Looking for His glorious appearing! Titus 2:13

Administrative Area

login

password

What will An Israel - Iran War Look Like?
Nov 13th, 2009
Daily NewsHaaretz.com
Categories: Commentary;The Nation Of Israel;War

It is precisely from the events of the passing week, which culminated in an impressive show of force reminiscent of the good old Israel Defense Forces - the IDF that carried out Entebbe and bombed the reactors in Iraq and in Syria - that Israel can glean an important lesson about the limitations of the power at its disposal. These are the limitations dictated by U.S. President Barack Obama: Israel's navy can intercept weapons shipments from Iran, Israel's Military Intelligence can expose Hamas long-range missile tests from Gaza, but at least for the time being, as long as the international community is conducting dialogue with Tehran over its controversial nuclear program, it is best that Israel doesn't do too much to annoy the adults. 

The interception of hundreds of tons of weapons, believed to be an Iranian shipment meant for Hezbollah, in the Mediterranean on Wednesday wasn't any different from similar operations carried out by the U.S. Navy, twice this year, though Israel seized a significantly larger amount of weapons. Therefore, the display of the loot the IDF invited everyone to see at the Ashdod port on Thursday received a lukewarm welcome by the world media. It is great that Israel is uncovering and seizing Iranian weapons, the world leaders must be telling themselves, but is there anything here that we didn't know well before the Israeli commandos raided the Antigua-flagged ship in the middle of the night? 

The execution by Israeli forces was impeccable, that's true. The IDF apparently followed the arms shipment for a long time, identified the correct ship and planned the operation which went off without a hitch. Now comes the part of diplomacy and public relations. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak, who will be visiting Washington in the coming days, will be accompanied by intelligence officials who will present the details of the operation to their American colleagues, along with all the necessary proof that Iran is continuing to support terror despite Tehran's denials, and in blatant violation of UN Security Council resolutions. 

On the public relations front Israel has gained some ground in light of the fact that both the seizure of the arms ship and the exposure of the Hamas missile test occurred right before the United Nations General Assembly debate on the Goldstone report, which accused Israel of having committed war crimes in Gaza last winter. While the IDF is being accused of war crimes, and the Goldstone report argues that the Israeli offensive was designed specifically to punish the Palestinian civilian population, it doesn't hurt to bring to the forefront the background to these allegations: the ongoing Iranian effort to arm terror organizations with rockets meant to kill Israeli civilians. 

But, that's approximately it. Israel is allowed to pester Hamas and Hezbollah with intelligence maneuvers, initiate brilliant pinpoint operations block their supply of weapons and expose Iran and its proxies - and no more. Here is what Israel isn't permitted to do, for now: Israel is forbidden from threatening to attack Iranian nuclear facilities (our leaders have, in an exceptional move, become silent on the issue). Also forbidden are deterrence displays against Hamas and Hezbollah that go beyond the norm. The White House has enough problems without having to pull satellite photos of Palestinian refugee camps in Gaza. 

The priorities of the Obama administration are completely different. Besides its long delayed, critical, decision on the war in Afghanistan, the president is also plagued with internal U.S. issues and the erosion of his popularity among the American public. After that, in a high place on the priority list, stands the issue of Iran. Israel's job, right now, is not to interfere. We are apparently headed toward several more weeks of dialogue, and after that, if talks fail, a U.S. move to impose more sanctions on Iran. Only in 2010 will there be an actual assessment of what effect these sanctions will have, and whether it is possible to prevent Iran from building a nuclear bomb without resorting to military tactics. 

A man who was, up until recently, involved in Israel's decision making process and continues to serve as adviser to many at the helm, said this week that in his opinion, the Israeli leadership should be very careful in formulating an opinion on the dialogue with Iran. He says that the idea of transferring enriched uranium from Iran to Russia is not necessarily a bad idea, and a similar idea was raised five years ago. It was then director of Israel's atomic energy committee Gideon Frank who came up with the idea, and presented it to then prime minister Ariel Sharon. The key, the man says, is in the supervision clauses of the deal. If Iran, in a surprise move, accepts a deal similar to the one it rejected last week, there is definitely room for dialogue. 

The IDF must prepare itself for the possibility of an attack against Iran's nuclear facilities because that's the IDF's job. But when the debate among experts and analysts regarding such a scenario revolved around operative questions (will the Americans provide Israel with an airspace corridor over Iran? How many fuel jets will be required? Etc.) it is missing the point. The important question is how willing the U.S. is to protect Israel in the event of a counter attack. The message Israel is getting from Obama's administration at this time is that it is out of the question - and thus the likelihood of an Israeli attack on Iran diminishes drastically. 

But how will an Israel-Iran war look if it breaks out eventually? This question is at the center of a new study compiled by the Defense Ministry. Researcher Dr. Moshe Vered writes that such a war could go on for a long time. He believes that the Iranian's typical willingness to sacrifice many victims for a long period of time in a conflict with Israel will dictate a prolonged war between the two states, which will be difficult to end. 

Dr. Vered, a physicist, occupies various roles in the defense establishment's technology division. He published his study this week as part of a sabbatical at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies at Bar Ilan University. He argues that the length of an Israel-Iran war "will be measured in year, not in weeks or days." This stems from the Shiite perception by which one must fight and sacrifice for the sake of justice and to correct wrongs to Islam and to Muslims. "This outlook sees Israel's existence as a wrong that must be corrected for the sake of world redemption. The achievement of this goal will only be possible once Israel is annihilated. The Iranians will continue fighting this war, as much as it is up to them, until they achieve their objective, despite the heavy toll that will be exacted in battle," Vered writes. 

Vered argues further that only the fear the Iranian regime being toppled could bring such a war to an end. But, it seems unlikely that Israel will be able to pose a real threat to the Iranian regime, and "in the absence of a way out, acceptable to both sides, the war could continue for a very long time." 

Vered mentions the fact that the Iran-Iraq war, in the 1980s, lasted eight years. Iran fought many years to achieve its demands - to correct the basic wrong of Iraq's invasion into its territory, Iraqi recognition of its culpability, and the removal of the head of the Iraqi regime Saddam Hussein. 

Iran paid an inconceivable price in that war - half a million dead and economic damage higher than the country's entire oil income in the 20th century - before it agreed to a ceasefire. The ceasefire came only when there was a real danger that the Iranian regime would not survive. 

Vered writes that "one can't rule out with a high degree of certainty the possibility that a war will break out between Israel and Iran." Therefore, a careful assessment of the details of a possible war, and preparation for it, are essential. In his study, he fails to find anyone who could develop an effective method to shorten the time of a war. 

He goes on to write that the fear of such a war should prompt Israel to prepare mentally, politically, and militarily, while creating ways to end it quickly, should it erupt. The assumption that the war will become prolonged should affect the way Israel prepares for it, as well it should affect the decision whether or not to attack Iranian facilities in the future. 

Vered rejects the assumption that in the absence of a shared border, the Israel-Iran war will be fought only with surface to surface missiles. Such warfare shouldn't last a long time because Iran's supply of long-range missiles isn't large. However, he writes, it is more plausible to assume that Iran will want to continue the fighting against Israel via messengers: Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas, and maybe even an Iranian force on Syrian soil, as part of a defense treaty between Tehran and Damascus. He plays down the likelihood of a short confrontation (Israeli assault followed by a punishing counter assault and then an immediate ceasefire under international pressure while both sides realize that the war has played out), he thinks that the ideology of the Iranian regime will dictate a prolonged war. Yes, this isn't exactly what you would call relaxing reading material for the weekend.

Washington Disappointed With Netanyahu After Meeting
Nov 13th, 2009
Daily NewsHaaretz.com
Categories: Today's Headlines;The Nation Of Israel;Peace Process

The White House expressed disappointment in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's recent visit to Washington, with officials saying that they had hoped that the prime minister would present a concrete plan to scale back Israeli construction in West Bank settlements, the Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday. 

Speaking at the General Assembly of the Jewish Federations of North America in Washington on Monday, Netanyahu urged the Palestinians to resume peace talks with Israel, but failed to offer any new commitment regarding the settlements, which the Palestinians have demanded be halted as a precondition for talks, nor did he present any new terms for the talks. 

"We had an idea that he might bring something out to push the process forward," one U.S. official told the Wall Street Journal. "But he's kept it in his pocket." 

In his address, Netanyahu also appeared to resist U.S. pressure to promote the two-state solution. He said he was committed to two states living side by side, but stressed that the central issues - the right of Palestinian refugees to return to the homes from which they were expelled and certain territorial claims - would not be on the table. "They must abandon the fantasy of flooding Israel with refugees, give up irredentist claims to the Negev and Galilee, and declare unequivocally that the conflict is finally over," Netanyahu said in his address. 

U.S. officials said the White House had held off until Netanyahu was on a plane to Washington before confirming a meeting between the prime minister and U.S. President Barack Obama in efforts to pressure the Israeli leader to take a more conciliatory line. 

Following the meeting Monday night, the White House issued only a brief statement saying the president and Mr. Netanyahu discussed a number of issues in the U.S.-Israel bilateral relationship, as well as how to move forward on Middle East peace. 

The mystery that shrouded the meeting sparked a wave of speculations. American commentators argued that the White House's refusal to even supply a photo opportunity of the two leaders indicated the American president's dissatisfaction with Netanyahu's policies. 

So far, no photos have been released from the meeting. The only photos available are those of Netanyahu entering the White House, and leaving it. The government photographer, the only one allowed into the meeting, was prohibited from making the photos public. 

The late hour of the meeting, which was scheduled at the very last minute while Netanyahu was already on a plane to Washington, and the fact that the prime minister was transported in a simple van, and not the official government vehicle that usually takes world leaders to meetings with the president, also indicated that something was amiss. 

The bureaus of both Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak, who was present during the second part of the meeting, canceled the briefings that they had planned to give to the press following the meeting. They also canceled planned radio interviews. According to Israeli sources, the cancellations stemmed from U.S. displeasure with headlines in the Israeli media suggesting that Netanyahu bended Obama's will. Netanyahu's media advisers wanted to appease the Americans, and therefore cancelled the briefings, sources said. 

Senior officials in the Obama administration also accused Netanyahu of suggesting that he had the power to pressure Obama with various lobbies within the U.S. political arena. The White House views this sentiment as a "re-run" of Netanyahu's behavior during Bill Clinton's administration. This issue apparently came up in the meeting between Netanyahu and Obama. 

"The administration was upset because Netanyahu's camp forced the meeting on them, and that it was scheduled in accordance with Netanyahu's schedule, and not theirs," said one of the Jewish leaders at the GA conference.

Turkey Completes It's Betrayal of Israel With Promise of Intelligence Aid to Iran
Nov 13th, 2009
Daily Newsdebka.com
Categories: Today's Headlines;Anti-Israel

In the secret part of their talks in Tehran on Oct. 28, DEBKAfile's military sources reveal that Turkish prime minister Tayyep Recep Erdogan and Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad struck military cooperation deals which promised Iran Turkish military intelligence and air force assistance against a possible Israeli attack on its nuclear sites. 

Their understandings have bound Turkish to pass intelligence data to Tehran on potential Israeli preparations for a strike and on US military movements in the Middle East for providing backup. Our sources report that the details finalized in meetings between the Turkish and Iranian military specialists in Istanbul Monday, Nov. 9, were due to be sealed by presidents Abdullah Gul and Ahmadinejad Tuesday. The Iranian president is to be in Turkey as guest of the Islamic Conference. 

The Turkish prime minister has not only buried his country's longstanding military and intelligence ties with Israel but climbed aboard the adversarial axis confronting the Jewish state. Turkey has agreed to round out the forward surveillance outposts encircling Israel's borders: Hamas from the southwest in Gaza, Syria in the east, Lebanon in the north and now Turkey from the northwest. Tehran is banking on this encirclement for early warning of an approaching Israeli strike and any supportive American movements.

According to Western intelligence sources in Ankara, heads of the Turkish army objected to their government's strategic turn to Iran and the cutoff of its ties with Israel. However its pro-Islamic leaders, which have gradually eased the army out of policymaking, have forced them to accept operational ties with the military of an anti-Western Middle Eastern nation as being in the nation's best interests. 

Erdogan's most compelling argument is that President Barack Obama's secret proposal for Iran to deposit 400 kilos of its enriched Iran in Turkey for safekeeping in charge of International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors, had elevated Turkey to an enhanced role as a broker between the US and Iran, sanctioned by Agency director Mohamed ElBaradei. If Turkey, a member of NATO, was able to gain the Iranian regime's trust, the Turkish prime minister maintained, it was only thanks to the military understandings he reached in Tehran.

DEBKAfile's military sources report that word of the Turkish-Iranian military collaboration deal landed with shocking effect in Washington and Jerusalem. They had not forewarned by their intelligence services that Erdogan was willing to go as far as this to ally Turkey with the Islamic regime.

The United States State Department wants all Jews evacuated out of the Biblical lands of Israel
Nov 13th, 2009
News UpdateJimmy DeYoung
Categories: Jimmy DeYoung News

A top United States State Department official said recently that the goal of the United States in its negotiations in the Middle East is to pressure Israel to expel Jews from the Biblical lands of Judea and Samaria in Israel in order to end the occupation that began in 1967. William Burns, Under Secretary of State for political affairs at the State Department, said that the bottom line is clear - two states living side by side in peace and security, a Jewish state with true security and a viable independent Palestinian state that ends the occupation that has been in place for over 40 years.

Jimmy's Prophetic Prospective on the News

A call by the United States State Department for Israel to evacuate the Jewish settlers from Judea and Samaria is setting the stage for Bible prophecy to be fulfilled.

There has been an ongoing debate between Israel and the rest of the world about the Jews living in the area of Judea and Samaria, known to some as the West Bank, if there is going to be any chance of a peace agreement between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Israeli government after Israeli government has prolonged a decision on whether to concede to the pressure to remove the Jewish settlers and tear down these settlements. The almost 500,000 Jews who live in the area, many of them for almost 40 years now, say that they are not going to uproot their families and start all over again somewhere else in Israel. In fact, these settlers are determined to stay as they are no matter what the consequences.

Almost all of these settlers say they have a Biblical mandate to be living on this piece of real estate and they quote from the prophetic book of Ezekiel. These settlers are correct - the ancient Jewish prophet Ezekiel did write 2500 years ago that God would give this land in particular to the Jewish people and that they would prosper on the land (Ezekiel 34 and 36). These prophecies will be fulfilled, however, there is also Ezekiel 35 that will be fulfilled, a prophecy that says the Palestinians will rise up to take the land from the Jewish people. Even Ezekiel 37:15-23 foretelling two Jewish states in the region in the last days will be fulfilled. In fact, the stage is now set for all of these prophecies to be fulfilled in the very near future.

The Eu's Path to Superstate Status Cloaked in Deception?
Nov 13th, 2009
Daily News.telegraph.co.uk
Categories: Today's Headlines;Commentary;Revived Roman Empire

The EU has achieved the goal it has worked stealthily towards for so long - a supra-national government which is now beyond our recall, writes Christopher Booker

So the trap has snapped shut. It was somehow apt that the politician who finally let the EU get the constitution it has craved so long should have been President Vaclav Klaus, the veteran anti-Communist who predicted, just before the Czech Republic joined the EU in 2004, that it would mean the end of his country as "an independent sovereign state". And what a delightful irony that Pravda, of all newspapers, greeted the news last week with the headline: "Twenty years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the EU is now a reincarnation of the Soviet Union". 

Tomorrow, as the EU's leaders gather in Berlin to celebrate the end of that wall, they will also celebrate the rise of a new one – a wall they have built around themselves, that separates Europe's politicians from all their subject peoples. From December 1, the Lisbon Treaty comes into force. (How long before they give it back its original name, "A Constitution for Europe"?) The EU will at last have the supreme government it has wanted so long – unelected, unaccountable and, as even its own polls show, less popular with those it rules over than ever before. But what do the politicians care? They have the power, and we now have a government we can never dismiss. 

The ministry of silly ministry names Of course David Cameron never wanted a referendum, which would have been a huge embarrassment to him. His promise of one was a cynical gimmick to curry favor with Euro-skeptic voters – a trick he is now repeating with a promise to work for the repatriation of powers which he must know he will never get. To do so would require a new treaty and the agreement of 27 governments to something which, as they are already making abundantly clear, is simply not on offer. 

Where Mr Cameron is entirely at one with his Labor and Lib Dem counterparts is that they must never admit or explain just how much of Britain's governance has already been given away, leaving Westminster with little more power than a rather grand local council. None of them will ever discuss this because they all belong to that new Europe-wide political class that governs us from behind its wall, without ever having to ask us for our consent. 

In a wistful way it has been amusing to see that former Foreign Office mandarin Sir Christopher Meyer much in evidence of late, bemoaning the way Foreign Office morale has sunk so low because so much of its old power and influence has passed to "other departments in Whitehall". What he means, of course, is that its power has departed not elsewhere in Whitehall but to this amorphous new entity which is even now constructing its own foreign ministry and diplomatic service, with embassies around the world, to replace almost everything of significance our Foreign Office once stood for. This is why the child we now have as our Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, can't wait to be part of it. 

Three years ago, when I was in the beautiful city of Prague to assist President Klaus in launching a Czech edition of my history of the "European project", The Great Deception, I was intrigued to note that outside every Czech ministry there hung two flags, one Czech, the other the EU's ring of stars. It was an honest recognition of how their country was governed, a practice I suggested the British Government should follow. 

The only difference now is that our ministries should cease to fly the Union Jack and hoist instead what is officially known in Brussels as "the Union Flag", that same ring of stars which, from December 1, will symbolize the true government we live under. 

As a final thought, since the EU is to become a government with "legal personality" in its own right, how long will it be before its President, under the constitution, is accorded international precedence over the Queen as our head of state? Like much else in this sorry story, our new rulers will start by denying that they are even thinking of such a thing. But now they have their constitution, I bet it can't be long.

Sudden Jihad Syndrome
Nov 13th, 2009
Daily NewsDiana West
Categories: Commentary;Warning

Are the US military and media incapable of admitting the Islamic Jihad threat? Diana West thinks that they have chosen denial over reality and that their reaction to the Ft. Hood Massacre proves it. Wake up, America.

Some backstory to the Ft. Hood Massacre by a"Palestinian"Muslim officer in the United States Army.

First, why do I call Hasan a "Palestinian"? Because he has identified himself as Palestinian. Why do I call him "Muslim"? Despite what dhimmi-media are not bothering to mention, or barely mentioning in passing, he is a Muslim. In this Age of Jihad, this is RELEVANT.

Elementary example: If, during World War II, a German-American Nazi had shouted "Sieg
Hasan shouted "Allahu Akbar" -- not "God is Great," as the media oh-so-prudishly prefers -- before mowing down American soldiers deep in the heart of Texas.
Heil" before committing a similar unspeakable act on a US base, his German-ness and Nazi beliefs would also have been RELEVANT. (Of course, had such an officer been arguing against US involvement in WWII and calling for German Nazis to "rise up against the aggressor," etc., he would have been relieved of duty if not arrested long before such an attack.)

But even as we learn Hasan shouted "Allahu Akbar" -- not "God is Great," as the media oh-so-prudishly prefers -- before mowing down dozens of brave American soldiers deep in the heart of Texas (just as Mohammed Atta, the Egyptian AIr 990 pilot, the Bulldozer killer, and more, all yelled) the military spokesmen, pundits, newspapers remain "stumped" as to his motivation.
Stumped.
They are unable even to speculate whether this was an act of jihad. They can't even mouth the words, certainly can't write them. Here are a couple of sample headlines in the morning papers. After reporting the death toll, they add:
"Officer Is Suspect" (NYT). Or: "Suspect Is Army Psychiatrist Who Worked at Walter Reed" (WP).
The suspect officer is a Muslim, and the headlines should have reflected this, like so:
"Muslim Officer is Suspect." Or: "Muslim Suspect Is Army Psychiatrist..."
He is what he is.

In a slightly saner world the media would explore how -- "whether" would be a start -- Islamic beliefs figured into the massacre; Congress would  investigate how such a man -- someone described as happy about the jihadist attack on a Little Rock Army-Navy recruiting station that killed Pvt. William Long -- was allowed to remain in the military. And it would fall to the military and security services to own up to politically incorrect fact that at the very least combat cohesion is shot, certainly post-Ft. Hood this week, certainly post-Helmand this week (where five British troops were killed by a Taliban-linked Afghan policeman) with Muslims in the ranks.
Meanwhile, there seem to be few Muslims in the military. I am still looking for current data, but meanwhile came across this 2007 report from Newsmax which reports:
Pentagon statistics show there are more Jews and Buddhists than Muslims serving in the 1.4 million strong, overwhelmingly Christian armed forces.
In the Marine Corps, there are only slightly more Muslims than Wiccans, who practice witchcraft. And in the Air Force, Wiccans outnumber Muslims by more than two to one.
Will we continue to deny the irreconcilable differences between Islam and Judeo-Christian beliefs?

The Pentagon lists 3,386 Muslims in active service, compared with 1.22 million Christians of a wide array of denominations ....
The question is, Do we love basking in the self-congratulation of "diversity" so much that we will ask our soldiers to trust their lives to some few Muslims in the military all too prone
Will we continue to deny the irreconcilable differences between Islam and Judeo-Christian beliefs?
to Sudden Jihad Syndrome? Do we love affirming the mythology of "multiculturalism" so much that we will continue to deny the irreconcilable differences between Islam and Judeo-Christian beliefs -- not to mention secular humanist beliefs -- that now fester within our military and security services? (Hasan was actually a consultant on a panel advising President Obama on Homeland Security matters.) So far, the answer is a clear and resounding "yes." Yes to Diversity over Survival. Yes to Denial over Reality. Dhimmitude Is Us.
Someone wrote me last night:
I just watched the latest military press briefing. The Commanding Officer adamantly refused to discuss anything about Major Hassan, the shooter, and I did not hear one question from the press corps inquiring if Major Hassan's Muslim faith, jihad or Islam could have had anything to do with this act.  

More than that, there was not a question about how on God's Earth the C.O. can believe he can guarantee the safety of his non-Muslim troops from further acts like this.
 
It was almost comical, were it not so tragic, to listen to the questions and answers about the timeline, the location of the shootings, the responding units, the facility layout, the graduation ceremony close by, the coming deployment of the troops, the firearms Hassan
We must confront the all too horrible thought that perhaps we are at war with the entire World of Islam.
had at his disposal, the base security now being ramped up, and anything else but the "I" word.
 
For we must not say it aloud.  We must not whisper it.  We must not think it, for if we do then we must confront the all too horrible thought that perhaps we are at war with the entire World of Islam - and that is unthinkable.  So, the denial of the elephant in the room goes on.
I would rephrase that last bit to describe the "unthinkable" as rather being that the world of Islam -- Islam -- is at war with us, is expanding into our sphere, is extending its law (sharia) into our realm, through acts of terror, poses of victimhood, unprecedented patterns of migration, and, of course, waterfalls of oil-money. And we stand paralyzed by Islam's role in reorienting our civilization to accommodate Islamic law because it shames us, it frightens us, and it demands actions that our self-censoring and soft society cannot muster.
So we overlook the obvious, the Muslim-ness of the suspect. the jihadism of the act. Soon, the apoiogies will start -- and to Hasan.

Palestinian Elections Called Off, Abbas to Remain in Power
Nov 13th, 2009
Daily NewsIsrael Today
Categories: Today's Headlines;Peace Process

The head of the Palestinian Central Elections Committee on Thursday announced that Palestinian legislative and presidential elections cannot be held on January 24, as declared by Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas.

The committee chief informed Abbas of his decision earlier in the day. He blamed the inability to hold elections on Hamas, which had threatened to punish any residents of the Gaza Strip that dared to vote in the poll.

Many in Israel viewed Thursday's announcement as just part of a larger ruse by Abbas to remain in power after telling the world he would not seek reelection due to what he called Israel's inability to make peace. Abbas will now be viewed as the "reluctant moderate" leader who will only stick around as long as Israel is pressured into making the kind of concessions that will keep him happy.

Eu to Name First Permanent President on 19 November
Nov 13th, 2009
Daily Newseuobserver.com
Categories: Today's Headlines;Revived Roman Empire

The Swedish presidency has called an EU summit on 19 November to decide on the bloc's new top appointments, with a Polish proposal to hold candidate hearings gaining limited acceptance.

The summit will be in the format of an EU leaders' dinner in Brussels and comes after two weeks of consultations between Stockholm and the other EU capitals. 

"It is hoped that at the summit, agreement can be reached on the appointment of the three new top EU posts regulated in the Treaty of Lisbon," the presidency said in a statement on Wednesday morning (11 November).

The move will be a significant moment in the history of the EU, which started out as a free trade bloc 50 years ago but which is little by little acquiring the trappings of a genuine political union.

The three positions in question are the new president of the European Council and EU foreign relations chief, as well as the largely bureaucratic appointment of a new secretary general of the Council, the Brussels-based institution which prepares member states' day-to-day meetings. 

Gossip still favours Belgian Prime Minister Herman van Rompuy for the presidency post but British foreign minister David Miliband's denials of interest in the second post have thrown the race open on the foreign relations side.

Meanwhile, a Polish suggestion that candidates should give job interview-type presentations at the dinner before the final choice is made is gaining in popularity.

Polish foreign minister Radek Sikorski and his Lithuanian counterpart, Vygaudas Usackas, have spent the past 24 hours promoting the idea in EU capitals, including at a high-level dinner in Madrid on Tuesday with delegates from Italy, Belgium, Ireland, Finland and Hungary. 

Finland, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Estonia and Latvia support Poland and Lithuania, while the Swedish presidency is also "in favour," a high-level source told EUobserver. 

The proposal is designed to help smaller member states have a say in the selection process amid concerns that Germany, France and the UK aim to push through a back-room deal.

If the plan goes ahead it would be a diplomatic coup for Warsaw, which was pushed to the edge of EU decision-making by the confrontational politics of the Kaczynski government in 2006 and 2007. 

With just one week to go to 19 November, Paris does not seem enamoured of the idea, however. "For the time being it is not being discussed," a French diplomat told this website. 

A former British EU ambassador, Stephen Wall, also poured cold water on the scheme, saying that the appointment is about balancing national and political interests in Europe, rather than individual merit. 

"Given that they have to placate the right, the left, the north, the south, the large and small nations, you could have a brilliant presentation but, if the politics didn't fit, what would be the point?" he said in an article in the New York Times on Tuesday.