New sanctions against Iran

The European Union formally adopted new energy sanctions against Iran Monday which target the country's energy, banking, and foreign trade sectors.

The move comes on the heels of the unilateral US sanctions passed last month by the Senate. The EU sanctions were agreed to in principle by European leaders in June, and are the latest in a series of measures taken by the international community in an effort to halt Iran's nuclear program.

EU foreign ministers adopted a decision "on a package of restrictive measures" in the areas of trade, financial services, energy and transport, said a diplomat who spoke on condition of anonymity under standing rules.

The new measures will come into force in the next few weeks, after they are published in the bloc's official gazette, officials said.

"We have a comprehensive set of sanctions. This is something where we have all 27 countries working together," EU foreign policy Chief Catherine Ashton said ahead of the meeting.

According to the decision reached in June, the sanctions will target dual-use items that could be used as part of a nuclear program, and Iran's oil and gas industry — including the "prohibition of new investment, technical assistance and transfers of technologies."

Iran's shipping and air cargo companies will be blacklisted and banned from operating in EU territory, and new visa bans and asset freezes will be imposed on Iran's Revolutionary Guard. The sanctions also encompass trade insurance and financial transactions.

EU exports to Iran — mainly machinery, transport equipment and chemicals — amounted to euro 14.1 billion in 2008.

Imports from Iran, the EU's sixth largest energy provider, amounted to euro 11.3 billion, with energy being 90 percent of the total.

The new European restrictions will come on top of a fourth round of sanctions imposed last month by the UN Security Council to curtail Iran's nuclear program over fears it is developing weapons. The council endorsed those sanctions after Iran rebuffed a plan to suspend uranium enrichment and swap its stockpiles of low-enriched uranium for fuel rods.

The new restrictions are similar to measures adopted by US President Barack Obama's administration, which has imposed penalties against additional individuals and institutions it says are helping Iran develop its nuclear and missile programs, and evade international sanctions.

Iran denies that it is working on a nuclear weapon, saying its program is intended solely for peaceful purposes such as energy-generation, and that it has the right to enrich uranium under the international non-proliferation treaty.

EU foreign ministers also are expected reaffirm the bloc's invitation to Tehran to hold talks on the issue.

"Our aim is to bring Iran back to the negotiating table," said German State Secretary Werner Hoyer. "We're offering our hand, and all they have to do is to take it

Constructive Clarity in Israeli-Palestinian Negotiations

• The PLO platform, as reaffirmed in the Fatah Congress in August 2009, states that their struggle will not stop until the Zionist entity is eliminated and Palestine is liberated. As a logical corollary, they refuse to accept Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people.
• This explains why, when Mahmoud Abbas was asked in a Washington Post interview in May 2009 why he had declined Olmert's far-reaching offer, he answered that "the gaps were wide."
• The Palestinian leadership insists that negotiations now start at the point they had reached with Olmert at the end of 2008. That means they are not satisfied with what was put on the table a year ago. They want more than that.
• One cannot expect a plausible, peaceful solution in the foreseeable future unless the PLO leadership changes its mind, heart, and writings.

What Israel Has Offered

Under the banner of the 2008 Annapolis process, the Israeli government and the PLO leadership failed to reach a lasting agreement. According to Mahmoud Abbas, Prime Minister Olmert proposed that Israel withdraw from 98 percent of the total territory in Samaria, Judea, and Gaza. Actually, the deal encompassed 100 percent because the balance was to be swapped with some territory from inside the State of Israel proper.

Olmert also proposed a safe passage between Gaza and Judea - under Israeli sovereignty. According to Mahmoud Abbas, Olmert also agreed that Israel recognize in principal the so-called "right of return." Mr. Olmert denies this. However, he did propose that thousands of Arab refugees would be allowed to come into the State of Israel on a humanitarian basis.

As for Jerusalem, Olmert proposed the partition of the city into two parts. The neighborhoods populated by Arabs would become a part of the capital of the Palestinian Arab sovereign state. The Jewish neighborhoods would be retained under Israeli sovereignty. In addition, he proposed that Israel relinquish its sovereignty over the Temple Mount, the Mount of Olives, and the City of David - referred to by some as the "holy basin." Israel's rule of these areas would be replaced by a consortium that would administer them, comprised of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the United States, the PLO, and Israel. This far-reaching proposal by Prime Minister Olmert - addressing borders, refugees and Jerusalem - was declined by the PLO.

Why the PLO Said No

Mahmoud Abbas was asked in a Washington Post interview in May 2009 why he had declined Olmert's proposal and his answer was: "the gaps were wide." This truthfully reflects the situation because, from the PLO point of view, the gaps were indeed still wide.

During the negotiations in the Annapolis process, the PLO leadership was asked whether once an agreement was reached to the liking of both parties, they would agree to include an article stating that this agreement puts an end to the conflict and concludes all claims by the parties. That question was answered in the negative.

Why would Olmert's proposal still leave wide gaps, so as to be unacceptable from the point of view of the PLO leadership only a year or so ago? Concentrating on Jerusalem, the answer is that the PLO does not accept a situation of shared sovereignty in Jerusalem over the Temple Mount and its surroundings. Their goal is to have Arab-Palestinian-Muslim sovereignty at that site.

This is not just a whim of the current Palestinian leadership. In 2000, Prime Minister Barak proposed that Israel relinquish its rule over the upper part of the Temple Mount to Arab-Palestinian sovereignty and that the lower part of the Temple Mount would be retained under Israeli sovereignty, but still this was rejected. The PLO assertion was that the whole Temple Mount should be under Arab-Muslim sovereignty.

The PLO Does Not Recognize Two States for Two Peoples

The reason for this has been well explained by the PLO leadership, which is considered to be the moderate faction within the Arab-Palestinian camp. They actually deny the undeniable. They say there is no historic connection between the Jewish people and the Temple Mount - that the stories about two Jewish temples destroyed 2,600 and 2,000 years ago is a fairy tale. Their basic tenet is that there is no Jewish connection to Jerusalem. Of course this also relates to Judea, Samaria, Gaza, the Galilee, and the Negev. For them, there is no historic Jewish connection to any of these places.

The PLO leadership, in this respect, is consistent. This is their basic philosophy, and you will find its corollary in their adamant refusal to accept the State of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people. They explain openly that, for them, Judaism is not a nationality but merely a religion. Since Judaism is merely a religion, and since religions are not entitled to establish and maintain states of their own, then the State of Israel has no right to exist as the nation-state of the Jewish people and they will not recognize it as such.

Less than a year ago, in August 2009, the Fatah Congress in Bethlehem reaffirmed their platform, referring to Chapter One of their charter as the point of departure for their policy. Article 19 in Chapter One states:

Armed struggle is a strategy, not a tactic. The armed revolution of the Arab Palestinian people is a crucial element in the battle for liberation and for the elimination of the Zionist presence. This struggle will not stop until the Zionist entity is eliminated and Palestine is liberated.

For Fatah, then, there is a "Zionist entity," not the Jewish nation deserving their one and only sovereign state on earth. Such an understanding is not currently in their mind, in their philosophy, in their ideology, and will not occur for a long time unless they are pressed by the international community to amend it.

As long as this is left as something that cannot be changed and maybe need not be changed, it will be there. Unless the leadership of our neighbors changes their view, very little will be achieved in the foreseeable future regarding a peace agreement between Jews and Arabs west of the Jordan River.

Where is the agreement by the PLO to come to terms with reality and to agree in some way to the minimum requirements of any sober Israeli faction in the Knesset? Abbas maintains that Olmert offered him too little. Former Foreign Minister Livni, the leader of the Knesset Opposition, would tell you that Olmert offered him too much. Under this geometry, an agreement cannot be achieved unless the PLO leadership changes their mind. Unless people impress upon them that they should do so, I don't see this happening.

In June 2009 in Trieste, the Quartet issued a statement that for the first time included the political term "two states for two peoples" as a proposed solution. This is not my solution, but this is agreed to by many - just not by the PLO. The PLO leadership and activists never say that the solution entails two nations.

However, in March 2010 in another Quartet statement issued in Moscow, mention of a two-state solution for two peoples vanished. Mention was made only of the Palestinian people, with no mention whatsoever of the Jewish people. What kind of a signal does that send?

Jerusalem Is Not a Security Issue

Three thousand years ago Jerusalem became the capital city of the Jewish sovereign state. To a reasonable person, this is undeniable. But Jerusalem also exemplifies the larger scope of the dispute.

The Temple Mount can be described as an important hill from a tactical point of view. From this commanding terrain you can control the road leading from the Dead Sea to Jerusalem, northward to Ramallah and then Shechem (Nablus), and southward to Hebron. However, the Temple Mount is not a security issue, but rather a basic issue that has to do with the feelings of people, feelings that must be respected. Yes, it does belong to the Jewish people. Others feel that it belongs to them. Please do not belittle these values.

What More Can Israel Offer?

When people ask what the government of Israel can be expected to offer to the PLO, we may refer them to the fact that previous Israeli governments offered to relinquish Samaria, Judea, and Gaza, and parts of Jerusalem, but to no avail. People must recognize this. The Palestinian leadership insists that negotiations now start at the point they had reached with Olmert at the end of 2008. That means they are not satisfied with what was put on the table a year ago. This means that they want more than that. For example, in February, in a children's program on PLO TV, a young lady addressed Arab children in Beersheva, Lod, and Haifa - three cities within the State of Israel proper. She told them they have been under occupation since 1948. There are many similar examples on PLO TV.

The Palestine Liberation Organization seeks the liberation of Palestine from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, which is why their true aim is not a two-state solution but a two-stage solution. In stage one they try to push Israel to the 1949 armistice lines. In stage two they will push for the insertion of hundreds of thousands of refugees into the State of Israel, to explode it from within and liberate Palestine. There is no other rational explanation for their total, vehement rejection of the far-reaching proposals by two previous Israeli governments.

Unless there is a profound change in their thinking, the only thing to do is what we have been doing - trying to improve the lives of both Jews and Arabs. For example, the PLO leadership maintains that last year they enjoyed an economic growth of around 9 percent, and Israel had a part in it.

The Moral Basis of Israel's Position

My position rests on two moral pillars: the natural and historical right of the Jewish people to its homeland, Israel, which of course extends beyond the artificial armistice demarcation line of 1949; and the right of Israeli citizens to national security. From the right of Jews to their ancient homeland ensues their right to dwell and build their homes in Jerusalem, in Samaria and in Judea. It has been proven time and again that if you try to detach these two basic rights, the result is loss of Israeli lives. By relinquishing Jericho, Gaza, Hebron, Nablus, Jenin, Tulkarm, and Kalkilya to the PLO under the Oslo agreements, and thus depositing our security in their hands, the result was the creation of havens of impunity for terrorism that tragically resulted in the Second Intifada which began in 2000. In 2005, another attempt was made to detach these two rights, by unilaterally relinquishing Gaza, and the result was the launching of hundreds of rockets towards Israel.

Let me conclude with a quotation by Prime Minister Menachem Begin. When he went to Washington over thirty years ago, he said that he was coming to Washington, D.C. - District of Columbia, from Jerusalem, D.C. - David's Capital. This still directs us, to a large extent, in our activities in Jerusalem - David's Capital.

The Legal Basis of Israel's Naval Blockade of Gaza

• The relations between Israel and Hamas are in the nature of armed conflict. Nowadays no formal declaration of war is needed. Hence the rules of the laws of armed conflict apply. This means that Israel may control shipping headed for Gaza - even when the vessels are still on the high seas.
• The rules of naval warfare have not been fully codified in a treaty and are in the nature of binding customary rules. They can be found in the relevant manuals of Western armies (in particular the U.S. and Britain) and in the San Remo Manual prepared by a group of experts.
• In order to be legal, a blockade has to be declared and announced, effective, non-discriminatory, and has to permit the passage of humanitarian assistance to the civilian population. In addition, the San Remo Manual of 1994 includes two conditions: first, the state which applies the blockade may decide where and when and through which port the assistance should reach the coast. In addition, the state may require that a neutral organization on the coast should verify who the recipient of the assistance is. In Gaza, for instance, does it reach the civilians or Hamas?
• A ship that clearly intends to breach the blockade may be stopped already when it is still on the high seas. Stopping the flotilla heading for Gaza in international waters 100 kilometres from Israel was not illegal; in time of armed conflict, ships intending to breach the blockade may be searched even on the high seas.
• Israel is within its rights and is in full compliance with international law because it has fulfilled all of the above-mentioned conditions for a lawful blockade. E.g., in January 2009 Israel notified the relevant authorities of its intention to establish a blockade of the Gaza coast.

What is the legal basis of Israel's naval blockade of Gaza? The relations between Israel and Hamas (which has ruled the Gaza Strip since 2007) are in the nature of armed conflict, meaning that the rules of the laws of armed conflict apply. This means that Israel may control shipping headed for Gaza - even when the vessel is still on the high seas. Israel may not do so in the territorial sea of a third country, such as Cyprus, but in time of armed conflict Israel may check vessels on the high seas that are headed for Gaza.

A naval blockade means preventing the passage (entry or exit) of all vessels to or from the ports and coastal areas of the enemy, irrespective of the kind of cargo carried by these vessels. One has to define clearly the borders of the area to which the blockade applies. The blockade has to be distinguished from other institutions of naval warfare, such as exclusion zones and security zones.


The Sources of International Law on Blockades

What are the sources of international law on blockades? The rules on blockades are based on customary international law, as there is no comprehensive international treaty on this subject. Customary law is binding in international law. According to Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, the sources of international law are: a) international treaties, b) international custom, and c) general principles of law recognized by civilized nations. A binding customary rule is created when many states have for a long time behaved in a certain way and have done so because they felt an obligation to behave in that manner.

Blockades have been in existence for hundreds of years. They were mentioned specifically in the 1856 Declaration of Paris (after the Crimean War) Respecting Maritime Law. A more detailed text followed in 1909 - the London Declaration on Naval Warfare. This declaration sought to codify the rules of war at sea, but the states that participated in the declaration never ratified it. However, states actually followed the rules laid down in the declaration, and thus its provisions became binding customary rules.

The customary rules on blockade can be found in the manuals of the laws of war issued by certain Western countries such as the United States and Britain. In addition, there is a manual prepared by an international group of experts in 1994 called the San Remo Manual. (While some speak about the San Remo Agreement, there was no agreement, but rather a manual.) In addition, the general principles of the laws of armed conflict apply also to naval warfare.


When Is a Blockade Legal?

In order to be legal, several conditions have to be fulfilled. The first is the requirement to give widespread notice when a blockade is applied and to make sure that any ship that is stopped knows that there is a blockade. Nowadays the problem of notification is much easier than in the past because of the great improvement in communications.

Another condition for the legality of a sea blockade is effectiveness. It is not enough simply to declare a blockade. It has to be enforced; otherwise it is not valid and legal.

According to a further condition, a blockade should not cut off an unrelated foreign state from access to the sea. In the case of Gaza, the blockade does not prevent Egypt from reaching the sea.

Furthermore, a blockade has to be based on equality: It must apply to everybody. Of course there is always the possibility that the blockading party may give special permission to certain neutral ships to go through, but these are exceptions.

A blockade has to permit the passage of humanitarian assistance if needed. However, the San Remo Manual includes two conditions (in Article 103): first, the blockading party may decide where and when and through which port the assistance should reach the coast. In addition, the state may require that a neutral organization on the coast should control the distribution of the items. For instance, in Gaza, does it reach the civilians or Hamas?

Finally, there is the condition that a state may not starve the civilian population (San Remo, Article 102). This conforms also to the general principles of the laws on armed conflict.


What If a Ship Disobeys the Blockade?

What may be done to a ship that disobeys the blockade? Here, there may be a distinction between merchant ships and warships. A merchant ship may be visited, searched, or captured; and if the ship resists, it may be attacked. The situation of neutral warships is not quite clear: Warships may also be searched and captured, but opinions are divided on whether they may be attacked. An attack is certainly permitted in a situation of self-defense.

A ship that clearly intends to breach the blockade can be dealt with while it is still on the high seas. Stopping the flotilla in international waters 100 kilometers from Israel was legal: In time of armed conflict, ships breaching the blockade may be searched even on the high seas.


Precedents of Blockades

There are numerous precedents of blockades. During the Korean War between 1950 and 1953 there was a blockade. In 1971, when Bangladesh tried to secede from Pakistan, India applied a blockade. During the Iran-Iraq war between 1980 and 1988, there was a blockade of the Shatt el-Arab. Lebanon was blockaded for several months in the 2006 war between Israel and Hizbullah, and Israel allowed safe passage from Lebanon to Cyprus for humanitarian purposes.

In the treatment of the flotilla heading for Gaza, Israel has acted in compliance with international law because it has fulfilled all the conditions for a lawful blockade. In January 2009 Israel notified the relevant authorities of its blockade of Gaza - a lawful means of naval war. The existence of an armed conflict between Israel and Hamas in Gaza was well known and did not need a special declaration to that effect.


But Gaza Is Not a State

Can Gaza be considered an enemy although it is not a state? According to international law, this is possible. In any case, according to various judgments of Israel's Supreme Court, the conflict with Gaza is an international conflict and not an internal one because Gaza is not part of Israel. Neither Gaza nor the West Bank have been annexed by Israel, nor has Israel's "law, jurisdiction and administration" been extended thereto (as was done with east Jerusalem in 1967 and the Golan Heights in 1981).

With regard to the status of Gaza: the territory was under Ottoman sovereignty from 1517 until 1917, and then it became part of the British Mandate for Palestine. In 1948 Britain left the area and Gaza was occupied by Egypt, but Egypt never annexed it. In 1967 Gaza was occupied by Israel, which also did not annex it. In 2005 Israel withdrew from Gaza, and in 2007 it was completely taken over by Hamas. Some say that Gaza is an area sui generis, which means a special situation, while according to others, it is a self-governing territory with certain powers but not with all the powers of a state.

In both the 1993 Israeli-Palestinian Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements and the 1995 Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, it was agreed that after a certain period of time negotiations would take place on the permanent status of Gaza and the West Bank, but these negotiations have so far failed. The 2003 Roadmap, to which both parties have agreed, foresees a two-state solution, and that a Palestinian state should be established by agreement with Israel.


Is Israel Still an Occupier?

A recurring question is whether Gaza is still occupied or not. Some say that since Israel is still in control of Gaza's airspace and adjacent sea, Israel is still the occupier. According to another opinion, under the Hague Regulations of 1907 (Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land), occupation has to include full control of the area. ("Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised." - Article 42), and of course Israel does not control the whole territory of Gaza. Therefore, it is not responsible for what happens there.

In my opinion, since Israel is not in control of Gaza, it is not the occupier, but in those areas in which Israel still has control - which means sea and airspace - Israel is responsible. Here we have to distinguish between full control of the territory and control only of the sea and airspace.

US study: Vegetarians may be happier

While fish may serve as the major dietary supply of the long-chain omega-3s eicosapentaenoic acid and docosahexaenoic acid, which has been shown to be essential in supporting brain health, low intake of eicosapentaenoic acid and docosahexaenoic acid in vegetarians will not adversely affect mood, based on a new research.

A study team from Arizona State University conducted a cross-sectional study to check the mood of vegetarians who never eat fish with the mood of healthy omnivorous adults.

An overall total of 138 healthy Seventh Day Adventist adults residing in Arizona and California (64 vegetarians and 79 non-vegetarians) were enrolled in the study and completed a health history questionnaire, food frequency questionnaire and two psychometric tests, the Depression Anxiety Stress Scale and also the Profile of Mood States.

Vegetarians had significantly lower mean intakes of eicosapentaenoic acid, docosahexaenoic acid and also the omega-6 arachidonic acid; they had higher intakes of the omega-3 alpha-linolenic acid and the omega-6 linoleic acid.

"Seed oils are the richest sources of α-linolenic acid, notably those of rapeseed (canola), soybeans, walnuts, flaxseed (Linseed oil), clary sage seeds, perilla, chia, and hemp."

However, the vegetarians also reported considerably less negative emotion than omnivores in psychometric tests. Mean total psychometric scores were positively associated with the mean intakes of eicosapentaenoic acid, docosahexaenoic acid and arachidonic acid , and inversely related to alpha-linolenic acid and linolenic acid intake.

The study team noted there is also the possibility that vegetarians may make smarter dietary choices and may generally be healthier and happier.

If you would like to try it out, this is an example of vegetarian recipe according to Italian cuisine.

Italian Spaghetti with Zucchini

Ingredients:

* 17 oz. Spaghetti

* 24 oz. Of thin sliced zucchini

* A half cup of walnuts oil

* A few basil leaves

* 2 tablespoons of yeast flakes

* Salt and pepper

In a skillet or frying pan heat the oil and when hot, add garlic and zucchini. Raise heat and stir often to complete their cooking. They should be golden and crispy outside and tender inside. Cook the pasta, drain and sauté in pan with zucchini, basil and yeast. Serve immediately.

Zucchini contain fewer calories and have no fat. But they are an excellent source of potassium, e vitamin, vitamin c, folate, lutein and zeaxanthin.

Many of these nutrients are extremely sensitive to heat and to enjoy their benefits you need to look for a quick solution to cook or even eat raw in salads.

From the therapeutic perspective, zucchini have laxative, refreshing, anti-inflammatory, diuretic and detoxifying action

Innocent Israelis expelled on assumption of being Mossad Agent

Three Israeli men have been turned out of Mauritius on suspicion they were there on a secret mission to spy on tourists from Dubai, Yedioth Ahronoth reported Monday.

The three arrived on the island, an exotic tourist destination in the Indian Ocean, in order to conclude their trip to the Soccer World Cup.

But they never made it to the turquoise beaches. As soon as they landed immigration officers, who were convinced they were Mossad agents who had come to the island to disturb the peace, placed them under arrest and submitted them to hours of intensive interrogations.

The three 30-year old men all reside in Tel Aviv. Ido and Roee Reicher, a pair of twins, are computer engineers and their friend, Avi Levinstein, owns a sushi restaurant. They had been planning their trip for six months.

"We heard it was paradise. It's cold in South Africa, and we were told it's hot in Mauritius, so we decided to spoil ourselves and come back with a tan," Roee said.

He said they had arrived Saturday on a British Airways flight, and were held up at passport control. "They looked at our passports, flipped through them, and then began to speak in French, saying, 'Israelis, Israelis'," Roee said.

Unfortunately, a flight from Dubai had landed on the island just moments before theirs had arrived. The immigration officers, fearing a case similar to that of the Mabhouh assassination, prevented them from passing.

They were taken to another room where, they say, the officers began to yell at them. "They claimed our passports were fake and didn't believe a word we said," Roee recounted.

"They didn't understand why we hadn't booked a hotel for the first night, and asked if we had any money. We showed them credit cards, but they just kept saying, 'Israeli, Israeli' as if we had done something wrong."

Roee, Ido, and Avi were then placed in three separate rooms and interrogated further. "They asked us where we had traveled in the past, and refused to believe that young Israeli men could have visited so many places," Roee said, adding that he had been to 40 different countries.

"Avi forgot to mention he had been to Zurich, and they took that as proof that we weren't who we said we were. They kept yelling, 'Where were you? What did you do? Who are you?'"

'Go talk to president of Mauritius'

Exhausted, the three called the Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem, but were told they would only receive assistance on Monday because Israel does not have an embassy in Mauritius. "They recommended we leave the country," Roee said. "I was really angry at this reply. We paid a lot of money to go there."

After hanging up, Roee and his friends insisted upon staying on the island. "They replied that we would be detained for six months because we tried to enter with fake passports," he said.

The immigration officers also refused to call the Foreign Ministry in order to ascertain the identity of the young men. "I told the one in charge I wanted to speak to someone above him. He said, 'Go talk to the president of Mauritius'," Roee said.

Furious, the three were placed on a flight back to South Africa. They had spared no expense to enjoy their vacation, and paid for first-class seats on the way to the island, Roee said, but ended up spending just a few infuriating hours in the airport.

Mauritius is a small island, with a population of around 1.2 million people, which thrives on agriculture and tourism. Historically it is connected to Israel, as the British used it as an interim camp for Holocaust survivors attempting to reach the shores of Palestine.

Recently tension developed between the two countries when Mauritius refused to approve the nomination of a non-resident ambassador because his office would be the Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem, which they claim the UN does not recognize as Israel's capital.

In response, the ministry cut back on aid to the island, which included sending over specialists, accepting foreign students and interns into courses in Israel, and backing the island's nominees for UN positions.

Israeli company uses nanotechnology to develop paint that makes planes disappear off radar

Imagine for a moment what the battlefield will look like in the future. Unmanned planes flying through the air; robots fighting on the ground; smart missiles hunting down targets. Now imagine that none of this can be detected on radar screens.

It may sound fictional, but it's happening. An Israeli company called Nanoflight is currently developing a special paint that makes drones, missiles, or war craft simply disappear. Or, to be more precise, they become very difficult to detect.

The critical stage in developing the paint, which was developed in a nanotechnology lab, has recently concluded, and a successful test run was conducted this week. For the test run, a thin layer of the material was painted on dummy missiles, and radar waves aimed at them had a difficult time registering them.

The paint particles don't make the missile's detection on the radar disappear completely, but make it exceedingly difficult to positively identify the object as a missile. In the future, this development will allow any missile or jet significantly decreased radar detection.

Even though they may not entirely disappear from radar screens, this technology is a considerably more cost-effective method to evade radar detection than purchasing an American stealth plane for $5 billion.

How does it work? In order to locate objects, the radar transmitter sends out electromagnetic waves. When these waves hit an object, they are scattered in all directions, with some of them being bounced back to the radar itself. Regular signal reception indicates the existence of an object.

The nanotechnology developed envelopes the object, absorbs the radio waves emitted by the radar, and releases them as heat energy scattered in space. In doing so, the material disguises the object, making it difficult to identify by radar.

"We are only at the beginning and are discovering new worlds everyday," said Eli Shaldag, a former senior Israel Air Force official who worked on the Arrow missile project. He currently is part of the military applications department of Nanoflight.

"This is a breakthrough with the potential to change the rules of the game in the battlefield," Shaldag said.

When will the material be ready for use on war craft?

"We have already completed the main development stage. We conducted a number of tests and discovered that the particles in their nanotechnology composition do significantly neutralize the ability to detect objects that have been painted with the material. We are entering the second stage, after which we will already be able to produce the material in larger quantities."

Will this material be applicable for additional uses in the future?

"Absolutely yes. Discovery of nanotechnology materials is still in its infancy, and we are decoding the secret of this technology's power every day. We are currently working on developing an application of the material that will work with infrared so that soldiers won't be detected on night-vision goggles."

According to company officials, the material can also be used for civilian purposes."Just like the nanotechnology material can prevent a radar from detecting a missile, it can also prevent radiation emitted by electrical transformers from reaching nursery schools," said Nanoflight CEO Ricardo Burstein.

Burstein also noted that the material can prevent pollution through its absorption and transformation properties.

"In the future, it could be painted on sidewalks and roads in order to decrease air pollution. We are currently conducting an experiment with the City of Ramat Gan in which we are painting guardrails with the material in order to purify pollution from cars," Burstein explained.