappointment when other phones are already shipping with Froyo.
Two of the most distinctive features of the EPIC 4G are the keyboard and the Super AMOLED display. The backlit keyboard is the best I’ve used on any phone. The key spacing is perfect; the chiclet-style keys are separated for easy use and Samsung has included big hardware buttons to duplicate the four touch-sensitive buttons on the screen. This is very handy, as it eliminates the need to take your hand off the keyboard to do system functions. What really sets the EPIC keyboard apart from the crowd is the number key row. There’s no need to type a special key to enter numbers, as they’re all right where they should be for simple entry. The only questionable keyboard design decision is including a dedicated “smiley face” key on the keyboard, while the more commonly used “@” key requires a Fn-key to type.
Did I mention how great this display is? The Super AMOLED screen is no Retina Display, but it’s a very nice display that doesn’t seem to cause eye strain. The brightness is stunning, and colors pop. I’d love to see this type of screen on every phone.
There are a few design choices on the EPIC I don’t like, some minor and one very annoying. The microUSB port for charging and connecting the EPIC to a computer is on the top of the phone. This sounds trivial, but I find it inconvenient for plugging the phone in to charge. Power cords for these phones are short enough as it is, and it means the phone usually sits upside down on the desk while charging.
The most irritating thing about the EPIC design is the design of the four touch-sensitive buttons below the screen (used for performing system functions). These buttons are the standard Menu, Home, Back and Search buttons found on most Android phones, and they’re used frequently in operating the handset. Samsung has chosen to go for aesthetics over function, and the buttons aren’t visible unless the screen is touched. Compare pictures 2 and 3 in the gallery to see the buttons disappear. This turns tapping a function button into a two-step process: one step to light the buttons up so you can see them ,and the second tapping the button. There needs to be a setting to keep these four buttons lit all the time, because they time out quickly. I also find the buttons hard to hit properly to activate the functions. There’s haptic feedback to tell you when the button press has been detected, and it’s often the only way to determine your tap didn’t register. The Back button is particularly hard to activate properly, and this button is used all the time on Android phones. I find it necessary to press this button really hard to get it to register: unusual for a touch-sensitive button.
Samsung included a dedicated camera button, something I wish my EVO offered. Hitting the button for a second fires up the camera app, and photos are snapped by hitting it again. The 5 MP camera on the EPIC is a decent performer, but, like most phone cameras, won’t replace your dedicated camera. It has a flash and auto-focus feature that work well, and a 4x digital zoom to get in close. Operating the phone is standard fare: hit the Menu button to access all the settings when you want to configure the shot manually. The auto-focus feature works like that on my EVO 4G, and lets you tap any object in the viewfinder to make it the main object for focus in the shot. A warning is in order for those with privacy concerns: The EPIC had geotagging of photos enabled by default. I didn’t realize this until I took a few test photos and then looked at them in the Gallery app. All were appended with my exact home address, so had I uploaded them somewhere, the location information would have been appended. I wish all OEMs would disable this by default.
Video recording is also standard phone fare, with either VGA or 720p options. I find the quality of recorded video is better than that on my EVO, with everything nicely focused, and the camera handling background lighting variation quite nicely.
The EPIC 4G ships with a 1500 mAh battery, and I’ve seen good battery life so far. The phone easily lasts all day on a single charge, and I haven’t done much tweaking to achieve that performance. It’s easy to access the battery to swap in a fresh one if needed. The microSD card is easily accessed above the battery compartment with the back removed.
The decision to ship with Android 2.1 means no Flash 10.1 is available, which may be an issue for some, depending on which side of that fence you are on. Flash aside, the operation of the phone is fluid, and as fast as any Android phone. The EPIC uses the Samsung TouchWiz interface, which is only slightly different from standard Android or the HTC Sense interface found on many phones. TouchWiz foregoes the Phone and Launcher buttons on the screen, and puts a fixed dock with four icons that provide access to the Phone dialer, Contacts, Messaging and Applications.This dock is visible on all seven of the home screens on the EPIC.
I’ve tried several methods suggested by others for swapping these four icons for others of my choosing. None of these methods have worked, so it seems users are stuck with these four. It’s not a big deal, as there’s plenty of room for icons on the seven screens to customize the interface.
The Applications icon fires up the app launcher, and instead of scrolling up and down, it scrolls right and left by swiping. That took me a little while to get used to, as other Android phones go up and down. Users can toggle between two views in the launcher: grid and list.
A very nice feature that TouchWiz includes (not found on other Android phones) is in the notification slider (see picture 5 in gallery). The top of the notification area always has toggles for all the phone radios to facilitate access. Pull the shade down, and you see toggles for Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, 4G and GPS. Each icon grays out when the radio is turned off and turns green when active. Other Android phone makers should take note of this feature.
Sprint has pre-installed the standard fare it puts on all Android phones. Sprint Navigation is there and free to use. I use it a lot, and find it much better than Google Maps Navigation, as it’s more accurate and easier to operate in the car. There’s also Sprint TV for viewing free content ,which looks incredible on the beautiful screen of the EPIC.
The EPIC also has a mobile hotspot app for sharing 3G/4G connections with up to 8 devices. The service costs $29.99 per month and is unlimited (4G only) for that price. There is a 5 GB cap for 3G sharing.
The EPIC 4G is available for ordering for $249.99 with activation, after a $100 mail-in rebate. Sprint requires the Everything Data plan, which starts at $79.99 per month including the $10 “Premium Data” add-on.
Samsung is pushing the envelope with the Galaxy S line of smartphones, and the EPIC 4G may be the best of the bunch. The big, beautiful screen coupled with the best-in-class QWERTY keyboard make this a very nice phone. The speed of operation on the Sprint 4G network has been great. The touch-sensitive buttons on the front of the phone are poorly designed, and hard to operate, although not a deal-breaker. Some EPIC users have reported problems maintaining good GPS fixes while using that feature. I haven’ seen that problem, but Sprint has acknowledged it’s an issue and has a fix coming soon. Hopefully that fix will have Froyo attached.
To see the EPIC 4G in action, check out our nice unboxing video and the Android smartphone smackdown video.
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Abbas and Palestinians should perish from this world
Shas spiritual leader Rabbi Ovadia Yosef denounced upcoming peace talks with the Palestinians, which are set to start September 2 in Washington, and called for Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to "perish from this world," Army Radio reported overnight Saturday.
"Abu Mazen and all these evil people should perish from this world," Rabbi Ovadia was quoted as saying during his weekly sermon at a synagogue near his Jerusalem home. "God should strike them with a plague, them and these Palestinians."
The Shas spiritual leader also called the Palestinians "evil, bitter enemies of Israel" during his speech, which is not the rabbi's first sermon to spark controversy.
In 2001, the spiritual leader of the ultra-Orthodox faction gave a speech in which he also called for Arabs' annihilation.
"It is forbidden to be merciful to them," he was quoted as saying. "You must send missiles to them and annihilate them. They are evil and damnable."
The Palestinian Authority had condemned the speech as racist and inciteful.
Meanwhile, Interior Minister Eli Yishai, also from Shas, earlier this week also remarked on the forthcoming peace talks with the Palestinians, saying that Shas would oppose extending the West Bank settlement building freeze due to expire in late September.
Yishai has suggested that Israel would continue construction in the main settlement blocs likely to remain part of Israel in the framework of a peace deal, but freeze construction in outposts or more remote settlements.
"Abu Mazen and all these evil people should perish from this world," Rabbi Ovadia was quoted as saying during his weekly sermon at a synagogue near his Jerusalem home. "God should strike them with a plague, them and these Palestinians."
The Shas spiritual leader also called the Palestinians "evil, bitter enemies of Israel" during his speech, which is not the rabbi's first sermon to spark controversy.
In 2001, the spiritual leader of the ultra-Orthodox faction gave a speech in which he also called for Arabs' annihilation.
"It is forbidden to be merciful to them," he was quoted as saying. "You must send missiles to them and annihilate them. They are evil and damnable."
The Palestinian Authority had condemned the speech as racist and inciteful.
Meanwhile, Interior Minister Eli Yishai, also from Shas, earlier this week also remarked on the forthcoming peace talks with the Palestinians, saying that Shas would oppose extending the West Bank settlement building freeze due to expire in late September.
Yishai has suggested that Israel would continue construction in the main settlement blocs likely to remain part of Israel in the framework of a peace deal, but freeze construction in outposts or more remote settlements.
'Obama will get Israel nuked' say protesters at Glenn Beck rally
Tens of thousands rally in Washington at 'Restoring Honor' event organized by Fox personality; Protester: Obama wants to see Israel annihilated.
By Natasha Mozgovaya and The Associated Press
Tags: Barack Obama Israel US
Tens of thousands of conservative activists rallied Saturday in the U.S. capital of Washington D.C. on the anniversary of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s famous I Have a Dream speech.
Civil rights leaders were protesting the event.
Rally organizer TV pundit Glenn Beck, who speaks to a faithful audience nightly on the conservative Fox News television network and daily on talk radio, insists it's just a coincidence that his "Restoring Honor" rally on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial is overlapping with the 47th anniversary of King's speech.
Beck is known for his extreme views and statements. He has described Obama, the first black U.S. president, as a racist.
Speaking with Haaretz, an Israeli newspaper, the participants made sure to stress how angry they were with Obama's policy regarding Israel.
"He [Obama] will get Israel nuked," said 61-year-old Victoria Nikolov from New York, who had left home at 1 a.m. in order to make it to the rally on time. "He's not doing anything to prevent [Iran from developing nuclear weapons]. I came here to protect you, even though I'm not Jewish, and to restore the constitutional republic to this country."
"I've done my research, I've read both his books" she continued. "I am confident that if he had to choose between America and Islam, he’d choose Islam. But I am afraid he might stay president, because he has the support of the press, and when the press supports a president, the people just don’t get the truth."
"We are inch away from socialism. I think African Americans could make great presidents – just other people, like Condoleezza Rice or Walter Williams," she went on to say.
Rob Arnold from Washington's Pentagon City said "You can't spend and dupe this country into oblivion and hope to get away with it."
"He [Obama] was a friend and neighbor of Louis 'suck the blood of Jews' Farrakhan. He had Jeremiah 'God damn America' Wright for his pastor. A man who is a friend of these people can't be a friend of Israel," Arnold told Haaretz.
"And he arranged peace talks in Washington?" he asked. "It's all for show. I believe that if he could, he would rather see Israel annihilated. I don't think he believes Israel belongs to the Jews. I think he sympathizes with terrorists. I believe he is an anti-Semite."
Mark DelMaestro from Phoenix, Arizona, a Vietnam war veteran, told Haaretz that "maybe he [Obama] did some good things, but the bad things he did are overwhelming."
"I don’t think he represents the fulfillment of Martin Luther King’s dream. He represents socialism, communism, oppression and all the things that stand against freedom. I am the man of 'God bless America' and he is a man of 'God Damn America.'"
"I am very worried about Iran, I am confident the moment they get the bomb they will drop it on Israel. Obama has to do everything possible to stop it, even the military option as a last resort. He must understand that unlike other places, we don’t fight for Israel, we fight with Israel, we have the same color of soul."
Two months before nationwide Congressional elections, which could cost
U.S. President Barack Obama's Democrats their majority in the House of
Representatives and perhaps the Senate as well, Beck's rally becomes only the latest symptom of rampant political partisanship that is splitting the country and drowning out voices of moderation.
The crowd - organizers had a permit for 300,000 - was vast, with people standing shoulder to shoulder across large expanses of the Mall. The National Park Service stopped doing crowd counts in 1997 after the agency was accused of underestimating numbers for the 1995 Million Man March.
Civil rights leaders protested the event and scheduled a 3-mile (5-kilometer) plus march from a high school to the site of a planned King memorial near the Tidal Basin and not far from Beck's gathering.
By Natasha Mozgovaya and The Associated Press
Tags: Barack Obama Israel US
Tens of thousands of conservative activists rallied Saturday in the U.S. capital of Washington D.C. on the anniversary of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s famous I Have a Dream speech.
Civil rights leaders were protesting the event.
Rally organizer TV pundit Glenn Beck, who speaks to a faithful audience nightly on the conservative Fox News television network and daily on talk radio, insists it's just a coincidence that his "Restoring Honor" rally on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial is overlapping with the 47th anniversary of King's speech.
Beck is known for his extreme views and statements. He has described Obama, the first black U.S. president, as a racist.
Speaking with Haaretz, an Israeli newspaper, the participants made sure to stress how angry they were with Obama's policy regarding Israel.
"He [Obama] will get Israel nuked," said 61-year-old Victoria Nikolov from New York, who had left home at 1 a.m. in order to make it to the rally on time. "He's not doing anything to prevent [Iran from developing nuclear weapons]. I came here to protect you, even though I'm not Jewish, and to restore the constitutional republic to this country."
"I've done my research, I've read both his books" she continued. "I am confident that if he had to choose between America and Islam, he’d choose Islam. But I am afraid he might stay president, because he has the support of the press, and when the press supports a president, the people just don’t get the truth."
"We are inch away from socialism. I think African Americans could make great presidents – just other people, like Condoleezza Rice or Walter Williams," she went on to say.
Rob Arnold from Washington's Pentagon City said "You can't spend and dupe this country into oblivion and hope to get away with it."
"He [Obama] was a friend and neighbor of Louis 'suck the blood of Jews' Farrakhan. He had Jeremiah 'God damn America' Wright for his pastor. A man who is a friend of these people can't be a friend of Israel," Arnold told Haaretz.
"And he arranged peace talks in Washington?" he asked. "It's all for show. I believe that if he could, he would rather see Israel annihilated. I don't think he believes Israel belongs to the Jews. I think he sympathizes with terrorists. I believe he is an anti-Semite."
Mark DelMaestro from Phoenix, Arizona, a Vietnam war veteran, told Haaretz that "maybe he [Obama] did some good things, but the bad things he did are overwhelming."
"I don’t think he represents the fulfillment of Martin Luther King’s dream. He represents socialism, communism, oppression and all the things that stand against freedom. I am the man of 'God bless America' and he is a man of 'God Damn America.'"
"I am very worried about Iran, I am confident the moment they get the bomb they will drop it on Israel. Obama has to do everything possible to stop it, even the military option as a last resort. He must understand that unlike other places, we don’t fight for Israel, we fight with Israel, we have the same color of soul."
Two months before nationwide Congressional elections, which could cost
U.S. President Barack Obama's Democrats their majority in the House of
Representatives and perhaps the Senate as well, Beck's rally becomes only the latest symptom of rampant political partisanship that is splitting the country and drowning out voices of moderation.
The crowd - organizers had a permit for 300,000 - was vast, with people standing shoulder to shoulder across large expanses of the Mall. The National Park Service stopped doing crowd counts in 1997 after the agency was accused of underestimating numbers for the 1995 Million Man March.
Civil rights leaders protested the event and scheduled a 3-mile (5-kilometer) plus march from a high school to the site of a planned King memorial near the Tidal Basin and not far from Beck's gathering.
Microsoft Co-Founder Launches Patent War
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703294904575385241453119382.html?mod=WSJ_hps_MIDDLETopStories#printMode
Microsoft Co-Founder Sues Tech Industry
Newser) – Paul Allen’s licensing company is suing a who’s who of the biggest forces in tech—including Apple, Google, eBay, Facebook, Netflix, Yahoo, and Aol—over a handful of patents filed by a now-defunct startup he funded during the Internet bubble. The four patents in question seem to encompass technology that is integral to pretty much any e-commerce site or search engine, the Wall Street Journal reports.
One patent covers technologies that recommend items to consumers based on what they’re currently viewing; another allows readers of a news story to quickly locate similar stories related to the same topic. The others enable ads to appear on the side of a screen next to a story. The technologies were all developed over a decade ago by Interval Research Corp. Allen, a co-founder of Microsoft, didn’t personally invent any of them, but he owns the patents.
Read more: http://www.newser.com/story/99177/microsoft-co-founder-sues-tech-industry.html#ixzz0xu1q89cR
One patent covers technologies that recommend items to consumers based on what they’re currently viewing; another allows readers of a news story to quickly locate similar stories related to the same topic. The others enable ads to appear on the side of a screen next to a story. The technologies were all developed over a decade ago by Interval Research Corp. Allen, a co-founder of Microsoft, didn’t personally invent any of them, but he owns the patents.
Read more: http://www.newser.com/story/99177/microsoft-co-founder-sues-tech-industry.html#ixzz0xu1q89cR
Can Israel Accept the Unacceptable?
Last weekend the mullahs took a big step towards becoming a nuclear power as they fueled the Bushehr nuclear reactor.
Israel’s response? The Foreign Ministry published a statement proclaiming the move “unacceptable.”
So why did we accept the unacceptable? When one asks senior officials about the Bushehr reactor and about Iran’s nuclear program more generally, their response invariably begins, “Well the Americans ...”
Far from accepting that Israel has a problem that it must deal with, Israel’s decision-makers still argue that the US will discover – before it is too late – that it must act to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power in order to secure its own interests.
As for Bushehr specifically, Israeli officials explain that it isn’t the main problem. The main danger stems from the uranium enrichment sites. And anyway, they explain, given the civilian character of the Bushehr reactor; the fact that it is under a full International Atomic Energy Agency inspections regime; and the fact that the Russians are supposed to take all the spent fuel rods to Russia and so prevent Iran from using them to produce weapons-grade plutonium, Israel lacked the international legitimacy to strike Bushehr to prevent it from being fueled last weekend.
BEFORE GOING into the question of whether Israel’s decision-makers were correct in opting out of attacking the Bushehr reactor to prevent it from being fueled, it is worth considering where “the Americans” stand on Iran as it declares itself a nuclear power and tests new, advanced weapons systems on a daily basis.
The answer to this question was provided in large part in an article in the National Interest by former Clinton administration National Security Council member Bruce Riedel. Titled, “If Israel Attacks,” Riedel – who reportedly has close ties to the current administration – asserts that an Israeli military strike against Iran will be a disaster for the US. In his view, the US is better served by allowing Iran to become a nuclear power than by supporting an Israeli attack against Iran.
He writes, “The United States needs to send a clear red light to Israel. There’s no option but to actively discourage an Israeli attack.”
Riedel explains that to induce Israel to accept the unacceptable specter of a nuclear armed mullocracy, the US should pay it off. Riedel recommends plying Israel’s leaders with F-22 Stealth bombers, nuclear submarines, a mutual defense treaty and perhaps even NATO membership.
Riedel’s reason for deeming an Israeli strike unacceptable is his conviction that such an operation will be met by an Iranian counter-strike against US forces and interests in the Persian Gulf and Afghanistan. While there is no reason to doubt he is correct, Riedel studiously ignores the other certainty: A nuclear-armed Iran would threaten those same troops and interests far more.
Riedel would have us believe that the Iranian regime will be a rational nuclear actor. That’s the regime that has outlawed music, stones women, and deploys terror proxies throughout the region and the world. That’s the same regime whose “supreme leader” just published a fatwa claiming he has the same religious stature as Muhammad.
Riedel bases this view on the actions Iran took when it was weak.
Since Iran didn’t place its American hostages on trial in 1980, it can be trusted with nuclear weapons in 2010. Since Iran didn’t go to war against the US in 1988 during the Kuwaiti tanker crisis, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad can be trusted with nuclear bombs in 2010. And so on and so forth.
Moreover, Riedel ignores what any casual newspaper reader now recognizes: Iran’s nuclear weapons program has spurred a regional nuclear arms race. Riedel imagines a bipolar nuclear Middle East, with Israel on the one side and Iran on the other. He fails to notice that already today Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Sudan and Turkey have all initiated nuclear programs.
And if Iran is allowed to go nuclear, these countries will beat a path to any number of nuclear bomb stores.
Some argue that a multipolar nuclear Middle East will adhere to the rules of mutual assured destruction. Assuming this is true, the fact remains that the violent Iranian response to an Israeli strike against its nuclear installations will look like a minor skirmish in comparison to the conventional wars that will break out in a Middle East in which everyone has the bomb.
And in truth, there is no reason to believe that a Middle East in which everyone has nuclear weapons is a Middle East that adheres to the rules of MAD. A recent Zogby/University of Maryland poll of Arab public opinion taken for the Brookings Institute in US-allied Arab states Egypt, Lebanon, Morocco, Saudi Arabia and the UAE shows that the Arab world is populated by jihadists.
As Herb London from the Hudson Institute pointed out in an analysis of the poll, nearly 70 percent of those polled said the leader they most admire is either a jihadist or a supporter of jihad.
The most popular leaders were Turkish Prime Minister Recep Erdogan, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, Ahmadinejad, Hizbullah chieftain Hassan Nasrallah, Syrian President Bashar Assad and al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden.
So if popular revolutions bring down any of the teetering despotic regimes now occupying the seats of power in the Arab world, they will likely be replaced by jihadists. Moreover, since an Iranian nuclear bomb would empower the most radical, destabilizing forces in pan-Arab society, the likelihood that a despot would resort to a nuclear strike on a Western or Israeli target in order to stay in power would similarly rise.
All of this should not be beyond the grasp of an experienced strategic thinker like Riedel. And yet, obviously, it is. Moreover, as an alumnus of the Clinton administration, Riedel’s positions in general are more realistic than those of the Obama administration. As Israeli officials acknowledge, the Obama administration is only now coming to terms with the fact that its engagement policy towards Iran has failed.
Moreover, throughout the US government, the White House is the most stubborn defender of the notion that the Iranian nuclear threat is not as serious a threat as the absence of a Palestinian state. That is, President Barack Obama himself is the most strident advocate of a US Middle East policy that ignores all the dangers the US faces in the region and turns American guns against the only country that doesn’t threaten any US interest.
And now, facing this state of affairs, Israeli leaders today still argue that issuing a Foreign Ministry communiqué declaring the fueling of the Bushehr nuclear reactor “unacceptable,” and beginning worthless negotiations with Fatah leaders is a rational and sufficient Israeli policy.
WHAT LIES behind this governmental fecklessness? There are two possible explanations for the government’s behavior. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu may be motivated by operational concerns or he may be motivated by political concerns.
On the operational level, the question guiding Israel’s leaders is when is the optimal time to attack? The fact that government sources say that it would have been diplomatically suicidal to attack before Bushehr became operational last weekend makes it clear that nonmilitary considerations are the determining factor for Israel’s leadership. Yet what Riedel’s article and the clear positions of the Obama administration demonstrate is that there is no chance that nonmilitary conditions will ever be optimal for Israel. Moreover, as Israel’s 1981 attack on Iraq’s nuclear reactor shows, Israel can achieve its strategic objectives even without US support for its operations.
From a military perspective, it is clear that it would have been better to strike Iran’s nuclear installations before the Russians fueled Bushehr.
Any attack scenario from now on will have to either accept the prospect of nuclear fallout or accept leaving Bushehr intact. Indeed from a military perspective, the longer Israel waits to attack Iran, the harder it will become to accomplish the mission.
So unless Israel’s leaders are unaware of strategic realities, the only plausible explanation for Netanyahu’s decision to sit by idly as Israel’s military options were drastically diminished over the weekend is that he was moved by domestic political considerations.
And what might those political considerations be? Clearly he wasn’t concerned with a lack of public support. Consistent, multiyear polling data show that the public overwhelmingly supports the use of force to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power.
Then there is the issue of Netanyahu’s coalition.
It cannot be that Netanyahu believes that he can build a broader coalition to support an attack on Iran than he already has by bringing Kadima into his government. Kadima leader Tzipi Livni is not a great supporter of an Israeli attack on Iran. Livni views being liked by Obama as more important than preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear state.
The prospect of a Kadima splinter party led by former defense minister Shaul Mofaz joining the coalition is also raised periodically. Yet experience indicates there is little chance of that happening.
Mofaz apparently dislikes Netanyahu more than he dislikes the notion of facing a nuclear-armed Iran (and a nuclear-armed Saudi Arabia and Egypt and etc., etc., etc.).
Only one possibility remains: Netanyahu must have opted to sit on his hands as Bushehr was powered up because of opposition he faces from within his government. There is only one person in Netanyahu’s coalition who has both the strategic dementia and the political power to force Netanyahu to accept the unacceptable.
That person is Defense Minister Ehud Barak.
Barak’s strategic ineptitude is legendary. It was most recently on display in the failed naval commando takeover of the Turkish-Hamas terror ship Mavi Marmara. It was Barak’s idea to arm naval commandos with paintball guns and so guarantee that they would be attacked and forced to use lethal force to defend themselves.
Barak’s ability to dictate government policy was most recently demonstrated in his obscene abuse of power in the appointment of the IDF’s next chief of staff. Regardless of whether the so-called “Galant Document,” which set out a plan to see Maj.-Gen. Yoav Galant appointed to replace outgoing IDF Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi, was forged or authentic, it is clear that its operative clauses were all being implemented by Barak’s own office for the past several months. So, too, despite the fact that the document is still the subject of police investigation, Barak successfully strong-armed Netanyahu into agreeing to his lightning appointment of Galant.
Even if Galant is the best candidate for the position, it is clear that Barak did the general no favors by appointing him in this manner. He certainly humiliated and discredited the General Staff.
Barak is the Obama administration’s favorite Israeli politician. While Netanyahu is shunned, Barak is feted in Washington nearly every month. And this makes sense. As the man directly responsible for Israel’s defense and with his stranglehold on the government, he alone has the wherewithal to enable the entire Middle East to go nuclear.
How’s that for unacceptable?
Israel’s response? The Foreign Ministry published a statement proclaiming the move “unacceptable.”
So why did we accept the unacceptable? When one asks senior officials about the Bushehr reactor and about Iran’s nuclear program more generally, their response invariably begins, “Well the Americans ...”
Far from accepting that Israel has a problem that it must deal with, Israel’s decision-makers still argue that the US will discover – before it is too late – that it must act to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power in order to secure its own interests.
As for Bushehr specifically, Israeli officials explain that it isn’t the main problem. The main danger stems from the uranium enrichment sites. And anyway, they explain, given the civilian character of the Bushehr reactor; the fact that it is under a full International Atomic Energy Agency inspections regime; and the fact that the Russians are supposed to take all the spent fuel rods to Russia and so prevent Iran from using them to produce weapons-grade plutonium, Israel lacked the international legitimacy to strike Bushehr to prevent it from being fueled last weekend.
BEFORE GOING into the question of whether Israel’s decision-makers were correct in opting out of attacking the Bushehr reactor to prevent it from being fueled, it is worth considering where “the Americans” stand on Iran as it declares itself a nuclear power and tests new, advanced weapons systems on a daily basis.
The answer to this question was provided in large part in an article in the National Interest by former Clinton administration National Security Council member Bruce Riedel. Titled, “If Israel Attacks,” Riedel – who reportedly has close ties to the current administration – asserts that an Israeli military strike against Iran will be a disaster for the US. In his view, the US is better served by allowing Iran to become a nuclear power than by supporting an Israeli attack against Iran.
He writes, “The United States needs to send a clear red light to Israel. There’s no option but to actively discourage an Israeli attack.”
Riedel explains that to induce Israel to accept the unacceptable specter of a nuclear armed mullocracy, the US should pay it off. Riedel recommends plying Israel’s leaders with F-22 Stealth bombers, nuclear submarines, a mutual defense treaty and perhaps even NATO membership.
Riedel’s reason for deeming an Israeli strike unacceptable is his conviction that such an operation will be met by an Iranian counter-strike against US forces and interests in the Persian Gulf and Afghanistan. While there is no reason to doubt he is correct, Riedel studiously ignores the other certainty: A nuclear-armed Iran would threaten those same troops and interests far more.
Riedel would have us believe that the Iranian regime will be a rational nuclear actor. That’s the regime that has outlawed music, stones women, and deploys terror proxies throughout the region and the world. That’s the same regime whose “supreme leader” just published a fatwa claiming he has the same religious stature as Muhammad.
Riedel bases this view on the actions Iran took when it was weak.
Since Iran didn’t place its American hostages on trial in 1980, it can be trusted with nuclear weapons in 2010. Since Iran didn’t go to war against the US in 1988 during the Kuwaiti tanker crisis, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad can be trusted with nuclear bombs in 2010. And so on and so forth.
Moreover, Riedel ignores what any casual newspaper reader now recognizes: Iran’s nuclear weapons program has spurred a regional nuclear arms race. Riedel imagines a bipolar nuclear Middle East, with Israel on the one side and Iran on the other. He fails to notice that already today Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Sudan and Turkey have all initiated nuclear programs.
And if Iran is allowed to go nuclear, these countries will beat a path to any number of nuclear bomb stores.
Some argue that a multipolar nuclear Middle East will adhere to the rules of mutual assured destruction. Assuming this is true, the fact remains that the violent Iranian response to an Israeli strike against its nuclear installations will look like a minor skirmish in comparison to the conventional wars that will break out in a Middle East in which everyone has the bomb.
And in truth, there is no reason to believe that a Middle East in which everyone has nuclear weapons is a Middle East that adheres to the rules of MAD. A recent Zogby/University of Maryland poll of Arab public opinion taken for the Brookings Institute in US-allied Arab states Egypt, Lebanon, Morocco, Saudi Arabia and the UAE shows that the Arab world is populated by jihadists.
As Herb London from the Hudson Institute pointed out in an analysis of the poll, nearly 70 percent of those polled said the leader they most admire is either a jihadist or a supporter of jihad.
The most popular leaders were Turkish Prime Minister Recep Erdogan, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, Ahmadinejad, Hizbullah chieftain Hassan Nasrallah, Syrian President Bashar Assad and al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden.
So if popular revolutions bring down any of the teetering despotic regimes now occupying the seats of power in the Arab world, they will likely be replaced by jihadists. Moreover, since an Iranian nuclear bomb would empower the most radical, destabilizing forces in pan-Arab society, the likelihood that a despot would resort to a nuclear strike on a Western or Israeli target in order to stay in power would similarly rise.
All of this should not be beyond the grasp of an experienced strategic thinker like Riedel. And yet, obviously, it is. Moreover, as an alumnus of the Clinton administration, Riedel’s positions in general are more realistic than those of the Obama administration. As Israeli officials acknowledge, the Obama administration is only now coming to terms with the fact that its engagement policy towards Iran has failed.
Moreover, throughout the US government, the White House is the most stubborn defender of the notion that the Iranian nuclear threat is not as serious a threat as the absence of a Palestinian state. That is, President Barack Obama himself is the most strident advocate of a US Middle East policy that ignores all the dangers the US faces in the region and turns American guns against the only country that doesn’t threaten any US interest.
And now, facing this state of affairs, Israeli leaders today still argue that issuing a Foreign Ministry communiqué declaring the fueling of the Bushehr nuclear reactor “unacceptable,” and beginning worthless negotiations with Fatah leaders is a rational and sufficient Israeli policy.
WHAT LIES behind this governmental fecklessness? There are two possible explanations for the government’s behavior. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu may be motivated by operational concerns or he may be motivated by political concerns.
On the operational level, the question guiding Israel’s leaders is when is the optimal time to attack? The fact that government sources say that it would have been diplomatically suicidal to attack before Bushehr became operational last weekend makes it clear that nonmilitary considerations are the determining factor for Israel’s leadership. Yet what Riedel’s article and the clear positions of the Obama administration demonstrate is that there is no chance that nonmilitary conditions will ever be optimal for Israel. Moreover, as Israel’s 1981 attack on Iraq’s nuclear reactor shows, Israel can achieve its strategic objectives even without US support for its operations.
From a military perspective, it is clear that it would have been better to strike Iran’s nuclear installations before the Russians fueled Bushehr.
Any attack scenario from now on will have to either accept the prospect of nuclear fallout or accept leaving Bushehr intact. Indeed from a military perspective, the longer Israel waits to attack Iran, the harder it will become to accomplish the mission.
So unless Israel’s leaders are unaware of strategic realities, the only plausible explanation for Netanyahu’s decision to sit by idly as Israel’s military options were drastically diminished over the weekend is that he was moved by domestic political considerations.
And what might those political considerations be? Clearly he wasn’t concerned with a lack of public support. Consistent, multiyear polling data show that the public overwhelmingly supports the use of force to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power.
Then there is the issue of Netanyahu’s coalition.
It cannot be that Netanyahu believes that he can build a broader coalition to support an attack on Iran than he already has by bringing Kadima into his government. Kadima leader Tzipi Livni is not a great supporter of an Israeli attack on Iran. Livni views being liked by Obama as more important than preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear state.
The prospect of a Kadima splinter party led by former defense minister Shaul Mofaz joining the coalition is also raised periodically. Yet experience indicates there is little chance of that happening.
Mofaz apparently dislikes Netanyahu more than he dislikes the notion of facing a nuclear-armed Iran (and a nuclear-armed Saudi Arabia and Egypt and etc., etc., etc.).
Only one possibility remains: Netanyahu must have opted to sit on his hands as Bushehr was powered up because of opposition he faces from within his government. There is only one person in Netanyahu’s coalition who has both the strategic dementia and the political power to force Netanyahu to accept the unacceptable.
That person is Defense Minister Ehud Barak.
Barak’s strategic ineptitude is legendary. It was most recently on display in the failed naval commando takeover of the Turkish-Hamas terror ship Mavi Marmara. It was Barak’s idea to arm naval commandos with paintball guns and so guarantee that they would be attacked and forced to use lethal force to defend themselves.
Barak’s ability to dictate government policy was most recently demonstrated in his obscene abuse of power in the appointment of the IDF’s next chief of staff. Regardless of whether the so-called “Galant Document,” which set out a plan to see Maj.-Gen. Yoav Galant appointed to replace outgoing IDF Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi, was forged or authentic, it is clear that its operative clauses were all being implemented by Barak’s own office for the past several months. So, too, despite the fact that the document is still the subject of police investigation, Barak successfully strong-armed Netanyahu into agreeing to his lightning appointment of Galant.
Even if Galant is the best candidate for the position, it is clear that Barak did the general no favors by appointing him in this manner. He certainly humiliated and discredited the General Staff.
Barak is the Obama administration’s favorite Israeli politician. While Netanyahu is shunned, Barak is feted in Washington nearly every month. And this makes sense. As the man directly responsible for Israel’s defense and with his stranglehold on the government, he alone has the wherewithal to enable the entire Middle East to go nuclear.
How’s that for unacceptable?
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Sprint Is Struggling
Aug 25, 2010
12:39 PM Sprint Is Struggling To Get 4G Subscribers, Analyst Says
Posted by Eric Savitz
Sprint (S) is having trouble getting customers to sign up for its 4G wireless service, Aurigia USA analyst Chandan Sarkar contends in a research report.
“As the first carrier to launch 4G service, we had expected strong subscriber growth at Sprint,” he writes. “However, in addition to the well publicized parts shortages on their EVO handset, we believe that the successful deployment of HSPA [high-speed packet access, a technology used to speed up 3G service that uses the WCDMA standard] by competitors (especially AT&T) appears to have limited Sprint’s 4G subscriber growth prospects.”
While HSPA is not as fast as the Clearwire (CLWR) WiMax technology resold by Sprint, he notes that “with no killer applications in sight,” HSPA is close enough in speed to 4G to keep data users happy.
Meanwhile, the analyst also says his checks find that Verizon Wireless (VZ, VOD) is slightly ahead of schedule on its planned roll out of its 4G LTE network.
S is down 7 cents, or 1.7%, to $3.88.
12:39 PM Sprint Is Struggling To Get 4G Subscribers, Analyst Says
Posted by Eric Savitz
Sprint (S) is having trouble getting customers to sign up for its 4G wireless service, Aurigia USA analyst Chandan Sarkar contends in a research report.
“As the first carrier to launch 4G service, we had expected strong subscriber growth at Sprint,” he writes. “However, in addition to the well publicized parts shortages on their EVO handset, we believe that the successful deployment of HSPA [high-speed packet access, a technology used to speed up 3G service that uses the WCDMA standard] by competitors (especially AT&T) appears to have limited Sprint’s 4G subscriber growth prospects.”
While HSPA is not as fast as the Clearwire (CLWR) WiMax technology resold by Sprint, he notes that “with no killer applications in sight,” HSPA is close enough in speed to 4G to keep data users happy.
Meanwhile, the analyst also says his checks find that Verizon Wireless (VZ, VOD) is slightly ahead of schedule on its planned roll out of its 4G LTE network.
S is down 7 cents, or 1.7%, to $3.88.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Apple hopes to offer 99-cent TV rentals
Apple is reportedly in talks with major television networks over a deal to provide TV shows through iTunes.According to Bloomberg, it's close to a deal with Fox subsidiary News Corp and Walt Disney, which owns ABC. It's also talking to NBC, CBS and Time Warner. Walt Disney is likely to be a definite sign-up, as Steve Jobs is its biggest shareholder.
Under the proposals, shows could be rented for as little as 99 cents an episode for 48 hours; currently they can only be bought, at prices between $1.99 and $2.99. Only movies are currently available for purchase.
They'd be free of advertising, and available within 24 hours of broadcast on any device that can access iTunes.
The deal could pose a threat to Amazon and Netflix, which offer online video streaming. But the plans would also see iTunes competing with Hulu. This may be one of the big sticking points for the networks, as News Corp and Disney already provide TV content to Hulu, which is a joint venture with NBC.
Apple is planning an event in September at which it's widely expected to announce improvements to the Apple TV set-top box, giving it a new user interface and shifting to the iOS operating system.
The new version - tipped to cost $99 - is also likely to be cloud-based and include streamed media. Bloomberg suggests that the iTunes deal could be announced at the same time.
If the TV rental deals work out, it could be a big boost for Apple TV. First launched in 2007, it's been described by Steven Jobs as a bit of a hobby in the past.
Under the proposals, shows could be rented for as little as 99 cents an episode for 48 hours; currently they can only be bought, at prices between $1.99 and $2.99. Only movies are currently available for purchase.
They'd be free of advertising, and available within 24 hours of broadcast on any device that can access iTunes.
The deal could pose a threat to Amazon and Netflix, which offer online video streaming. But the plans would also see iTunes competing with Hulu. This may be one of the big sticking points for the networks, as News Corp and Disney already provide TV content to Hulu, which is a joint venture with NBC.
Apple is planning an event in September at which it's widely expected to announce improvements to the Apple TV set-top box, giving it a new user interface and shifting to the iOS operating system.
The new version - tipped to cost $99 - is also likely to be cloud-based and include streamed media. Bloomberg suggests that the iTunes deal could be announced at the same time.
If the TV rental deals work out, it could be a big boost for Apple TV. First launched in 2007, it's been described by Steven Jobs as a bit of a hobby in the past.
Intel CEO Otellini: The Democrats Are Destroying our Economy
This is a stunning indictment from the leader of one of America’s most successful technology companies:
Unless government policies are altered, he predicted, “the next big thing will not be invented here. Jobs will not be created here.”
The U.S. legal environment has become so hostile to business, Otellini said, that there is likely to be “an inevitable erosion and shift of wealth, much like we’re seeing today in Europe–this is the bitter truth.”
Not long ago, Otellini said, “our research centers were without peer. No country was more attractive for start-up capital… We seemed a generation ahead of the rest of the world in information technology. That simply is no longer the case…”
Otellini singled out the political state of affairs in Democrat-dominated Washington, saying: “I think this group does not understand what it takes to create jobs. And I think they’re flummoxed by their experiment in Keynesian economics not working…”
As a result, he said, “every business in America has a list of more variables than I’ve ever seen in my career.” If variables like capital gains taxes and the R&D tax credit are resolved correctly, jobs will stay here, but if politicians make decisions “the wrong way, people will not invest in the United States. They’ll invest elsewhere.”
Take factories. “I can tell you definitively that it costs $1 billion more per factory for me to build, equip, and operate a semiconductor manufacturing facility in the United States,” Otellini said…
“If our tax rate approached that of the rest of the world, corporations would have an incentive to invest here,” Otellini said. But instead, it’s the second highest in the industrialized world, making the United States a less attractive place to invest–and create jobs–than places in Europe and Asia that are “clamoring” for Intel’s business.
The most disturbing part of Otellini’s comments is that he says nothing groundbreaking, nothing unexpected, and nothing that we have not heard many times before. Otellini talks about regulation, taxation, litigation and transparency - all issues that have been cited by business leaders for years. But our ‘leaders’ in Washington ignore these concerns, and instead pile on more taxes, more regulation, more litigation costs, greater uncertainty about the climate going forward. And they do all this while claiming to be ‘pro-jobs.’
Will Congress and the White House ever realize that business leaders are telling the truth? As our government continues to make it more difficult to do business in the US, companies must increasingly look to more favorable climates abroad. If Washington really wants to spur job creation here in the US, they should repeal the health care overhaul, reduce spending, cut the corporate tax rate, give up on cap and trade, and reform litigation. Instead we have been treated to an extended experiment in government control - one that is obviously not producing new wealth, new jobs, or any real hope for the emergence of the industries of the future.
Unless government policies are altered, he predicted, “the next big thing will not be invented here. Jobs will not be created here.”
The U.S. legal environment has become so hostile to business, Otellini said, that there is likely to be “an inevitable erosion and shift of wealth, much like we’re seeing today in Europe–this is the bitter truth.”
Not long ago, Otellini said, “our research centers were without peer. No country was more attractive for start-up capital… We seemed a generation ahead of the rest of the world in information technology. That simply is no longer the case…”
Otellini singled out the political state of affairs in Democrat-dominated Washington, saying: “I think this group does not understand what it takes to create jobs. And I think they’re flummoxed by their experiment in Keynesian economics not working…”
As a result, he said, “every business in America has a list of more variables than I’ve ever seen in my career.” If variables like capital gains taxes and the R&D tax credit are resolved correctly, jobs will stay here, but if politicians make decisions “the wrong way, people will not invest in the United States. They’ll invest elsewhere.”
Take factories. “I can tell you definitively that it costs $1 billion more per factory for me to build, equip, and operate a semiconductor manufacturing facility in the United States,” Otellini said…
“If our tax rate approached that of the rest of the world, corporations would have an incentive to invest here,” Otellini said. But instead, it’s the second highest in the industrialized world, making the United States a less attractive place to invest–and create jobs–than places in Europe and Asia that are “clamoring” for Intel’s business.
The most disturbing part of Otellini’s comments is that he says nothing groundbreaking, nothing unexpected, and nothing that we have not heard many times before. Otellini talks about regulation, taxation, litigation and transparency - all issues that have been cited by business leaders for years. But our ‘leaders’ in Washington ignore these concerns, and instead pile on more taxes, more regulation, more litigation costs, greater uncertainty about the climate going forward. And they do all this while claiming to be ‘pro-jobs.’
Will Congress and the White House ever realize that business leaders are telling the truth? As our government continues to make it more difficult to do business in the US, companies must increasingly look to more favorable climates abroad. If Washington really wants to spur job creation here in the US, they should repeal the health care overhaul, reduce spending, cut the corporate tax rate, give up on cap and trade, and reform litigation. Instead we have been treated to an extended experiment in government control - one that is obviously not producing new wealth, new jobs, or any real hope for the emergence of the industries of the future.
Sunday, August 22, 2010
Outside threats from Iran
Defense minister Ehud Barak's snap nomination of OC Southern Command Maj. Gen, Yoav Galant as Israel's 20th chief of staff was necessary - not just to dispel the climate of intrigue among competing generals, but to pull the high command together in view of the preparations to attack Israel gathering momentum in Tehran, Damascus, Beirut and Ramallah - and even in al Qaeda in Yemen.
(debkafile gave early warning of these preparations on Aug. 20. Click here for article.)
The general expectation of a US-Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear sites has therefore faded into the background of the threatening stance currently adopted by Tehran's allies, Syria, Hizballah and the Palestinian Hamas and Islamic Jihad.
According to debkafile's military sources, Israel intelligence does not have evidence of concrete plans to make good on these threats, but Jerusalem is extremely concerned by the placing of four hostile military forces on the highest level of war preparedness in the last few days and are asking why.
For example, Syrian prime minister Naji al-Otari and Abbas Zaki, one of Palestinian Authority chairman Mahmoud Abbas' closest aides, have spoken of a "very imminent" Middle East war; Al Qaeda's No. 2. commander in Yemen, Saeed al-Shehri, released a videotape last week stating that a war between Iran and Israel is about to erupt. He called on all Arab aviators to contribute to the holy cause by crashing their planes on Israeli city centers as did the Al Qaeda martyrs who attacked New York and Washington on Sept. 11 2001.
The situation being too incendiary to ignore, Israel's Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister decided the malicious documents traded among the top brass in the last ten days were an indulgence Israel could not afford. They therefore ended the uncertainty over the choice of next chief of staff after Lt. Gen. Gaby Ashkenazi steps down in February 2011. Ehud Barak delivered a surprise notice to the regular cabinet meeting Sunday, Aug. 22 that he had cut short the selection process and named Maj. Gen. Yoav Galant as his candidate for the next chief of staff.
debkafile's military sources see five elements with the potential for exploding into a major Middle East flare-up:
1. Iran has taken US and Israeli passivity over the start-up of its Russian built nuclear reactor at Bushehr on Aug. 21 to mean that it can get away with more muscle-flexing and has already factored the reactor which Washington characterized as not immediately dangerous into its military build-up.
Sunday, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad unveiled an armed unmanned aerial vehicle called Karrar, claiming its range to be 1,000 kilometers - as far as Israel - and able to deliver four cruise missiles. These claims have yet to be independently verified.
More locally-made advanced weaponry is promised for this week to demonstrate Iran's independence of outside sources. Its leaders are bragging that Iran will soon take its place among the world's top 50 exporters of advanced arms.
2. The forthcoming Israel-Palestinian peace talks beginning in Washington on Sept. 2 - while generally rated as going nowhere - are nonetheless anathema for Tehran and its radical allies. They are perfectly capable of starting trouble on Israel's borders with Lebanon, Gaza or even Syria to sabotage even the dimmest prospect of a diplomatic breakthrough.
There is no telling in the Middle East when an isolated incident may not deteriorate rapidly into a major conflict when the climate is as tense as it is at present. It came dangerously close on Aug. 3, when a Lebanese army sniper shot dead an Israeli colonel precipitating a heavy exchange of fire.
3. Lebanon is on tenterhooks over the nine Hizballah leaders the international court inquiring into the 2005 Hariri assassination plans to summon as suspected perpetrators of the crime. Hizballah's leader Hassan Nasrallah has given the Beirut government due notice that if his top people are surrendered to the tribunal, he will plunge the country in a civil conflict.
Hizballah, backed by Damascus, recently began accusing Israel of engineering the murder, so providing themselves with a neat pretext for going to war and avoiding facing the music.
Thursday, Aug. 19, all Syrian homeland defenses and emergency services were placed on the highest war readiness for an outbreak of hostilities without further notice.
4. The situation on the Israel's southern borders is as tense as its Lebanese and Syrian frontiers.
5. Iran is expected to take advantage of the withdrawal of US combat troops from Iraq to make a grab for the oil-rich south and send its allies to carry out operations against Israel as a diversionary tactic.
All these reasons have led military sources to indicate to debkafile that the outgoing Lt. Gen. Gaby Ashkenazy may not stay on until February but hand over to Maj. Gen. Galant as soon as the beginning of the Jewish New Year in the second week of September, 2010.
(debkafile gave early warning of these preparations on Aug. 20. Click here for article.)
The general expectation of a US-Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear sites has therefore faded into the background of the threatening stance currently adopted by Tehran's allies, Syria, Hizballah and the Palestinian Hamas and Islamic Jihad.
According to debkafile's military sources, Israel intelligence does not have evidence of concrete plans to make good on these threats, but Jerusalem is extremely concerned by the placing of four hostile military forces on the highest level of war preparedness in the last few days and are asking why.
For example, Syrian prime minister Naji al-Otari and Abbas Zaki, one of Palestinian Authority chairman Mahmoud Abbas' closest aides, have spoken of a "very imminent" Middle East war; Al Qaeda's No. 2. commander in Yemen, Saeed al-Shehri, released a videotape last week stating that a war between Iran and Israel is about to erupt. He called on all Arab aviators to contribute to the holy cause by crashing their planes on Israeli city centers as did the Al Qaeda martyrs who attacked New York and Washington on Sept. 11 2001.
The situation being too incendiary to ignore, Israel's Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister decided the malicious documents traded among the top brass in the last ten days were an indulgence Israel could not afford. They therefore ended the uncertainty over the choice of next chief of staff after Lt. Gen. Gaby Ashkenazi steps down in February 2011. Ehud Barak delivered a surprise notice to the regular cabinet meeting Sunday, Aug. 22 that he had cut short the selection process and named Maj. Gen. Yoav Galant as his candidate for the next chief of staff.
debkafile's military sources see five elements with the potential for exploding into a major Middle East flare-up:
1. Iran has taken US and Israeli passivity over the start-up of its Russian built nuclear reactor at Bushehr on Aug. 21 to mean that it can get away with more muscle-flexing and has already factored the reactor which Washington characterized as not immediately dangerous into its military build-up.
Sunday, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad unveiled an armed unmanned aerial vehicle called Karrar, claiming its range to be 1,000 kilometers - as far as Israel - and able to deliver four cruise missiles. These claims have yet to be independently verified.
More locally-made advanced weaponry is promised for this week to demonstrate Iran's independence of outside sources. Its leaders are bragging that Iran will soon take its place among the world's top 50 exporters of advanced arms.
2. The forthcoming Israel-Palestinian peace talks beginning in Washington on Sept. 2 - while generally rated as going nowhere - are nonetheless anathema for Tehran and its radical allies. They are perfectly capable of starting trouble on Israel's borders with Lebanon, Gaza or even Syria to sabotage even the dimmest prospect of a diplomatic breakthrough.
There is no telling in the Middle East when an isolated incident may not deteriorate rapidly into a major conflict when the climate is as tense as it is at present. It came dangerously close on Aug. 3, when a Lebanese army sniper shot dead an Israeli colonel precipitating a heavy exchange of fire.
3. Lebanon is on tenterhooks over the nine Hizballah leaders the international court inquiring into the 2005 Hariri assassination plans to summon as suspected perpetrators of the crime. Hizballah's leader Hassan Nasrallah has given the Beirut government due notice that if his top people are surrendered to the tribunal, he will plunge the country in a civil conflict.
Hizballah, backed by Damascus, recently began accusing Israel of engineering the murder, so providing themselves with a neat pretext for going to war and avoiding facing the music.
Thursday, Aug. 19, all Syrian homeland defenses and emergency services were placed on the highest war readiness for an outbreak of hostilities without further notice.
4. The situation on the Israel's southern borders is as tense as its Lebanese and Syrian frontiers.
5. Iran is expected to take advantage of the withdrawal of US combat troops from Iraq to make a grab for the oil-rich south and send its allies to carry out operations against Israel as a diversionary tactic.
All these reasons have led military sources to indicate to debkafile that the outgoing Lt. Gen. Gaby Ashkenazy may not stay on until February but hand over to Maj. Gen. Galant as soon as the beginning of the Jewish New Year in the second week of September, 2010.
Monday, August 16, 2010
Recession sparks new attitudes for Generation Y
It was only five years ago that Miami accounting firm director Richard Berkowitz thought he had a problem during tax season relating to his younger workers. ``When I told them it was mandatory they come in on the weekend, they looked at me like I was out of my mind.''
Today, his younger workers are much easier to manage. The recession has brought a shocking reality to Generation Y professionals who stumped baby boomers when they first entered the workforce with their desire for work/life balance over the corner office.
Stunned by a barrage of pink slips instead of promotions, Generation Y -- people between ages 18 and 30 -- has swallowed a piece of humble pie. Those who still have jobs are adopting new workplace attitudes and making themselves more valuable.
They still want a chance at career development but they are no longer demanding that it happen on the fast track.
``This is the generation that dreamed they wanted to be CEO of a public company but didn't have an idea what to do to get there,'' Berkowitz says. ``What's happened is that realization set in. They've discovered you have to be on the ground and working hard to accomplish great things.''
In some ways, this coddled, tech-savvy generation, also known as the Millennials, is best positioned to prosper post-recession: They never really trusted Corporate America. They know how to scour the Internet for opportunities. They grew up innately adapting to change and embracing fast-paced innovation. As a group with high self-confidence, they are approaching their plight with optimism.
``They are seeing this as a re-evaluation period,'' says Tamara Bell, editor-in-chief and president of Y Gen Out Loud, a news platform for political and public policy conversations. ``They will tell you, we can do this. We can make change necessary to get the engine going. They see it as an opportunity to change what they were doing and learn something new instead of being in complete panic mode.''
By all measures, the newest members of the workforce are bearing the full effect of the worst economic slump since the Great Depression. The recession brutalized their income, savings and career-ladder potential.
About 37 percent of 18- to 29-year-olds have been underemployed or out of work during the recession, the highest share among the age group in more than three decades, according to a Pew Research Center study released in February. Even more, the unemployment rate for Gen Y remains much higher than the national rate, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. While the overall national unemployment rate was 9.5 percent in June, the latest figures available for making that comparison, for Gen Y it was 15.3 percent.
Because of these stark numbers, many of them realize that they can't make the demands for raises, promotions, time off, training and the hottest technologies during a recession that they've previously made on their employers.
Cesar Alvarez, executive chairman of law firm Greenberg Traurig, thinks the recession was the wake-up call for this group of workers, much like other generations had defining events that changed their behavior.
``I think their concept of the ultimate safety net has shattered,'' Alvarez said. ``I'm seeing them much more engaged. I think this was a tipping point that helped the new generation suit up for the game.''
To be sure, the legal sector underscores the new world at work. Only a few years before the Wall Street meltdown, law firms had lured young legal grads with outlandish salaries as high as $160,000. Then came the recession and these young lawyers were told to hit the bricks as firms slammed them with layoffs, pay cuts and withdrawals of job offers.
As of last month there were 17,200 fewer U.S. legal jobs in the than there were in July 2009, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Before the recession, senior partners regularly complained about their young lawyers who wanted to work less and get paid more. Now, Alvarez explains, the young lawyers don't necessarily want to work more hours but they are putting in the effort and bringing the technology to get the job done in less time.
``They are changing the business model,'' he said. Their workplace priorities have changed, too. In the past, they wanted to work for companies that incorporate community involvement and charitable giving. Now they value organizations that are financially strong above all else, says Jaret Davis, administrative shareholder at Greenberg Traurig. He used to get questions about the timing of pay raises and promotions. Now, Davis says, the questions he gets from young recruits are, ``How is the firm doing financially? Will it be around? Will my job be around?''
LUCKY TO HAVE A JOB
Christina Totfalusi Blake, a 29-year-old attorney, feels lucky to have a job, particularly one that provides the attributes most Gen Y workers value -- meaningful work, opportunities for learning, quality of life and likeable colleagues.
Blake joined Kelley, Kronenberg, Gilmartin, Fichtel, Wander, Bamdas, Escalyo and Dunbrack in Miami Lakes after working solo in Orlando for two years. She views her workplace as a social hub where collaboration has value.
``There's an open door policy so I can chat with other attorneys,'' she said. ``For me, brainstorming, having senior associates to bounce ideas off is huge. It's something I can't put a value on.''
But like many twenty-somethings, Blake still wants the high salary and work/life balance. ``Young attorneys are taking lower-paying jobs for the same long hours. But our hopes are still there, in light of our student loans and high debt that compensation will go back up.''
Some seek those same goals by working for themselves.
For some Millennials there is little to lose in becoming an entrepreneur: no mortgages, no families, and not a whole lot of obligations. They often start businesses on a shoestring budget or look to their parents for start-up capital. Sonny Palta, 23, has started two businesses alone and co-founded two others, including Green Monkey yoga centers in Miami. He won't even consider working for an employer, nor would many of his peers. ``We look at it as unbearable. Work without passion is nothing to me. I'd rather do something I love for bare bones and hope I hit that one idea that makes it big.''
Almost five years ago, the consulting firm Deloitte turned to Stan Smith when it became alarmed by the high turnover of its youngest employees. Smith not only studied this group for the firm, he went on to publish his first book, Decoding Generational Differences: Fact, Fiction...or Should We Just Get Back to Work? Smith, now an independent consultant, says the recession has made Generation Y workers more concerned about their future, more compliant to employers' demands. But he's believes the attitude change is temporary.
``They are compliant for now, yet if you dig beneath the surface, their underlying values are still there,'' Smith says. ``They want flexibility, they want work life balance, but for now they are just not as vocal about how they want it served up.''
Indeed, this is where employers need to be cautious, Bell says. ``They will go into a job to the pay bills, but really are looking for something fulfilling. If they can't find it in the job they take, they will stay until the economy turns but at some point they are out the door.''
Bell says the best way to keep young workers is make them part of a team. ``They want to know their contribution is valued and they are sitting at the table with everyone else.''
Michelle Zubizarreta manages a Hispanic ad agency whose workforce skews heavy toward Millennials. She has done exactly what Bell suggests, given her young staffers a seat at the table. ``They are motivated by having their ideas heard and feeling like they count. I will call them into a new business pitch saying we've got to talk to the young consumer, talk to me about how to do it.''
As the recession created the need for new revenue streams, Zubi Advertising turned to its tech-savvy multitasking, Gen Y staff for creative input. Zubizarreta gave her young workers the green light to use Facebook to do consumer surveys. She also created innovation groups, setting up teams to develop ad-related iPhone apps and come up with other money-making ideas.
She says her young workers seem enthused. ``I tell them, they're going to work hard, but they will have fun.''
At Berkowitz Dick Pollack & Brant, Rachel Merritt, 23, clearly is her accounting firm's future. After only a year, she has contributed key analysis for a major litigation case underway in her department.
Digging through data took late nights and Merritt was recognized for it by supervisors. Merritt says she's motivated because, ``I have the opportunity to work with people many levels above me who explain the bigger picture.''
She says she watches as her friends jump at any job they can get and go in lacking motivation. ``They might work the hours I do but they won't do it with a smile on their face.''
KEY TO THE FUTURE
Generation Y professionals may be exasperating, but they are the future for most businesses. Most do understand how bad the economy is now and are juggling the multiple tasks being thrown at them at a time when their organization is going through change.
But that doesn't mean they intend to stick with the same company in the future.
When they first came on the scene, companies realized Millennials required an entirely different management style than boomers, Gen Xers or seniors. They brought in consultants and conducted studies to try and figure out what it takes to motivate these future company leaders.
With the recession, companies went into survival mode.
Smith, the consultant, suggests employers go back to figuring out what makes these young workers tick and outline career paths within their company for strong performers.
Berkowitz says he's already learned something important about his Gen Y workers: ``They aren't going to walk in and become great. You have to teach them how to be great professionals.''
Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/08/15/v-print/1775427/recession-sparks-new-attitudes.html#ixzz0wll855Yu
Today, his younger workers are much easier to manage. The recession has brought a shocking reality to Generation Y professionals who stumped baby boomers when they first entered the workforce with their desire for work/life balance over the corner office.
Stunned by a barrage of pink slips instead of promotions, Generation Y -- people between ages 18 and 30 -- has swallowed a piece of humble pie. Those who still have jobs are adopting new workplace attitudes and making themselves more valuable.
They still want a chance at career development but they are no longer demanding that it happen on the fast track.
``This is the generation that dreamed they wanted to be CEO of a public company but didn't have an idea what to do to get there,'' Berkowitz says. ``What's happened is that realization set in. They've discovered you have to be on the ground and working hard to accomplish great things.''
In some ways, this coddled, tech-savvy generation, also known as the Millennials, is best positioned to prosper post-recession: They never really trusted Corporate America. They know how to scour the Internet for opportunities. They grew up innately adapting to change and embracing fast-paced innovation. As a group with high self-confidence, they are approaching their plight with optimism.
``They are seeing this as a re-evaluation period,'' says Tamara Bell, editor-in-chief and president of Y Gen Out Loud, a news platform for political and public policy conversations. ``They will tell you, we can do this. We can make change necessary to get the engine going. They see it as an opportunity to change what they were doing and learn something new instead of being in complete panic mode.''
By all measures, the newest members of the workforce are bearing the full effect of the worst economic slump since the Great Depression. The recession brutalized their income, savings and career-ladder potential.
About 37 percent of 18- to 29-year-olds have been underemployed or out of work during the recession, the highest share among the age group in more than three decades, according to a Pew Research Center study released in February. Even more, the unemployment rate for Gen Y remains much higher than the national rate, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. While the overall national unemployment rate was 9.5 percent in June, the latest figures available for making that comparison, for Gen Y it was 15.3 percent.
Because of these stark numbers, many of them realize that they can't make the demands for raises, promotions, time off, training and the hottest technologies during a recession that they've previously made on their employers.
Cesar Alvarez, executive chairman of law firm Greenberg Traurig, thinks the recession was the wake-up call for this group of workers, much like other generations had defining events that changed their behavior.
``I think their concept of the ultimate safety net has shattered,'' Alvarez said. ``I'm seeing them much more engaged. I think this was a tipping point that helped the new generation suit up for the game.''
To be sure, the legal sector underscores the new world at work. Only a few years before the Wall Street meltdown, law firms had lured young legal grads with outlandish salaries as high as $160,000. Then came the recession and these young lawyers were told to hit the bricks as firms slammed them with layoffs, pay cuts and withdrawals of job offers.
As of last month there were 17,200 fewer U.S. legal jobs in the than there were in July 2009, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Before the recession, senior partners regularly complained about their young lawyers who wanted to work less and get paid more. Now, Alvarez explains, the young lawyers don't necessarily want to work more hours but they are putting in the effort and bringing the technology to get the job done in less time.
``They are changing the business model,'' he said. Their workplace priorities have changed, too. In the past, they wanted to work for companies that incorporate community involvement and charitable giving. Now they value organizations that are financially strong above all else, says Jaret Davis, administrative shareholder at Greenberg Traurig. He used to get questions about the timing of pay raises and promotions. Now, Davis says, the questions he gets from young recruits are, ``How is the firm doing financially? Will it be around? Will my job be around?''
LUCKY TO HAVE A JOB
Christina Totfalusi Blake, a 29-year-old attorney, feels lucky to have a job, particularly one that provides the attributes most Gen Y workers value -- meaningful work, opportunities for learning, quality of life and likeable colleagues.
Blake joined Kelley, Kronenberg, Gilmartin, Fichtel, Wander, Bamdas, Escalyo and Dunbrack in Miami Lakes after working solo in Orlando for two years. She views her workplace as a social hub where collaboration has value.
``There's an open door policy so I can chat with other attorneys,'' she said. ``For me, brainstorming, having senior associates to bounce ideas off is huge. It's something I can't put a value on.''
But like many twenty-somethings, Blake still wants the high salary and work/life balance. ``Young attorneys are taking lower-paying jobs for the same long hours. But our hopes are still there, in light of our student loans and high debt that compensation will go back up.''
Some seek those same goals by working for themselves.
For some Millennials there is little to lose in becoming an entrepreneur: no mortgages, no families, and not a whole lot of obligations. They often start businesses on a shoestring budget or look to their parents for start-up capital. Sonny Palta, 23, has started two businesses alone and co-founded two others, including Green Monkey yoga centers in Miami. He won't even consider working for an employer, nor would many of his peers. ``We look at it as unbearable. Work without passion is nothing to me. I'd rather do something I love for bare bones and hope I hit that one idea that makes it big.''
Almost five years ago, the consulting firm Deloitte turned to Stan Smith when it became alarmed by the high turnover of its youngest employees. Smith not only studied this group for the firm, he went on to publish his first book, Decoding Generational Differences: Fact, Fiction...or Should We Just Get Back to Work? Smith, now an independent consultant, says the recession has made Generation Y workers more concerned about their future, more compliant to employers' demands. But he's believes the attitude change is temporary.
``They are compliant for now, yet if you dig beneath the surface, their underlying values are still there,'' Smith says. ``They want flexibility, they want work life balance, but for now they are just not as vocal about how they want it served up.''
Indeed, this is where employers need to be cautious, Bell says. ``They will go into a job to the pay bills, but really are looking for something fulfilling. If they can't find it in the job they take, they will stay until the economy turns but at some point they are out the door.''
Bell says the best way to keep young workers is make them part of a team. ``They want to know their contribution is valued and they are sitting at the table with everyone else.''
Michelle Zubizarreta manages a Hispanic ad agency whose workforce skews heavy toward Millennials. She has done exactly what Bell suggests, given her young staffers a seat at the table. ``They are motivated by having their ideas heard and feeling like they count. I will call them into a new business pitch saying we've got to talk to the young consumer, talk to me about how to do it.''
As the recession created the need for new revenue streams, Zubi Advertising turned to its tech-savvy multitasking, Gen Y staff for creative input. Zubizarreta gave her young workers the green light to use Facebook to do consumer surveys. She also created innovation groups, setting up teams to develop ad-related iPhone apps and come up with other money-making ideas.
She says her young workers seem enthused. ``I tell them, they're going to work hard, but they will have fun.''
At Berkowitz Dick Pollack & Brant, Rachel Merritt, 23, clearly is her accounting firm's future. After only a year, she has contributed key analysis for a major litigation case underway in her department.
Digging through data took late nights and Merritt was recognized for it by supervisors. Merritt says she's motivated because, ``I have the opportunity to work with people many levels above me who explain the bigger picture.''
She says she watches as her friends jump at any job they can get and go in lacking motivation. ``They might work the hours I do but they won't do it with a smile on their face.''
KEY TO THE FUTURE
Generation Y professionals may be exasperating, but they are the future for most businesses. Most do understand how bad the economy is now and are juggling the multiple tasks being thrown at them at a time when their organization is going through change.
But that doesn't mean they intend to stick with the same company in the future.
When they first came on the scene, companies realized Millennials required an entirely different management style than boomers, Gen Xers or seniors. They brought in consultants and conducted studies to try and figure out what it takes to motivate these future company leaders.
With the recession, companies went into survival mode.
Smith, the consultant, suggests employers go back to figuring out what makes these young workers tick and outline career paths within their company for strong performers.
Berkowitz says he's already learned something important about his Gen Y workers: ``They aren't going to walk in and become great. You have to teach them how to be great professionals.''
Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/08/15/v-print/1775427/recession-sparks-new-attitudes.html#ixzz0wll855Yu
Chinese iPod gadget aims to skin Apple
CNN) -- Have you ever wished that your iPod Touch was an iPhone? Now it can be, thanks to a new device called the Apple Peel 520 and created by a Chinese company.
Invented by a 22-year-old programmer who lives in the southern Chinese city of Shenzhen, the gadget is comprised of a case that fits around the outside of Apple's iPod Touch, a popular media player and WiFi-enabled pocket computer with email, maps and other applications.
The Apple Peel 520 case contains a battery, dock connector and SIM card that allows voice calls. Users will also have to install special software to enable a text messaging function, and to allow the device to properly work with the iPod Touch (users will have to break into the software of the iPod in order to download the necessary applications).
Once installed, the Apple Peel gets around five hours of talk time and 120 hours on standby, according to a review posted on Dailytech.com.
I developed it because I love the iPhone, but it's too expensive in China.
--'Maxpy', developer of Apple Peel 520
CNN had a conversation with the inventor of the device via QQ, a popular instant messaging service in China (he declined a phone interview and was only willing to offer his online name: "Maxpy").
When asked why he created the Apple Peel, Maxpy said it boiled down to economics: "Because I love the iPhone, but it's too expensive in China."
Maxpy said he began building the device last April, revealing the final product online about a month ago via a company he started called Yosion Technology.
The iPhone, which was officially launched on the mainland last October, more than two years after its debut in the US, costs between $588 - $740 while an iPod Touch is around $235. The Apple Peel sells for $57.
Analysts said a thriving gray market flooded with fake iPhones smuggled in from Hong Kong and the West has hurt legitimate sales of the Apple smart phone here.
The illegitimate phones are usually cheaper and contain functions, such as wireless Internet, that are not available on phones sold through legal channels.
"All of the potential users already had purchased an iPhone, they had found a way to buy one," Leo Wang, founder of Mobile 2.0 forum, a telecom and mobile organization, told CNN after the China launch of iPhone release last year. "The official iPhone is too expensive."
Most of Apple's factories are in China, so it is not like China cannot make high-quality products
--Benjamin Joffe, Internet Consultant
RELATED TOPICS
Convergence Technology
Information Technology
China
Whether or not the Apple Peel 520 will appeal to Chinese consumers or have any impact on iPhone sales in the country remains to be seen. So far, according to Maxpy, only around 150 of the devices have been pre-sold on Taobao.com, a popular Chinese e-commerce site. Two were sent to technology websites for review.
While there are plans to mass manufacture the gadget in the future, Maxpy says those plans are on hold until the company can ensure there are no intellectual property right violations.
"We have no detailed plans," he said. "But of course we want to make a profit from it."
Maxpy also said they want to check on Apple's policy on "outside devices" as well as try to reach the company to see if they have any interest in the gadget, asking CNN whether we could put him in touch with Apple CEO Steve Jobs. We could not.
Yet CNN did try to reach Apple representatives in Beijing and Hong Kong. No one was available for comment.
There are also a few technical glitches to be worked out. According to a Chinese review translated into English on M.I.C. Gadget, the Apple Peel does not support 3G, there's a small lag time when calls are made from the iPod Touch and deleting and forwarding text messages is not available among other minor complaints.
Nevertheless, many say they are impressed with the functionality of the device.
"It is the first time there has been a hardware application that has changed the functionality in such a key way," said Tai-Pan (a pseudonym), editor of the Taiwan-based Shanzhai.com. "It is very cheap for someone with an iPod Touch, so there is some kind of value proposition for people who want to save money."
What's more is the Apple Peel also illustrates the evolution of China's massive "shanzhai", or black market, phone industry. Based mostly in Shenzhen, it is an industry characterized by the massive production of copycat mobile phones and other devices, which are sold at lower prices and often with more localized functionality than global brands.
Every year, millions of shanzhai phones are sold throughout China and exported to developing countries, resulting in a major dent in the sales of mainstream manufacturers in those markets, according to the research firm Gartner.
"People are already or will soon be buying not just China-made but China-owned products," said Benjamin Joffe, founder of the Beijing-based mobile and Internet consulting firm Plus8Star.
"Most of Apple's factories are in China, so it is not like China cannot make high-quality products," he said.
"The issue remaining to go up the value chain has been design, marketing and distribution. Chinese companies are learning, acquiring talent and buying what is missing."
Invented by a 22-year-old programmer who lives in the southern Chinese city of Shenzhen, the gadget is comprised of a case that fits around the outside of Apple's iPod Touch, a popular media player and WiFi-enabled pocket computer with email, maps and other applications.
The Apple Peel 520 case contains a battery, dock connector and SIM card that allows voice calls. Users will also have to install special software to enable a text messaging function, and to allow the device to properly work with the iPod Touch (users will have to break into the software of the iPod in order to download the necessary applications).
Once installed, the Apple Peel gets around five hours of talk time and 120 hours on standby, according to a review posted on Dailytech.com.
I developed it because I love the iPhone, but it's too expensive in China.
--'Maxpy', developer of Apple Peel 520
CNN had a conversation with the inventor of the device via QQ, a popular instant messaging service in China (he declined a phone interview and was only willing to offer his online name: "Maxpy").
When asked why he created the Apple Peel, Maxpy said it boiled down to economics: "Because I love the iPhone, but it's too expensive in China."
Maxpy said he began building the device last April, revealing the final product online about a month ago via a company he started called Yosion Technology.
The iPhone, which was officially launched on the mainland last October, more than two years after its debut in the US, costs between $588 - $740 while an iPod Touch is around $235. The Apple Peel sells for $57.
Analysts said a thriving gray market flooded with fake iPhones smuggled in from Hong Kong and the West has hurt legitimate sales of the Apple smart phone here.
The illegitimate phones are usually cheaper and contain functions, such as wireless Internet, that are not available on phones sold through legal channels.
"All of the potential users already had purchased an iPhone, they had found a way to buy one," Leo Wang, founder of Mobile 2.0 forum, a telecom and mobile organization, told CNN after the China launch of iPhone release last year. "The official iPhone is too expensive."
Most of Apple's factories are in China, so it is not like China cannot make high-quality products
--Benjamin Joffe, Internet Consultant
RELATED TOPICS
Convergence Technology
Information Technology
China
Whether or not the Apple Peel 520 will appeal to Chinese consumers or have any impact on iPhone sales in the country remains to be seen. So far, according to Maxpy, only around 150 of the devices have been pre-sold on Taobao.com, a popular Chinese e-commerce site. Two were sent to technology websites for review.
While there are plans to mass manufacture the gadget in the future, Maxpy says those plans are on hold until the company can ensure there are no intellectual property right violations.
"We have no detailed plans," he said. "But of course we want to make a profit from it."
Maxpy also said they want to check on Apple's policy on "outside devices" as well as try to reach the company to see if they have any interest in the gadget, asking CNN whether we could put him in touch with Apple CEO Steve Jobs. We could not.
Yet CNN did try to reach Apple representatives in Beijing and Hong Kong. No one was available for comment.
There are also a few technical glitches to be worked out. According to a Chinese review translated into English on M.I.C. Gadget, the Apple Peel does not support 3G, there's a small lag time when calls are made from the iPod Touch and deleting and forwarding text messages is not available among other minor complaints.
Nevertheless, many say they are impressed with the functionality of the device.
"It is the first time there has been a hardware application that has changed the functionality in such a key way," said Tai-Pan (a pseudonym), editor of the Taiwan-based Shanzhai.com. "It is very cheap for someone with an iPod Touch, so there is some kind of value proposition for people who want to save money."
What's more is the Apple Peel also illustrates the evolution of China's massive "shanzhai", or black market, phone industry. Based mostly in Shenzhen, it is an industry characterized by the massive production of copycat mobile phones and other devices, which are sold at lower prices and often with more localized functionality than global brands.
Every year, millions of shanzhai phones are sold throughout China and exported to developing countries, resulting in a major dent in the sales of mainstream manufacturers in those markets, according to the research firm Gartner.
"People are already or will soon be buying not just China-made but China-owned products," said Benjamin Joffe, founder of the Beijing-based mobile and Internet consulting firm Plus8Star.
"Most of Apple's factories are in China, so it is not like China cannot make high-quality products," he said.
"The issue remaining to go up the value chain has been design, marketing and distribution. Chinese companies are learning, acquiring talent and buying what is missing."
Bomb kills Iran's military drone program chief
On Aug. 1, Reza Baruni, the father of Iran's military UAV program, died in a mighty explosion that destroyed his closely secured villa, debkafile's military and intelligence sources reveal. He lived in the high-scale neighborhood secluded for high Iranian officials in the southern town of Ahwaz in oil-rich Khuzestan.
Very few people in the country outside the top leaders and air force knew about his job and so his death was not generally appreciated as fatally stalling Iran's military drone program for many years.
The official version produced the old standby of an exploding gas canister as the cause of the blast. However, DEBKA-Net-Weekly's intelligence source report that bombs were planted in at least three corners of the building and expertly rigged to explode simultaneously and bring the ceilings crashing down on its occupants. The bomber must therefore have had access to the Baruni home.
The authorities tended to fix the blame on underground organizations representing the local Arab-speaking Ahwazis' fight for self-rule against the repressive regime. Some suspect certain Gulf Arab emirates' intelligence services commissioned the Baruni murder.
Hiding behind his public face as a retired army major, the dead man created Iran's program for manufacturing military drones from scratch and trained a new generation of engineers and planners to take over. But despite his efforts and the hefty sums Iran invested in the industry, the product never really came up to the advanced standards achieved by a very few countries.
Five months ago, US Defense Security Robert Gates told the Senate Appropriations Committee. "Countries like Iran are developing their own UAVs and already have a UAV capability. That is a concern because it is one of these areas where, if they chose to - in Iraq, in Afghanistan - they could create difficulties for us."
There is also a growing concern that drone technology could be sold to terrorist groups.
Gates was responding to a statement last February by the Iranian Air Force's coordination deputy, Brigadier General Aziz Nasirzadeh, that Iran had successfully tested the prototype of its first domestically-built "stealth drone" calling it Sofeh Mahi (Manta Ray)."
He boasted that the drone, "due to its physical attributes and the material used in its body, cannot be detected by any radar." But he also introduced a cautious note by explaining that the production process would not be rushed, as such complex systems need thorough analysis and exhaustive testing.
debkafile's sources: Reza Baruni's death will most likely put Iran's ambitious project for developing sophisticated UAVs in mothballs in the foreseeable future.
Very few people in the country outside the top leaders and air force knew about his job and so his death was not generally appreciated as fatally stalling Iran's military drone program for many years.
The official version produced the old standby of an exploding gas canister as the cause of the blast. However, DEBKA-Net-Weekly's intelligence source report that bombs were planted in at least three corners of the building and expertly rigged to explode simultaneously and bring the ceilings crashing down on its occupants. The bomber must therefore have had access to the Baruni home.
The authorities tended to fix the blame on underground organizations representing the local Arab-speaking Ahwazis' fight for self-rule against the repressive regime. Some suspect certain Gulf Arab emirates' intelligence services commissioned the Baruni murder.
Hiding behind his public face as a retired army major, the dead man created Iran's program for manufacturing military drones from scratch and trained a new generation of engineers and planners to take over. But despite his efforts and the hefty sums Iran invested in the industry, the product never really came up to the advanced standards achieved by a very few countries.
Five months ago, US Defense Security Robert Gates told the Senate Appropriations Committee. "Countries like Iran are developing their own UAVs and already have a UAV capability. That is a concern because it is one of these areas where, if they chose to - in Iraq, in Afghanistan - they could create difficulties for us."
There is also a growing concern that drone technology could be sold to terrorist groups.
Gates was responding to a statement last February by the Iranian Air Force's coordination deputy, Brigadier General Aziz Nasirzadeh, that Iran had successfully tested the prototype of its first domestically-built "stealth drone" calling it Sofeh Mahi (Manta Ray)."
He boasted that the drone, "due to its physical attributes and the material used in its body, cannot be detected by any radar." But he also introduced a cautious note by explaining that the production process would not be rushed, as such complex systems need thorough analysis and exhaustive testing.
debkafile's sources: Reza Baruni's death will most likely put Iran's ambitious project for developing sophisticated UAVs in mothballs in the foreseeable future.
Hizbullah Hides Behind Handicapped Children
The IDF has taken the unusual step of revealing to the press the precise location of Hizbullah hideouts in southern Lebanon. A Northern Command officer showed an Associated Press reporter the Hizbullah outposts visible from the Lebanon border.
Many outposts are hidden in civilian areas - but one actually takes shelter in a home for mentally handicapped children in the southern Lebanon village of Aita al-Shaab.
IDF officials also pointed out weapons warehouses, some of which are located in civilian homes.
Hizbullah limits access to southern Lebanon, and often follows those journalists who are allowed into the area to ensure that they do not reveal sensitive information. United Nations troops tasked with patrolling the area say they are unable to confirm or deny the IDF's accusations, as they are not permitted to search private property.
However, explosions in southern Lebanon in 2009 indicate that Hizbullah has in fact continued storing weapons and rockets in civilian villages.
Israel's willingness to share intelligence about Hizbullah activity is seen as a preemptive measure in case of conflict with Hizbullah or Lebanon. Israel was widely condemned for Lebanese civilian deaths during the Second Lebanon War in 2006. By warning in advance that Hizbullah is using civilians as shields, Israeli officials are apparently hoping to prove that the terrorist group is to blame for any future civilian deaths.
The sharing of intelligence may also serve as a warning to Hizbullah that Israel knows the locations of its weapons caches and battle stations, and is prepared to take them out quickly in case of an open war.
The IDF's open approach follows an exchange of fire between Israeli and Lebanese soldiers on the northern border two weeks ago. Lebanese troops opened fire as Israeli workers pruned a tree on the Israeli side of the international border; they later claimed that the tree was located on Lebanon's side of the border.
IDF Major-General Gadi Eisenkot concluded that the incident was “a planned ambush” on the IDF. One Israeli soldier and four Lebanese were killed in the clash.
(IsraelNationalNews.com)
Many outposts are hidden in civilian areas - but one actually takes shelter in a home for mentally handicapped children in the southern Lebanon village of Aita al-Shaab.
IDF officials also pointed out weapons warehouses, some of which are located in civilian homes.
Hizbullah limits access to southern Lebanon, and often follows those journalists who are allowed into the area to ensure that they do not reveal sensitive information. United Nations troops tasked with patrolling the area say they are unable to confirm or deny the IDF's accusations, as they are not permitted to search private property.
However, explosions in southern Lebanon in 2009 indicate that Hizbullah has in fact continued storing weapons and rockets in civilian villages.
Israel's willingness to share intelligence about Hizbullah activity is seen as a preemptive measure in case of conflict with Hizbullah or Lebanon. Israel was widely condemned for Lebanese civilian deaths during the Second Lebanon War in 2006. By warning in advance that Hizbullah is using civilians as shields, Israeli officials are apparently hoping to prove that the terrorist group is to blame for any future civilian deaths.
The sharing of intelligence may also serve as a warning to Hizbullah that Israel knows the locations of its weapons caches and battle stations, and is prepared to take them out quickly in case of an open war.
The IDF's open approach follows an exchange of fire between Israeli and Lebanese soldiers on the northern border two weeks ago. Lebanese troops opened fire as Israeli workers pruned a tree on the Israeli side of the international border; they later claimed that the tree was located on Lebanon's side of the border.
IDF Major-General Gadi Eisenkot concluded that the incident was “a planned ambush” on the IDF. One Israeli soldier and four Lebanese were killed in the clash.
(IsraelNationalNews.com)
Sunday, August 15, 2010
a military strike on Iran’s nuclear installations?
Are there any circumstances in which US President Barack Obama will order a military strike on Iran’s nuclear installations?
Israel’s leaders are reportedly concerning themselves with one question today. Are there any circumstances in which US President Barack Obama will order the US military to strike Iran’s nuclear installations before Iran develops a nuclear arsenal? From Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu down the line, Israel’s leaders reportedly raise this question with just about everyone they come into contact with. If this is true, then the time has come to end our leaders’ suspense.
The answer is no.
For all intents and purposes, there are no circumstances in which Obama would order an attack on Iran’s nuclear installations to prevent Iran from developing and fielding nuclear weapons. Exceptions to this statement fall into two categories: Either they are so implausible that they are operationally irrelevant, or they are so contingent on other factors that they would doom any US attack to failure.
Evidence for this conclusion is found in every aspect of Obama’s foreign policy. But to prove it, it is sufficient to point out point three aspects of his policies.
First of all, Obama refuses to recognize that an Iranian nuclear arsenal constitutes a clear and present danger to US national security.
Obama’s discussions of the perils of a nuclear Iran are limited to his acknowledgement that such an arsenal will provoke a regional nuclear arms race. This is certainly true. But then, that arms race has already begun. Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Turkey, the UAE and Kuwait have all announced their intentions to build nuclear reactors. In some cases they have signed deals with foreign countries to build such facilities.
And yet, while a nuclear arms race in the Middle East is bad, it is far from the worst aspect of Iran’s nuclear program for America.
America has two paramount strategic interests in the Middle East. First, the US requires the smooth flow of inexpensive petroleum products from the Persian Gulf to global oil markets.
Second, the US requires the capacity to project its force in the region to defend its own territory from global jihadists.
Both of these interests are imperiled by the Iranian nuclear program. If the US is not willing to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, it will lose all credibility as a strategic ally to the Sunni Arab states in the area.
For instance, from a Saudi perspective, a US that is unwilling to prevent the ayatollahs from fielding nuclear weapons is of no more use to them than Britain or China or France. It is just another oil-consuming country. The same goes for the rest of the states in the Gulf and in the region.
The Arab loss of faith in US security guarantees will cause them to deny basing rights to US forces in their territories. It will also likely lead them to bow to Iranian will on oil pricesetting through supply cutbacks. In light of this, the Iranian nuclear program constitutes the greatest threat ever to US superpower status in the region and to the well-being of the US economy.
Then there is the direct threat that Iran’s nuclear program constitutes for US national security. This threat grows larger by the day as Iran’s web of strategic alliances in Latin America expands unchallenged by the US. Today Iran enjoys military alliances with Venezuela, Nicaragua, Ecuador, Brazil and Bolivia.
As former US ambassador to the UN John Bolton has argued, at least the Soviets were atheists. Atheists of course, are in no hurry to die, since death can bring no rewards in a world to come. Iran’s leaders are apocalyptic jihadists. Given Iran’s Latin American alliances and Iran’s own progress toward intercontinental ballistic missile capabilities, the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran makes the Cuban missile crisis look like a walk in the park.
In the face of this grave and gathering threat, Obama canceled plans to deploy antiballistic missile shields in Poland and the Czech Republic. He has shunned the pro-American Honduran and Colombian governments in favor of Nicaragua and Venezuela. He has welcomed Brazil’s anti-American president to the White House. He cancelled the F-22.
THE FACT that Obama fails to recognize the danger an Iranian nuclear arsenal poses to the US does not in and of itself prove that Obama would not attack Iran’s nuclear installations.
After all, the US has fought many wars and launched countless campaigns in its history against foes that posed no direct threat to the US. In most of these cases, the US has fought on behalf of its allies.
In the case of Iran’s nuclear weapons programs, because the Iranians have openly placed Israel first on their nuclear targeting list, US debate about Iran’s nuclear program has been anchored around the issue of Israel’s national security. Should the US attack Iran’s nuclear installations in order to defend Israel? Given the distorted manner in which the debate has been framed, the answer to that question hinges on Obama’s view of Israel.
Three recent moves by Obama and his advisers make clear that Obama takes a dim view of Israel. He views Israel as neither a credible ally nor a credible democracy.
First, there is the character of current US military assistance to Israel and to its neighbors.
In recent months, the Obama administration has loudly announced its intentions to continue its joint work with Israel toward the development and deployment of defensive anti-missile shields. Two things about these programs are notable. First, they are joint initiatives.
Just as Israel gains US financing, the US gains Israeli technology that it would otherwise lack. Second, as Globes reported last week, Obama has actually scaled back US funding for these programs. For instance, funding for the Arrow 3 anti-ballistic missile program – intended to serve as Israel’s primary defensive system against Iranian ballistic missiles – was cut by $50 million.
The defensive character of all of these programs signals an absence of US support for maintaining Israel’s capacity to preemptively strike its enemies. When the Pentagon’s refusal to permit Israel to install its own avionics systems on the next generation F-35 warplanes is added to the mix, it is difficult to make the argument that the US supports Israel’s qualitative edge over its enemies in any tangible way.
An assessment that the US has abandoned its commitment to Israel’s qualitative edge is strengthened by the administration’s announcement this week of its plan to sell Saudi Arabia scores of F-15 and F-16 fighter jets for an estimated $30 billion. While the US has pledged to remove systems from the Saudi aircraft that pose direct threats to Israel, once those jets arrive in the kingdom, the Saudis will be able to do whatever they want with them. If one adds to this equation the reduced regional stature of the US in an Iranian nuclear age, it is clear that these guarantees have little meaning.
Obama’s moves to reduce Israel’s offensive capacity and slow its acquisition of defensive systems goes hand in hand with his rejection of Israel’s right to self-defense and dismissive attitude toward Israel’s rule of law. These positions have been starkly demonstrated in his administration’s treatment of Israel in the wake of the IDF’s takeover of the Turkish- Hamas Mavi Marmara terror ship on May 31.
In the face of that blatant display of Turkish aggression against Israel as it maintained its lawful maritime blockade of Hamas-controlled Gaza’s coastline, Obama sided with Turkey and Hamas against Israel. Obama demanded that Israel investigate its handling of the incident. Moreover, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton claimed that Israel was incapable of credibly investigating itself, and so required Israel to add non-Israeli members to its investigative committee.
Yet even Israel’s acceptance of this US humiliation was insufficient for Obama. His UN envoy Susan Rice then demanded that Israel accept a UN investigative panel that is charged with checking to see if the Israeli committee has done its job. And if the UN panel rejects the Israeli commission’s findings, it is empowered to begin its own investigation.
As to the UN, as former Obama and Clinton administration officials Ray Takeyh and Steven Simon explained in an article in the Washington Post last week, Obama’s national security strategy effectively revolves around subordinating US national security policy to the UN Security Council. In the remote scenario that Obama decided to use force against Iran, his subservience to the UN would rule out any possibility of a surprise attack.
Although in theory the US military’s capacity to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities is much greater than Israel’s, given its practical inability to launch a surprise attack, in practice it may be much smaller.
All of these factors constitute overwhelming evidence that there are no conceivable circumstances under which Obama would order a US strike on Iran’s nuclear installations to forestall Iran’s development of nuclear weapons. And this reality should lead Israel’s leaders to three separate conclusions.
FIRST, AND most urgently, Israel must attack Iran’s nuclear installations. Iran’s nuclear ambitions must be set back at least until 2017, the latest date at which a new – and hopefully more rational – US administration will certainly be in office.
Second, given the fact that the US will not take action against Iran’s nuclear installations, there is no reason for Israel to capitulate to US pressure on lesser issues. The Obama administration has nothing to offer Israel on this most important threat, and so Israel should not do anything to strengthen its position. Among other things, this conclusion has clear implications for Jewish construction in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem, Israel’s future responses to Lebanese aggression, and Israel’s continued cooperation with the UN probes of the Turkish- Hamas terror ship.
Finally, Obama’s behavior is a clear indication that Israel was wrong to allow itself to become militarily dependent on US military platforms.
Former defense minister Moshe Arens wrote recently that Israel should strongly consider abandoning plans to purchase the F-35 and restore the scrapped Lavi jetfighter to active development. Arens suggested that in doing so, Israel may find willing collaborators in the Indians, the French and even the Russians.
No, the US has not become Israel’s enemy – although the Obama administration has certainly struck an adversarial chord. Polling data suggests that most Americans disagree with Obama’s treatment of Israel and recognize that Iran is a threat to the US.
But polls aside, the answer to Israel’s desperate queries is that it is up to us. If the Obama administration teaches us anything, it teaches us that we must rely first and foremost on ourselves.
caroline@carolineglick.com
Israel’s leaders are reportedly concerning themselves with one question today. Are there any circumstances in which US President Barack Obama will order the US military to strike Iran’s nuclear installations before Iran develops a nuclear arsenal? From Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu down the line, Israel’s leaders reportedly raise this question with just about everyone they come into contact with. If this is true, then the time has come to end our leaders’ suspense.
The answer is no.
For all intents and purposes, there are no circumstances in which Obama would order an attack on Iran’s nuclear installations to prevent Iran from developing and fielding nuclear weapons. Exceptions to this statement fall into two categories: Either they are so implausible that they are operationally irrelevant, or they are so contingent on other factors that they would doom any US attack to failure.
Evidence for this conclusion is found in every aspect of Obama’s foreign policy. But to prove it, it is sufficient to point out point three aspects of his policies.
First of all, Obama refuses to recognize that an Iranian nuclear arsenal constitutes a clear and present danger to US national security.
Obama’s discussions of the perils of a nuclear Iran are limited to his acknowledgement that such an arsenal will provoke a regional nuclear arms race. This is certainly true. But then, that arms race has already begun. Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Turkey, the UAE and Kuwait have all announced their intentions to build nuclear reactors. In some cases they have signed deals with foreign countries to build such facilities.
And yet, while a nuclear arms race in the Middle East is bad, it is far from the worst aspect of Iran’s nuclear program for America.
America has two paramount strategic interests in the Middle East. First, the US requires the smooth flow of inexpensive petroleum products from the Persian Gulf to global oil markets.
Second, the US requires the capacity to project its force in the region to defend its own territory from global jihadists.
Both of these interests are imperiled by the Iranian nuclear program. If the US is not willing to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, it will lose all credibility as a strategic ally to the Sunni Arab states in the area.
For instance, from a Saudi perspective, a US that is unwilling to prevent the ayatollahs from fielding nuclear weapons is of no more use to them than Britain or China or France. It is just another oil-consuming country. The same goes for the rest of the states in the Gulf and in the region.
The Arab loss of faith in US security guarantees will cause them to deny basing rights to US forces in their territories. It will also likely lead them to bow to Iranian will on oil pricesetting through supply cutbacks. In light of this, the Iranian nuclear program constitutes the greatest threat ever to US superpower status in the region and to the well-being of the US economy.
Then there is the direct threat that Iran’s nuclear program constitutes for US national security. This threat grows larger by the day as Iran’s web of strategic alliances in Latin America expands unchallenged by the US. Today Iran enjoys military alliances with Venezuela, Nicaragua, Ecuador, Brazil and Bolivia.
As former US ambassador to the UN John Bolton has argued, at least the Soviets were atheists. Atheists of course, are in no hurry to die, since death can bring no rewards in a world to come. Iran’s leaders are apocalyptic jihadists. Given Iran’s Latin American alliances and Iran’s own progress toward intercontinental ballistic missile capabilities, the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran makes the Cuban missile crisis look like a walk in the park.
In the face of this grave and gathering threat, Obama canceled plans to deploy antiballistic missile shields in Poland and the Czech Republic. He has shunned the pro-American Honduran and Colombian governments in favor of Nicaragua and Venezuela. He has welcomed Brazil’s anti-American president to the White House. He cancelled the F-22.
THE FACT that Obama fails to recognize the danger an Iranian nuclear arsenal poses to the US does not in and of itself prove that Obama would not attack Iran’s nuclear installations.
After all, the US has fought many wars and launched countless campaigns in its history against foes that posed no direct threat to the US. In most of these cases, the US has fought on behalf of its allies.
In the case of Iran’s nuclear weapons programs, because the Iranians have openly placed Israel first on their nuclear targeting list, US debate about Iran’s nuclear program has been anchored around the issue of Israel’s national security. Should the US attack Iran’s nuclear installations in order to defend Israel? Given the distorted manner in which the debate has been framed, the answer to that question hinges on Obama’s view of Israel.
Three recent moves by Obama and his advisers make clear that Obama takes a dim view of Israel. He views Israel as neither a credible ally nor a credible democracy.
First, there is the character of current US military assistance to Israel and to its neighbors.
In recent months, the Obama administration has loudly announced its intentions to continue its joint work with Israel toward the development and deployment of defensive anti-missile shields. Two things about these programs are notable. First, they are joint initiatives.
Just as Israel gains US financing, the US gains Israeli technology that it would otherwise lack. Second, as Globes reported last week, Obama has actually scaled back US funding for these programs. For instance, funding for the Arrow 3 anti-ballistic missile program – intended to serve as Israel’s primary defensive system against Iranian ballistic missiles – was cut by $50 million.
The defensive character of all of these programs signals an absence of US support for maintaining Israel’s capacity to preemptively strike its enemies. When the Pentagon’s refusal to permit Israel to install its own avionics systems on the next generation F-35 warplanes is added to the mix, it is difficult to make the argument that the US supports Israel’s qualitative edge over its enemies in any tangible way.
An assessment that the US has abandoned its commitment to Israel’s qualitative edge is strengthened by the administration’s announcement this week of its plan to sell Saudi Arabia scores of F-15 and F-16 fighter jets for an estimated $30 billion. While the US has pledged to remove systems from the Saudi aircraft that pose direct threats to Israel, once those jets arrive in the kingdom, the Saudis will be able to do whatever they want with them. If one adds to this equation the reduced regional stature of the US in an Iranian nuclear age, it is clear that these guarantees have little meaning.
Obama’s moves to reduce Israel’s offensive capacity and slow its acquisition of defensive systems goes hand in hand with his rejection of Israel’s right to self-defense and dismissive attitude toward Israel’s rule of law. These positions have been starkly demonstrated in his administration’s treatment of Israel in the wake of the IDF’s takeover of the Turkish- Hamas Mavi Marmara terror ship on May 31.
In the face of that blatant display of Turkish aggression against Israel as it maintained its lawful maritime blockade of Hamas-controlled Gaza’s coastline, Obama sided with Turkey and Hamas against Israel. Obama demanded that Israel investigate its handling of the incident. Moreover, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton claimed that Israel was incapable of credibly investigating itself, and so required Israel to add non-Israeli members to its investigative committee.
Yet even Israel’s acceptance of this US humiliation was insufficient for Obama. His UN envoy Susan Rice then demanded that Israel accept a UN investigative panel that is charged with checking to see if the Israeli committee has done its job. And if the UN panel rejects the Israeli commission’s findings, it is empowered to begin its own investigation.
As to the UN, as former Obama and Clinton administration officials Ray Takeyh and Steven Simon explained in an article in the Washington Post last week, Obama’s national security strategy effectively revolves around subordinating US national security policy to the UN Security Council. In the remote scenario that Obama decided to use force against Iran, his subservience to the UN would rule out any possibility of a surprise attack.
Although in theory the US military’s capacity to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities is much greater than Israel’s, given its practical inability to launch a surprise attack, in practice it may be much smaller.
All of these factors constitute overwhelming evidence that there are no conceivable circumstances under which Obama would order a US strike on Iran’s nuclear installations to forestall Iran’s development of nuclear weapons. And this reality should lead Israel’s leaders to three separate conclusions.
FIRST, AND most urgently, Israel must attack Iran’s nuclear installations. Iran’s nuclear ambitions must be set back at least until 2017, the latest date at which a new – and hopefully more rational – US administration will certainly be in office.
Second, given the fact that the US will not take action against Iran’s nuclear installations, there is no reason for Israel to capitulate to US pressure on lesser issues. The Obama administration has nothing to offer Israel on this most important threat, and so Israel should not do anything to strengthen its position. Among other things, this conclusion has clear implications for Jewish construction in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem, Israel’s future responses to Lebanese aggression, and Israel’s continued cooperation with the UN probes of the Turkish- Hamas terror ship.
Finally, Obama’s behavior is a clear indication that Israel was wrong to allow itself to become militarily dependent on US military platforms.
Former defense minister Moshe Arens wrote recently that Israel should strongly consider abandoning plans to purchase the F-35 and restore the scrapped Lavi jetfighter to active development. Arens suggested that in doing so, Israel may find willing collaborators in the Indians, the French and even the Russians.
No, the US has not become Israel’s enemy – although the Obama administration has certainly struck an adversarial chord. Polling data suggests that most Americans disagree with Obama’s treatment of Israel and recognize that Iran is a threat to the US.
But polls aside, the answer to Israel’s desperate queries is that it is up to us. If the Obama administration teaches us anything, it teaches us that we must rely first and foremost on ourselves.
caroline@carolineglick.com
Netanyahu's warning
Netanyahu's warning
When Israel declared independence in 1948, it had to use mostly small arms to repel attacks by six Arab armies. Today, however, Israel feels, and is, more menaced than it was then or has been since. Hence the potentially world-shaking decision that will be made here, probably within two years.
To understand the man who will make it, begin with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's belief that stopping Iran's nuclear weapons program is integral to stopping the worldwide campaign to reverse 1948. It is, he says, a campaign to "put the Jew back to the status of a being that couldn't defend himself -- a perfect victim."
Today's Middle East, he says, reflects two developments. One is the rise of Iran and militant Islam since the 1979 revolution, which led to al-Qaeda, Hamas and Hezbollah. The other development is the multiplying threat of missile warfare.
Now Israel faces a third threat, the campaign to delegitimize it in order to extinguish its capacity for self-defense. After two uniquely perilous millennia for Jews, the creation of Israel meant, Netanyahu says, "the capacity for self-defense restored to the Jewish people." But note, he says, the reflexive worldwide chorus of condemnation when Israel responded with force to rocket barrages from Gaza and from southern Lebanon. There is, he believes, a crystallizing consensus that "Israel is not allowed to exercise self-defense."
From 1948 through 1973, he says, enemies tried to "eliminate Israel by conventional warfare." Having failed, they tried to demoralize and paralyze Israel with suicide bombers and other terrorism. "We put up a fence," Netanyahu says. "Now they have rockets that go over the fence." Israel's military, which has stressed offense as a solution to the nation's lack of strategic depth, now stresses missile defense.
That, however, cannot cope with Hamas's tens of thousands of rockets in Gaza and Hezbollah's up to 60,000 in southern Lebanon. There, U.N. Resolution 1701, promulgated after the 2006 war, has been predictably farcical. This was supposed to inhibit the arming of Hezbollah and prevent its operations south of the Litani River. Since 2006, Hezbollah's rocket arsenal has tripled and its operations mock Resolution 1701. Hezbollah, learning from Hamas, now places rockets near schools and hospitals, certain that Israel's next response to indiscriminate aggression will turn the world media into a force multiplier for the aggressors.
Any Israeli self-defense anywhere is automatically judged "disproportionate." Israel knows this as it watches Iran.
Last year was Barack Obama's wasted year of "engaging" Iran. This led to sanctions that are unlikely to ever become sufficiently potent. With Russia, China and Turkey being uncooperative, Iran is hardly "isolated." The Iranian democracy movement probably cannot quickly achieve regime change. It took Solidarity 10 years to do so against a Polish regime less brutally repressive than Iran's.
Hillary Clinton's words about extending a "defense umbrella over the region" imply, to Israelis, fatalism about a nuclear Iran. As for deterrence working against a nuclear-armed regime steeped in an ideology of martyrdom, remember that in 1980, Ayatollah Khomeini said:
"We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah. For patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world."
You say, that was long ago? Israel says, this is now:
Iran's supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, says that Israel is the "enemy of God." Tehran, proclaiming that the Holocaust never happened and vowing to complete it, sent an ambassador to Poland who in 2006 wanted to measure the ovens at Auschwitz to prove them inadequate for genocide. Iran's former president, Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, who is considered a "moderate" by people for whom believing is seeing, calls Israel a "one-bomb country."
If Iran were to "wipe the Zionist entity off the map," as it vows to do, it would, Netanyahu believes, achieve a regional "dominance not seen since Alexander." Netanyahu does not say that Israel will, if necessary, act alone to prevent this. Or does he?
He says that CIA Director Leon Panetta is "about right" in saying Iran can be a nuclear power in two years. He says that 1948 meant this: "For the first time in 2,000 years, a sovereign Jewish people could defend itself against attack." And he says: "The tragic history of the powerlessness of our people explains why the Jewish people need a sovereign power of self-defense." If Israel strikes Iran, the world will not be able to say it was not warned.
georgewill@washpost.com
When Israel declared independence in 1948, it had to use mostly small arms to repel attacks by six Arab armies. Today, however, Israel feels, and is, more menaced than it was then or has been since. Hence the potentially world-shaking decision that will be made here, probably within two years.
To understand the man who will make it, begin with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's belief that stopping Iran's nuclear weapons program is integral to stopping the worldwide campaign to reverse 1948. It is, he says, a campaign to "put the Jew back to the status of a being that couldn't defend himself -- a perfect victim."
Today's Middle East, he says, reflects two developments. One is the rise of Iran and militant Islam since the 1979 revolution, which led to al-Qaeda, Hamas and Hezbollah. The other development is the multiplying threat of missile warfare.
Now Israel faces a third threat, the campaign to delegitimize it in order to extinguish its capacity for self-defense. After two uniquely perilous millennia for Jews, the creation of Israel meant, Netanyahu says, "the capacity for self-defense restored to the Jewish people." But note, he says, the reflexive worldwide chorus of condemnation when Israel responded with force to rocket barrages from Gaza and from southern Lebanon. There is, he believes, a crystallizing consensus that "Israel is not allowed to exercise self-defense."
From 1948 through 1973, he says, enemies tried to "eliminate Israel by conventional warfare." Having failed, they tried to demoralize and paralyze Israel with suicide bombers and other terrorism. "We put up a fence," Netanyahu says. "Now they have rockets that go over the fence." Israel's military, which has stressed offense as a solution to the nation's lack of strategic depth, now stresses missile defense.
That, however, cannot cope with Hamas's tens of thousands of rockets in Gaza and Hezbollah's up to 60,000 in southern Lebanon. There, U.N. Resolution 1701, promulgated after the 2006 war, has been predictably farcical. This was supposed to inhibit the arming of Hezbollah and prevent its operations south of the Litani River. Since 2006, Hezbollah's rocket arsenal has tripled and its operations mock Resolution 1701. Hezbollah, learning from Hamas, now places rockets near schools and hospitals, certain that Israel's next response to indiscriminate aggression will turn the world media into a force multiplier for the aggressors.
Any Israeli self-defense anywhere is automatically judged "disproportionate." Israel knows this as it watches Iran.
Last year was Barack Obama's wasted year of "engaging" Iran. This led to sanctions that are unlikely to ever become sufficiently potent. With Russia, China and Turkey being uncooperative, Iran is hardly "isolated." The Iranian democracy movement probably cannot quickly achieve regime change. It took Solidarity 10 years to do so against a Polish regime less brutally repressive than Iran's.
Hillary Clinton's words about extending a "defense umbrella over the region" imply, to Israelis, fatalism about a nuclear Iran. As for deterrence working against a nuclear-armed regime steeped in an ideology of martyrdom, remember that in 1980, Ayatollah Khomeini said:
"We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah. For patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world."
You say, that was long ago? Israel says, this is now:
Iran's supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, says that Israel is the "enemy of God." Tehran, proclaiming that the Holocaust never happened and vowing to complete it, sent an ambassador to Poland who in 2006 wanted to measure the ovens at Auschwitz to prove them inadequate for genocide. Iran's former president, Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, who is considered a "moderate" by people for whom believing is seeing, calls Israel a "one-bomb country."
If Iran were to "wipe the Zionist entity off the map," as it vows to do, it would, Netanyahu believes, achieve a regional "dominance not seen since Alexander." Netanyahu does not say that Israel will, if necessary, act alone to prevent this. Or does he?
He says that CIA Director Leon Panetta is "about right" in saying Iran can be a nuclear power in two years. He says that 1948 meant this: "For the first time in 2,000 years, a sovereign Jewish people could defend itself against attack." And he says: "The tragic history of the powerlessness of our people explains why the Jewish people need a sovereign power of self-defense." If Israel strikes Iran, the world will not be able to say it was not warned.
georgewill@washpost.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)