Sunday, 26 January 2014

Trade deficit narrows

Trade deficit narrows 
Globes 20-Jan-14 

Israel's trade deficit fell by 21.7% in dollar terms in 2013 and by 73% in shekel terms, compared with 2012. 
The proportion of Israeli exports to Asia rose to 21% of total exports in 2013, almost equal to the 22% of exports to the US, the Central Bureau of Statistics reported today. The proportion of Israeli exports to the US fell from 28% of all exports in 2010 to 22% in 2013. The figures do not include diamond exports. 
The US is still the largest destination of Israeli exports, by country, accounting for $10.2 billion of exports. Exports to the UK totaled $3.4 billion and exports to China totaled $2.56 billion. 
Against the backdrop of boycott threats of Israeli goods in Europe, the fact is that one third of Israeli exports go there (32% to the EU and another 1% to EFTA countries). The largest export destinations in the EU were the UK and the Netherlands ($2.1 billion). 
The EU is also the largest source of imports, accounting for 34% of imports, compared with 12% from the US, and 20% from Asia. 
The figures show that the government's policy of diversifying Israel's trading partners to reduce its dependence on the EU and the US is working: 25% of exports went to "the rest of the world" (not the EU, US, and Asia). The HHI concentration index for 2013 shows little concentration in either exports or imports by country. 
Israel's trade deficit fell by 21.7% in dollar terms in 2013 and by 73% in shekel terms, compared with 2012; the trade deficit fell by NIS 20 billion. Most of the drop was due to a reduction in imports. 
Another figure shows the problem of the strong shekel. Exports in shekel terms were 2% lower in 2013 than in 2012, but were 5% lower in dollar terms. The Central Bureau of Statistics says that the average shekel-dollar exchange rate was 6.8% in 2013 than in 2012, after it was 7.2% lower in 2012 compared with 2011. The average shekel-euro exchange rate was 3.3% higher in 2013 than in 2012. 

The U.S. and Christian Persecution

The U.S. and Christian Persecution 
National Review Online 18-Jan-14 

Prominent indicators confirm that the U.S. is the chief facilitator of the persecution of Christians around the world today. 
According to the recently released 2014 World Watch List, which ranks the 50 nations where Christians are most persecuted, Syria is the third worst nation in the world in which to be Christian, Iraq is fourth, Afghanistan fifth, and Libya 13th. All four countries receive the strongest designation, "extreme persecution" (other designations are "severe," "moderate," and "sparse" persecution). 
Aside from being so closely and harshly ranked, these four nations have something else in common: heavy U.S. involvement. Three—Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya—were "liberated" thanks to U.S. forces, while in the fourth, Syria, the U.S. is actively sponsoring "freedom fighters" against the regime, many of whom would be better labeled "terrorists." 
The Syrian situation alone indicts U.S. foreign policy. According to Reuters: 
    Open Doors, a non-denominational group supporting persecuted Christians worldwide, said on Wednesday it had documented 2,123 "martyr" killings, compared with 1,201 in 2012. There were 1,213 such deaths in Syria alone last year, it said. "This is a very minimal count based on what has been reported in the media and we can confirm," said Frans Veerman, head of research for Open Doors. Estimates by other Christian groups put the annual figure as high as 8,000. 
While most Americans are shielded from the true nature of the war by the U.S. media's reluctance to report on it, Arabic media, websites, and activists daily report and document atrocity after atrocity—beheadings and bombed churches, Christians slaughtered for refusing to convert to Islam, and countless abducted for ransom or rape—at the hands of those whom the U.S. supports. 
It's enough to point out that "the largest massacre of Christians in Syria," to quote a top religious leader, was left wholly unreported by any major U.S. news network. 
At any rate, the statistics speak for themselves: Syria, which used to be religiously tolerant, is now, in the context of the United States' trying to bring "democracy" to it, the third worst country in the world in terms of "extreme persecution" of Christians. 
The Blaze reports that Dr. David Curry, president of Open Doors, 
    charged that the Obama administration has essentially declined to make the protection of religious minorities a priority . . . "There are many instances where the vacuum of leadership and spokesmanship has created a real problem," said the human rights leader. "I would say that every significant data point on this year's '2014 Watch List' is worse—and I think a factor in it is a lack of leadership from Western governments including . . . the U.S. in terms of religious freedom." 
But it's worse than that. Far from taking any action or providing leadership—or simply ceasing to support the terrorists responsible—the Obama administration recently tried to go to war with Syria on behalf of the "freedom fighters," amazingly, in the name of "human rights" (Apparently the unsubstantiated rumor that Assad massacred people is enough for the U.S. to go to war, but the ongoing and well-documented massacres of Christians and other civilians at the hands of the opposition is not enough for the U.S. to stop supporting them.) 
What's worse, even the most misinformed mainstream-media-watching American today knows that the so-called "Arab Spring," which was hailed to justify U.S. support for "rebels" of all stripes—in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood (which months ago destroyed some 80 churches); in Libya, al-Qaeda, which has turned Benghazi into a terror zone; and now the "freedom fighters" in Syria—is not what it was touted to be. 
In other words, at this point, whenever the U.S. intervenes in an Islamic nation, Islamists come to power. This is well demonstrated by the other three nations to which the U.S. brought "democracy" and where Christian minorities suffer "extreme persecution": 
    Afghanistan: The supposedly "moderate" Karzai government installed by the U.S. upholds many of the draconian laws enforced by the Taliban—including the apostasy law, fiercely persecuting those who seek to convert to Christianity—and, in 2011, under U.S. auspices, it destroyed Afghanistan's last Christian church. 
    Iraq: After the U.S. toppled Saddam Hussein, Christian minorities were savagely attacked and slaughtered, and dozens of their churches were bombed (see here for graphic images). Christians have been terrorized into near-extinction, with well over half of them fleeing Iraq. 
    Libya: Ever since U.S.-backed, al-Qaeda-linked terrorists overthrew Qaddafi, Christians—including Americans—have indeed suffered extreme persecution. Churches have been bombed; Christians have been tortured and killed (including for refusing to convert); and nuns have been threatened. 
Surely a common theme emerges here: Where the U.S. works to oust secular autocrats, the quality of life for Christians and other minorities takes a major nosedive. Under Saddam, Qaddafi, and Assad, Christians and their churches were largely protected. 
Moreover, while George W. Bush was responsible for Afghanistan and Iraq, the argument can be made that, back then (2001 and 2003), this pattern of Islamic radicalization that erupts once autocrats are gone was less well known than it is today. There weren't many precedents. 
Conversely, the Obama administration has had both Afghanistan and Iraq to learn from—and yet still it supports Islamists and jihadis. But by now, what happens once they assume power—religious persecution, terror, oppression—is no longer a secret. 
Incidentally, those who care little for the fate of Christians or other minorities in the Islamic world would do well to remember a simple truism: Wherever anti-Christian elements come to power, anti-American forces come to power. The two are synonymous. 
Put differently, Muslim persecution of Christians is the litmus test of how radical an Islamic society has become. In all those Muslim nations that the U.S. has interfered in—Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Egypt (till the Egyptians revolted, to the chastisement of the U.S.), and now Syria—the increase of religious intolerance is a reflection of the empowerment of forces hostile to Western civilization. 
I am often asked, "How can we help persecuted Christians?" At this point, one must respond: "How about starting with getting the U.S. government to stop being the chief facilitator of Christian persecution?" Altruism aside, it would be in the interests of all who value freedom, religious or otherwise—and especially their descendants. 

Israel-Khazakhstan Ink Cooperation Accord

Israel-Khazakhstan Ink Cooperation Accord 
Defense News 20-Jan-14 

Defense ministers from Israel and Khazakhstan inked a security cooperation accord Jan. 20 formalizing military and defense industrial ties between the two nations. 
The bilateral agreement, signed in Tel Aviv by Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon and his Kazakh counterpart, Adilbek Dzhaksbekov, provides a general “umbrella” for cultivating defense trade and future cooperation between the two governments, an Israeli defense official here said. 
Since Israel and Kazakhstan established diplomatic ties in 1992, the two countries have signed multiple cooperation accords involving telecommunications, science and technology, and other dual-use sectors. 
The Jan. 20 accord formalizes more than a decade of Israeli arms sales to the largely Sunni Muslim, Central Asian republic. Corruption charges stemming from the 2004 sale of Israeli artillery systems forced Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarabayev, in June 2009, to sack the nation’s defense minister and other senior government officials. 
Soltam Systems, the Israeli prime contractor at the time, has since been acquired by Elbit Systems and executives and agents implicated in the Kazakh scandal are no longer representing the company, industry sources here said. 
“We appreciate Khazakhstan, a country with a desire to strengthen cooperation with us,” said Ya’alon. 
Ya’alon did not publicly address specific areas for expanded cooperation, but Israeli government and industry officials cited unmanned systems, border security, command-and-control capabilities and satellite communications as leading sectors of interest to Astana. 
This week’s visit marks Dzhaksbekov’s first trip to Israel. The Kazakh defense minister and members of his delegation will spend the next two days meeting with senior executives of leading Israeli defense firms and program officials. 
“Israel is known worldwide for its capabilities,” Dzhaksbekov said. “I hope this visit will mark a milestone for strengthened defense cooperation between our countries.”

Jordan Ready To Host US To Train Iraqi Troops On Its Territory

Jordan Ready To Host US To Train Iraqi Troops On Its Territory 
Agence France-Presse 19-Jan-14 

Jordan is ready to host a US training program for Iraqi troops to help counter a resurgence of al-Qaida-linked militants in its neighbor, a minister said in remarks published Sunday. 
His comments come as Iraqi forces are locked in battles with anti-government militants who have gained ground in Anbar province west of Baghdad amid a spike in violence across the country. 
“Jordan welcomes positively the US request to train Iraqi forces on its territory,” Information Minister Mohammed Momani said, in statement carried in the government newspaper Al-Rai. 
“This project is part of permanent cooperation between Jordan, Iraq and the United States to fight against terrorism in the region.” 
On Friday a US defense official told AFP that Washington was waiting for an agreement with Jordan or another country to go ahead with the training program. 
Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has asked the United States to help the army fight against Islamist extremists, blamed for a spiral of deadly attacks in recent months. 
And on Saturday the White House said that Vice President Joe Biden had spoken to Maliki to discuss Washington’s support for Iraq’s fight against jihadists. 
“The two leaders agreed on the importance of the Iraqi government’s continued outreach to local and tribal leaders in Anbar province,” the White House said. 
Maliki said in an interview published Thursday in The Washington Post that he specifically needed US “counter-terrorism” training. 
Asked if US trainers would come to Iraq, the prime minister said: “Yes, bringing Americans to Iraq, or Iraqi soldiers could go to Jordan and train.” 
The US defense official said Washington was preparing to ship “several thousand” M-16 and M-4 assault rifles as well as ammunition to Iraq, after having already provided missiles to Maliki’s government. 
The training was “likely” to go ahead because both Baghdad and Washington support the idea, he added. 
But US officials have said no US troops would be redeployed in Iraq. 

The United States led an invasion of Iraq in 2003, toppling Saddam Hussein. American troops withdrew from the country in 2011 after failing to reach a deal with Baghdad providing legal safeguards for US forces. 


The Bible Read It Now!


Jesus Christ Obtained Eternal Redemption Hebrews 9:12


The Truth is No Gimmic


The New Trinity of Egypt, Israel, and Hamas

The New Triangle of Egypt, Israel, and Hamas 
The Washington Institute 17-Jan-14 

With Israeli acquiescence to de facto alterations of the 1979 peace treaty, Egypt has deployed substantial military forces into the Sinai to combat terrorists. But Israel remains hesitant about Cairo's inclination to increase pressure on Hamas in Gaza. 
Over the past year, Israel and Egypt have used a little-known, legally permissible understanding -- the Agreed Activities Mechanism -- to bypass restrictions on the number and type of Egyptian forces permitted in much of the Sinai. In doing so, they have made de facto modifications to their 1979 peace treaty without resorting to the diplomatically risky procedure of "reviewing" the treaty itself. As a result, considerable Egyptian army forces are now constantly deployed in central and eastern Sinai (Areas B and C of the peninsula, respectively), in a manner and scope never envisaged by the teams that negotiated the treaty more than three decades ago. Going forward, this new reality on the ground is unlikely to be reversed and is bound to have profound consequences for Egyptian-Israeli security cooperation, Cairo's ongoing counterterrorism campaign, and the fate of Hamas in the neighboring Gaza Strip. 
TREATY VS. REALITY 
The Military Annex of the 1979 treaty imposed strict limitations on the number of soldiers and type of weapons Egypt could deploy in the peninsula, as well as where they could be deployed. Specifically, it prohibited Cairo from stationing any military forces in Areas B and C other than lightly armed police or border guards. Since last year, however, the Egyptian military presence in these areas has often reached an order of battle approaching the size of a light mechanized division -- in other words, roughly equivalent to the maximal 22,000 troops permitted along line A in western Sinai, an area not subject to the same stringent Annex restrictions. 
This de facto change in the way the treaty is observed and implemented came about through a series of quiet bilateral understandings smoothly negotiated under the auspices of the Multinational Force of Observers (MFO), currently led by veteran U.S. diplomat David Satterfield. By way of the Agreed Activities Mechanism, a long-existing understanding reached under the MFO and never publicized widely, Israel agreed to allow the introduction of Egyptian troops into "prohibited" regions in central and eastern Sinai, and later a steady expansion in size and quality of military equipment. Today, Cairo regularly employs Apache attack helicopters, armored carriers, and elite commando battalions in these areas, as well as occasional F-16 overflights, one or two tank companies, and more. Under Maj. Gen. Ahmed Wasfi, the Second Army has essentially based its headquarters in al-Arish, the capital of Sinai's northern governorate, for some time. In addition, smaller units from the Third Army were granted permission through the AAM to deploy in southern portions of the Sinai. 
The purpose of Egypt's deployment is nominally explained away as "exercises," but it has never been a training mission for the units in question. Moreover, by renewing the arrangements monthly, Cairo and Israel have created a situation in which a sizable contingent of the Egyptian army is a permanent feature of the Sinai landscape. Discontinuing this unofficial change to the Military Annex no longer seems logical -- rather, the situation seems destined to become an unannounced revision of the treaty, one that does not necessitate renegotiation of any of that document's clauses. And by sidestepping calls in Egypt for formal revision of the Military Annex, the parties avoid the risk involved in opening the treaty to a review process that could spur a multitude of politicians to tear it apart. 
THE SINAI CAMPAIGN 
Over the past few months, the Egyptian army's new configuration in the peninsula has helped it gain the upper hand in the battle against terrorist militias that have found safe haven there. After isolating and largely clearing the populated northeastern Sinai -- sometimes using brutal scorched-earth tactics against Bedouin villages, encampments, and neighborhoods -- the army put many terrorist factions on the defensive, most notably Ansar Beit al-Maqdis. Around twenty top terrorist commanders have been killed thus far, though Ansar leader Abdullah al-Ashqar has escaped capture. 
The next move is expected to be a spring offensive against the main terrorist stronghold in Jabal Halal, also known as "Sinai's Tora Bora," where around a thousand armed militiamen are now sheltering. A secondary objective would be the Jabal Amer area close to the Israeli border. In both cases, Egyptian forces will most likely resort to aerial bombardment and artillery shelling rather than storming with infantry. Some terrorists have already left the Sinai for fear of the coming attack. 
Israel has an obvious interest in the success of Egypt's campaign, since Sinai terrorists have attacked several Israeli targets across the border via suicide bombings, missiles, and ambushes. In fact, Israel has long encouraged Cairo to adopt a more proactive posture in pursuit of these terrorists. 
For their part, Egyptian officials view the Sinai militants as a direct threat to the security of mainland Egypt. Indeed, suspicions that Ansar Beit al-Maqdis and other factions operate across the Suez Canal have been substantiated. These groups have already claimed responsibility for attacks such as the December 24 car bombing in front of central security headquarters in the delta city of Mansoura, which killed sixteen security personnel. Terrorists have also attempted to disrupt shipping through the Suez using rocket-propelled grenades, spurring Cairo to implement special security measures around the canal, including installation of a new reconnaissance system with American advice. 
These Egyptian concerns -- coupled with Israel's fear that the same terrorists might attack its own shipping route in the Gulf of Aqaba, as well as Eilat Airport and various population centers along the 250-kilometer frontier -- have laid a solid base for the kind of deep bilateral cooperation now witnessed in the Sinai. The level of coordination and exchange of information is at an all-time high, and top commanders from both countries are now in almost daily communication. 
For its part, the MFO has proved to be a reliable, discreet, and effective tool for facilitating Egyptian-Israeli exchanges removed from public scrutiny. It plays the invaluable role of ensuring that both parties abide by their understandings, providing an address through which to quickly resolve problems and prevent crises. The MFO is therefore an indispensable contact point in the Sinai's changed military situation. 
THE HAMAS DILEMMA 
The Egyptian army now views the Hamas regime in Gaza as an enemy, publicly blaming it for assisting Sinai terrorists. The military claims to have obtained reliable information that terrorists in the peninsula and even mainland Egypt have been smuggled into Gaza at one point or another, undergoing training in explosives and other military activities at Hamas military bases. Cairo has also accused two key figures from the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades, Hamas's military arm, of overseeing this training: Raed al-Attar, commander of the group's southern brigade in Rafah, and Ayman Nofal, ex-commander of the central brigade who was jailed in Egypt during Hosni Mubarak's presidency but escaped back to Gaza during the 2011 revolution. Egyptian intelligence is well aware of the ongoing deal between Hamas and Salafi jihadists in Gaza: namely, Hamas does not prevent the latter from collaborating with their colleagues in Sinai, while the Salafists agree to avoid actions that might spark clashes with Israel along the borders of the strip. 
Meanwhile, Egyptian military authorities have urged the national media to adhere to a harsh anti-Hamas campaign. In the past ten days alone, several unidentified high-ranking officers have called for either a direct strike on Gaza or a campaign to turn the strip's population against their unpopular government, the latter with the support of the Palestinian Authority and, tacitly, Israel. 
In line with these views, Egyptian authorities have repeatedly asked Israel to consider creative new ideas for increasing nonmilitary pressure on Hamas. Yet the two countries have yet to reach a common strategy on that front. Whereas Egyptian military leaders believe that demolishing the Muslim Brotherhood's political power at home requires getting rid of the group's Palestinian sister movement in Gaza, Israeli authorities are reluctant to push Hamas to the brink of collapse for fear of the unknown: namely, who would replace Hamas if its regime were brought down by mass protests? Israelis are concerned about anarchy erupting in the strip or, perhaps worse, a takeover by even more radical actors such as Iran-backed Palestinian Islamic Jihad or Salafi jihadists. 
For its part, Hamas has been taking measures to forestall any mass demonstrations or other efforts to sabotage its governance. This includes making clear and credible threats to the populace that any riots will be met with live ammunition from the start. 
CONCLUSION 
The Egyptian army's substantial deployment in previously forbidden areas of central and eastern Sinai -- together with the increase in Egyptian-Israeli security cooperation and the isolation of Gaza by restricting traffic at the Rafah terminal and blocking more than a thousand smuggling tunnels between the strip and the Sinai -- has created a new geopolitical configuration in the peninsula, one worthy of U.S. support. Stabilizing and pacifying Sinai would remove the danger of terrorist operations that threaten both Egyptian-Israeli relations and the safety of shipping through the Suez Canal and its connecting sea lanes. Such an outcome would also loosen Hamas's grip on Gaza; indeed, some Hamas leaders have already expressed willingness to extend concessions to the Palestinian Authority and seek formal reunification of the West Bank and Gaza. This is but one indication that the new realities in the Egypt-Israel-Hamas triangle are bound to have a major impact on the Palestinian scene. 
Ehud Yaari is a Lafer International Fellow with The Washington Institute and a Middle East commentator for Israel's Channel Two television.