Mahzor

New York Public Library

Churches

Sarajevo Haggadah

Mah Nishtanah

Sarajevo haggadah

Antaea Darom

Israeli women's art

Action

Torah as music

Ben Heine

Action

ceramic bowl

Mohammad Said Kalash, "Offering Reconciliation" exhibit (photo: Ilan Amihai)

Action

Punch and Judy/Pinchas and Jamila

Avi Katz

Action

David Grossman

Ben Heine

Action

Eldrige Street shul

Lower East Side

Action

Dove

Ben Heine

Action

Two birds

Hoda Jamal

Action

Israeli and Palestinian boys

from documentary, Promises

Action

Cat in the Hat

Yiddish version

Action

Daylight through the Wall

Banksy: graffiti art on Separation Wall

Action

Maurice Sendak's Brundibar set

New Victory Theater (photo: Nan Melville/NYT)

Action

Daniel Barenboim, West-Eastern Divan Orchestra

Palestinian-Israeli musical ensemble (photo: Kerstin Joensson/AP)

Action

Great Day on Eldrige Street

N.Y.'s klezmer greats celebrate shul rededication (photo: Leo Sorel)

Action

Joint Appeal for Peace

(Avi Katz)

Joint Appeal for Peace

Ketubah, Ancona, Italy (1772)

(Jewish Theological Seminary library)

Ancona ketubah

Posts Tagged ‘ehud-barak’

Widening Regional Escalation Anticipated After Israeli Attack on Iran

Sunday, February 5th, 2012

Several interesting developments concerning the simmering war between Israel and Iran.  The website of the Iranian Majlis published a report (in Farsi) by the director of an official government think tank that advocates Iranian attacks against Israeli sites.  The author argues that Israel’s sustained attacks within Iran demand a response.  An Israeli TV news report says (in Hebrew) that the Iranian website calls for a “pre-emptive” attack on Israel, and not one that is purely in response to an Israeli first strike.  Though it is reflective of the Israel’s narrow thinking that they would call such an Iranian strike “pre-emptive,” when Israel has already attacked Iran.  One of the specific sites indicated for targeting was Sdot Micha, Israel’s secret missile base and home of its Jericho intercontinental missile arsenal.

You’ll recall that an Israeli source told me that a drone crashed into that base, which may’ve been tied to Iran and/or Hezbollah origins.  Whether or not this story was true, the new report from Iran indicates that the country’s leadership very much has this sort of strike in its mind and would be interested in responding to Israel’s numerous domestic attacks against Iranian bases and nuclear scientists.

A Western diplomat based in Pakistan has added a new wrinkle to the Israel war scenario.  He says a new player should be considered as a protagonist if Israel strikes:

A European diplomat based in Pakistan, permitted to speak only under condition of anonymity, said that if Israel attacks, Islamabad will have no choice but to support any Iranian retaliation. That raises the specter of putting a nuclear-armed Pakistan at odds with Israel, widely believed to have its own significant nuclear arsenal.

I personally think it’s unlikely Pakistan officially would join the fight on Iran’s side.  But it wouldn’t have to to weigh in on the subject.  Pakistanis already detest the U.S. for assassinating Osama bin Laden and our serial drone attacks which violate national sovereignty.  When Ayatollah Khomeini announced a fatwa against Salman Rushdie in 1989, the first nation which took up the call wasn’t Iran, but Pakistan.  It’s likely that Iran will activate its influence inside Afghanistan to make our lives miserable there should it be attacked by Israel.  With the Pakistani Taliban joining in the fight and attacking U.S. assets wherever they find them, it could make our presence in large portions of the region almost impossible to sustain.

Not to mention, while Iran doesn’t yet have a nuke, Pakistan does. While it likely would not use its nukes to defend Iran, just the fact that it has them automatically makes the calculations a lot more complex.

In the current climate, it’s hard to know what information is credible and what is based on exaggeration.  We need to weigh that in evaluating the value of the reports above.  But even if we downgrade some or all of it, in its entirety is signals an escalation in the thinking of Arab-Muslim elements in the region.  Many among them are already thinking about making Israel and the U.S. pay the price for attacking if they do.

Israeli strategic thinking on this subject remains mired in self-delusion:

Defense Minister Ehud Barak claimed during a high-profile security conference that there is a “wide global understanding” that military action may be needed.

“There is no argument about the intolerable danger a nuclear Iran (would pose) to the future of the Middle East, the security of Israel and to the economic and security stability of the entire world,” Barak said.

The opposite is the case.  There is a wide global understanding that military actions would be a very bad idea.  And there certainly is a strong argument against the idea that a nuclear Iran would pose a danger to world stability.  In fact, the only people who believe this are some of Israel’s top leaders, Islamophobes around the world, and neocons in the U.S. and Israel.  It’s interesting how Barak attempts to parlay that rather narrow body of opinion into an overwhelming world consensus.

Former Mossad Chief Halevy: Iran Attack ‘Will Impact Region for 100 Years’

Saturday, November 5th, 2011

Ynet reports (fuller Hebrew version) that Ephraim Halevy, a former Mossad director, said yesterday that Iran poses no “existential threat” to Israel and that attacking it must truly be a last resort.  Anyone considering such a strike must realize that it would impact not just Israel, but the entire region for the next 100 years.  If this was all Halevy said it would be important, but mere reinforcement of views already expressed forcefully by Meir Dagan, the most recent past Mossad chief.  What renders the former’s views even more interesting is that he identifies what he considers an even greater existential threat to Israel: the Haredim (ultra-Orthodox):

Haredi radicalism has darkened our lives.  It endangers us even more than Ahmadinejad.

His attack on Haredim is shorthand for an entire range of social developments within Israeli society that includes, but goes beyond merely the ultra-Orthodox.  Halevy, who himself was raised in the moderate Orthodox Bnai Akiva youth movement, refers to the increasing religious and political radicalization of the entire Orthodox movement in Israel.  There has always been friction between secular and religious within Israel.  But in the past, there were streams within the Orthodox movement which held moderate political and halachic views.  Parties like the National Religious Party were ones which accepted a separation between synagogue and state.  They participated in governing coalitions and were statist in orientation.  They didn’t believe the State should be subordinate to the Jewish religion or halacha.  Leaders like Josef Burg (Avrum Burg’s father) were also sober-minded and incorruptible.

Today’s Orthodox are increasingly extreme in their views.  The moderate religious parties are long extinct.  In their place are the ultra-Orthodox, who are much more socially separatist and militant.  They view Israeli secular society as a world–and a state apart from them.  They participate in politics because of the spoils it brings them in financial subsidies, and not for patriotic reasons.  For them, the State of Israel is not an end, but a means toward a successor regime that fulfills the tenets of Judaism as they see it.

Haredim generally don’t join the IDF and receive dispensation from military service as long as they are studying in yeshivot.  When Haredim do join the army they serve in military units which are among the most brutal in their treatment of the Palestinians.  Which brings us to Haredi political activism.  Many of them are the extreme among the settlers.  Their yeshivot and settlements produce the most virulent and homicidal of the Jewish terrorists in places like Yitzhar, Tapuach, and Itamar (among others).

So when Halevy calls the Haredim an existential threat the term is shorthand for a whole set of phenomena that have developed inside Israel over the past few decades and moved Israel from a place which suffered from a divide between secular and religious; into a society in which, while the secular still existed, they had been co-opted and subsumed into a state that moved more and more in the direction of racism, intolerance, and authoritarianism.  These noxious elements, while always present even among secular Israelis, became far more pronounced as Haredi culture did.

Though Halevy doesn’t mention this explicitly, I’m sure he’d liken the increasing militancy of the Haredim and their settler members with that of militant Islam.  Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda have their counterparts in Israel’s most violent settler rabbis and Kahanist MKs like Baruch Marzel, Michael Ben Ari, and a number of others.  While it is true that Jewish terror has not achieved the level of violence of the terror acts of Al Qaeda, that is because Jewish religious extremism has had to struggle against the secular, democratic values of Israel to find traction.  That’s why the process of radicalization has been gradual within the nation.  Within Muslim states like Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, there were few countervailing influences to hold back this fundamentalist tide.

Going farther afield, the Ynet report noted Ehud Barak, while visiting London (yes, the British Parliament has removed any threat of arrest warrants against Israeli leaders possibly culpable for war crimes, thus enabling the Israeli defense minister to re-enter the global political marketplace), made some extraordinarily overblown, incendiary remarks about Iran.  Among them was his likening the Islamist regime to North Korea and his claim that an Iranian bomb would undo military arms treaties (which is ironic considering Israel has refused to join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty).  He also posited an Iran whose hegemony ruled the region through military threat:

Which would force the local actors to bend under the influence of Iran.  It would spread terror–they already finance terror–throughout the region.  This would bring them a form of immunity of the sort from which North Korea benefits.  In fact, they’re not producing Barbie dolls, but rather nuclear weapons and heavy missiles capable not just of hitting Israel but central Europe.

What Barak neglects to mention that Israel isn’t producing many Barbie dolls either and that it is rolling out far more nuclear weapons and heavy missiles than Iran.  That little fact seems to have slipped his mind though I hope it hasn’t slipped the minds of his listeners.

The above quotation is a perfect example of the near pathological language of jihad, which Israeli commentators have attributed to Barak and Bibi lately (in numberous posts I’ve published here referring to them).  I’ve truly come to believe that this is no longer mere political rhetoric and jawboning to get Iran to stand down from its nuclear program, or to get the U.S. to supply its most advanced weapons system.  This sort of language goes beyond the rational.  It’s the rhetoric of a Caesar dreaming of his next conquest.  Though this Caesar hasn’t nearly as decisive and effective a fighting machine as a Roman legion at his disposal (though of course the IDF can wreak far more havoc on the world than any Roman army).

Though U.S. officials have been studiously nonchalant in commenting on any chance of an Israeli attack on Iran, this report by CNN’s Pentagon correspondent shows that the U.S. military is taking this possibility quite seriously:

The United States has become increasingly concerned Israel could be preparing to strike Iran’s nuclear program, a senior U.S. military official told CNN on Friday.

The U.S. military and intelligence community in recent weeks have stepped up “watchfulness” of both Iran and Israel, according to the senior U.S. military official and a second military official familiar with the U.S. actions. Asked if the Pentagon was concerned about an attack, the senior military official replied “absolutely.” Both officials declined to be identified because of the extreme sensitivity of the matter.

Both the U.S. Central Command, which watches developments in Iran, and the U.S. European Command, which watches developments in Israel, are “increasingly vigilant” in watching potential military movement in both countries. U.S. satellites are a crucial method of gathering intelligence in both arenas, though the official did not specify that was the method being used.

…The military official told CNN that the United States is watching any Israeli military movements closely as well as those inside Iran. In the past, the U.S. officials felt they had assurances from Israel that it would give warning to the United States of any attack.

“Now that doesn’t seem so ironclad,” the official said.

The article also adds that the U.S. military envisions an Israeli attack including not just F-16s, but Jericho III ballistic missiles, presumably equipped with conventional, rather than nuclear warheads.  If the missiles, which presumably could include cruises and other land and sea-based weaponry, were accurate enough, it would take some of the burden off the IAF’s manned airpower.  Finally, an attack would offer Shock and Awe Israel-style.

Let’s return to an Israeli voice of reason and sanity, Halevy’s who said:

…No one should believe that there is an [Iranian] existential threat because this is simply not true.

The tragedy for Israel is that Dagan and Halevy, retired from active duty, cannot personally stop such an attack.  They’ve left the field to the megalomaniacs like Barak and Bibi, and there’s no telling whether they can be restrained.

Barak Says, Unconvincingly, Israel Hasn’t Yet Decided to Attack Iran

Monday, October 31st, 2011
barak and bibi

Barak: 'It'll be a beautiful war, Bibi, and Persia will be ours." (Emil Salman)

In a statement that raised more questions (and confusion) than it answered, Ehud Barak, Israel’s defense minister, said news reports that Israel had decided to attack Iran were not true.  In almost the same breath, he denied criticism by media commentators that a momentous decision concerning mounting such an attack had not been sufficiently vetted by the Israeli public saying, in effect, that such an attack had been properly debated (which only leads one to believe he’s actually defending mounting such an assault).  In doing so, he only revived concerns that Israel was indeed preparing for the very attack he denied:

Regarding the question as to why there was no public debate on a matter so fateful to Israel, Barak said, “the Iranian nuclear program has been publicly debated for years in Israel. There are countless interviews and public debates. We do not conceal our thoughts. However, there are operational matters that we do not discuss publicly, as that would make them impossible to carry out.”

This isn’t even barely conceded code for the fact that he, and Israel are indeed preparing for a strike against Iran.

As if he didn’t need to add to the confusion, he made the following two completely contradictory statements:

Barak reiterated that Iran poses a threat to stability in the Middle East and the world.

Followed by this:

Barak said that the Israeli public should not be concerned about the Iranian threat.

“I refuse to be intimidated, as if Iran could destroy Israel, ” Barak said. “Israel is the most powerful country, from Tripoli to Tehran. There is no reason to be afraid of anything.”

On second thought, I just realized that the second comment above might even be further confirmation of Israel’s intent to bomb Iran.  The only thing that holds back many Israelis from endorsing such a blow is fear of Iranian retaliation.  If Barak is in effect telling Israelis that even with an assault by Israel, that Iran could not mount a powerful counter-blow, then he’d be arguing once again for the very thing he denies advocating.

My conclusion is that he’s a bald-faced, and not very convincing liar.

Haaretz Calls on Peres to Torpedo Iran Attack

Sunday, October 30th, 2011

This may be the equivalent of a Hail Mary pass in the final moments of a deadlocked football game, but Haaretz’s columnist Amir Oren, always an interesting observer of the Israeli political scene, writes today (and in Hebrew) that the only political figure who may be able to stop an Israeli attack on Iran is Shimon Peres.  I don’t know if he’s right.  Though Peres is not a conventional Israeli president who fades into the woodwork, he is still president, a largely honorific and ceremonial post.  It’s debatable whether Peres has the power to do what Oren is asking.  Though it’s not beyond the realm of possibility that he does.

peres,ben gurion,dayan

Shimon Peres and David Ben Gurion (Moshe Dayan in background)

Oren’s column marks the 55th anniversary of the opening of the 1956 Sinai War.  This was a military enterprise in which Shimon Peres, along with Moshe Dayan and David Ben Gurion (Peres’ political patron) played decisive roles.  From Israel’s point of view there were numerous successes and failures.  But among the latter was this:

Israel stained itself morally by hatching a conspiracy with two fading European powers against North African national liberation movements…

This reminds us, that while Iran is certainly no representative of the Arab spring, an Israeli attack upon it will certainly arouse the combined ire of the entire Arab world and place Israel even more firmly among those resisting the forces of history which have swept the region and toppled authoritarian regimes.

The Haaretz columnist also points out that Israel went to war with Britain and France as partners, but without the foreknowledge or support of the U.S.  This was a fateful mistake as Pres. Eisenhower became enraged at the military adventure and demanded that conditions be returned to status quo ante, which is more or less what happened.  Today, Israel can no longer play this sort of game.  It has no military partners as it did in 1956 and the U.S. is its only remaining ally.  Without U.S. support or at least connivance, Israel will be hard-pressed to act.

The benefit to Bibi in this case is that Obama is no Ike. He has neither the stature nor the military command experience to face down Bibi if the latter decides to go for broke.  So the question is whether Leon Panetta gave Israel a green, yellow or red light (as Bush gave Olmert) regarding Iran when he discussed an attack on his last visit.  It may perhaps be in realization of this fact that Oren turns to the grey eminence, Peres, to stop the future war (Haaretz’s English translation is defective in the last paragraph, so I’ve partially used it and fixed the errors below):

An Israeli operation against Iran’s nuclear program is liable to recycle the cons of Operation Kadesh, without its benefits. Such a fear is harbored by those who oppose this possible military adventure; the list of negative effects outweighs whatever diplomatic or military advantages might be accrued by such an action, the critics believe. After all, Barak is no Moshe Dayan, and Bibi is no Ben-Gurion.

Only Peres, who is no mere symbolic President (as Yitzhak Ben Zvi was during the 1956 War), remains in power, this time exerting an influence against the military undertaking [as opposed to 1956, when he orchestrated it].  In today’s Theater of Fateful Decisions [as opposed to 1956], there is no playwright [Ben Gurion], director [Dayan], producer [Peres] or  actor [IDF].  He [Peres] is just like the esteemed critic, from whose mouth the creative team [Bibi and Barak] awaits word before presenting the play to the public.

His devastating criticism of the dress rehearsal might postpone the premiere or cancel the performance altogether.  Critic, don’t keep mum. Soon will come time for him to raise his voice.

Amir Oren is a reporter who enjoys speaking in elaborate allegorical terms especially involving secret intelligence or military operations and so the fact that he uses the theatrical metaphor here is natural.  But an Israeli friend notes that the “dress rehearsal” above could very likely refer to actual military maneuvers meant to simulate and prepare for an Iran attack.  Israel is known to have done such a preparatory operation a few years ago around the time that Meir Dagan says he talked the ministers out of initiating such an attack.  So the likelihood of such a military rehearsal now is very real.  The timing would still allow Israel to send its F-16s to bomb Iran before the heavy rains and cloud cover of the Persian Gulf winter sets in, making such an operation less feasible.

Nahum Barnea on Israeli Strike on Iran

Friday, October 28th, 2011

Yesterday, I wrote a blog post featuring Nahum Barnea’s front page Yediot Achronot story warning of an Israeli attack on Iran.  In that post, I didn’t delve into the actual contents of the article, which I’ll do now quoting several passages I’ve translated.  First, the title of the Barnea article means literally “atomic pressure,” but in colloquial usage it means “enormous stress,” which also is apt to describe the situation today relating to a possible Israeli attack.

While I pointed out yesterday that a number of Israeli commentators have warned about ominous developments pointing to an attack, Barnea, being the consummate media-political insider, adds crucial new detail.  He notes that the Israeli public has been distracted by other stories like the upcoming J14 social justice rally, the aftermath of Gilad Shalit’s release and Ilan Grapel’s release from Egyptian custody yesterday.  Because of this and due to the enormous complication of the issue, Israelis have devoted little consideration to an attack on Iran.  It’s not an issue that’s been properly debated in the body politic.

He also reflects on a dual, conflicted approach within the Israeli policymaking apparatus toward the prospect of war.  Many point to previous attacks on Iraq’s and Syria’s nuclear reactors which accomplished their mission without casualties and without negative fallout in the international sphere.  They say attacking Iran is likely to follow the same scenario.  Those like Meir Dagan, who argue that Iran is a different matter entirely, find it hard to gain traction because Israel has never endured the type of counter-attack of which the former Mossad chief warns.  Thus, it’s hard to get a nation to focus on an outcome it’s never experienced.  Israelis always seem to be fighting the last war rather than anticipating what may be new in the next one.  This militates against creating awareness of the dangers of an Iran assault.

Barnea notes that while the current Israeli military-intelligence leadership opposes war as the previous one (which included Dagan) did, the latter was an experienced, tested group which carried its opinions into the boardroom with confidence and energy.  The new group is liable to be much more tentative, as it is untested.  That would leave room for the veterans of such internal battles, Bibi and Barak, to dominate the proceedings and steer it toward their desired outcome.

The Yediot columnist explains some of the subtleties of how the political and military echelons operate in Israel:

 In Israel, the division of labor on security matters is [ostensibly] clear: the political echelon decides, the operational level implements…But the process is more complex that what we are taught in civics lessons: the professional level is an equal partner in the discussions. It expresses its view not only on subjects that are within its realm of responsibility, but in every relevant subject that comes up. The lines of separation are blurred.

In actual practice, the prime minister cannot make a decision that entails risks if the defense minister, the chief of staff, the Mossad director and the GSS director, all of them or most of them, are opposed. Even if he enjoys the support of the majority of the security cabinet members, he would not dare. He will take into account that if the action fails, he is liable to arrive at the commission of inquiry naked and exposed, without documents that prove that he had the support of the professional level.

There is therefore great importance to the question of how the professional level expresses its view. Does it pound on the table, as Meir Dagan would do, or does it delicately and calmly express reservation?  Is it an active player in the  decision-making process or is it a minor player doing the bidding of its superiors?

Barnea appraises the role of Bibi and Barak as political partners who reinforce each other’s judgments, for good or ill, through their symbiotic relationship:

Binyamin Netanyahu and Ehud Barak are the two Siamese twins of the Iranian issue. A rare phenomenon is taking place here in terms of Israeli politics: a prime minister and defense minister who act as one body, with one goal, with mutual backing and repeated heaping of praise on each other…They’re characterized as urging action. Netanyahu portrayed the equation at the beginning of his term as: Ahmadinejad is Hitler; if he is not stopped in time, there will be a Holocaust. There are some who describe Netanyahu’s fervor on this subject as an obsession: all his life he’s dreamed of being Churchill. Iran gives him with the chance. The popularity that he gained as a result of the Shalit deal hasn’t calmed him: just the opposite, it gave him a sense of power.

Barak does not use the same superlatives, but is urging military action: he is certain that just as Israel prevented nuclear projects in the past, it must prevent this one as well. This is both his strategy and legacy…There are those who suspect Barak of having personal motives: he has no party; he has no voters. A strike on Iran would be the big bang that would make it possible for Netanyahu to bring him into the top ten of the Likud in the next elections. This way he could continue to be defense minister.

It’s a helluva reason to start a war, but I suppose wars have been started in the past for more selfish reasons, though it’s hard to think of many.  And Barak is nothing if not self-important and self-aggrandizing.  Most politicians, when they think of legacies think of treaties signed, edifices erected, laws passed.  In the ancient past this may’ve been more common, but today in few countries do leaders think of a good war as their personal political legacy.  It’s an indication of the pathology and impoverishment of latter-day Israel that Bibi and Barak would think in such terms.

How many contemporary leaders can you think of who single out Winston Churchill for admiration?  And what does this say about Bibi that he worships Churchill?  Is this truly, in anyone’s mind but Bibi and his far right followers, an era of existential doom and gloom like what the British leader faced on the verge of WWII?  Further, if Bibi’s political instincts and historical outlook end up dragging Israel into war, don’t forget that it isn’t just Israel and Iran.  It’s the entire region plus all the various allies and proxies involved (including the U.S. as Israel’s protector) who will go along for the ride.  Is the world prepared to join Bibi in his crusade to liberate the Middle East from Iranian tyranny?

In a key related development, one of Ehud Barak’s most trusted advisors, a man with deep background in military intelligence, Amos Gilad, was asked to address the major points of Barnea’s article.  He said that Israel faced many security threats that must be prioritized in importance.  But any such evaluation would place the Iranian threat at the top of the list.  If you know the minds of Israel security experts and generals, they’re not given to merely containing threats as we in the U.S. are.   If you are Israel’s “top threat” it’s going to take you out.  No if’s and’s or but’s.

This is from Ynetnews’ report:

According to Gilad, Netanyahu “was the first who heard of Iran’s forecasted move on the nuclear missile path and he sees it as a massive threat. The defense minister understands the depth of the threat as well.”

This entirely inaccurate portrait of the Iranian view of Israel also carries tremendous weight in making a decision to mount a military strike:

Israel, he explained, has no place under the sun in the Iranian perspective. “[Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah] Khamenei says that Israel has no place. Iran believes that it needs to be an empire equal in strength to the United States. That is the motivation driving the development of Iran’s missile capabilities.”

The false notion that Iran wants to be equal in power to the U.S. is, of course, meant to alarm Barack Obama and make him more sympathetic to an Israel attack.

Haaretz Columnist: Bibi, Barak No Mandate for Iran Attack

Monday, October 17th, 2011

Haaretz columnist Sefi Rachlevsky raises the quaint notion (in a country which honors democratic principle in the breach, if at all) that plans, of which many reputable Israeli military and security correspondents have begun writing in the past weeks, for an Israeli attack on Iran do not have a mandate, not just in Israel, but in America as well.  Rachlevsky insists that the generals and intelligence chiefs man battle stations and do their duty to stop this disaster in the making:

Each and every opponent of an attack within the defense establishment must therefore make it clear to the duo [Barak and Bibi] that they can’t behave like this. It is not possible to endanger an entire nation for years via an underhanded, opportunistic maneuver – not in the dead of night; not by hastily convincing a few elderly rabbis; not in defiance of the entire defense establishment; not in defiance of all the past and present heads of the Israel Defense Forces, the Mossad, the Shin Bet security service, Military Intelligence and the Atomic Energy Commission; not in defiance of the United States; not when Ahmadinejad and his gang of messianists are growing weaker; not when there are signs of American measures in the wake of Iran’s attempt to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to Washington and the International Atomic Energy Agency’s impending severe report; not when the clouds are about to burst [reference to oncoming winter, during which weather conditions prevent an Israeli attack]. Just plain no.

There are things that even a duo, the one-half of which is brave and talented [a back-handed compliment to Barak], can’t do on its own. They have no mandate. Not now. Not like this.

As with many liberal Israelis, I’m afraid he puts too much stock in Israeli democracy and the decency of the Israeli electorate.  Indeed, polls show that a majority of Israelis (and Americans as well) believe an attack on Iran is inevitable.  If you asked them whether they supported an attack right now, the numbers might decline.  But until there are Israelis in body bags (sorry to put this so baldly) Israel will be just fine with an attack on Iran.  They’ll think of how clean and efficient the IDF attack on the so-called Syrian reactor was and expect the same from an Iran attack.  Not realizing of course that hitting Syria is far different from hitting Iran.  Starting wars is easy for Israel.  It’s peace that’s hard.

Seymour Hersh has written extensively about fierce opposition within the U.S. military to a U.S. attack on Iran.  This apparently went a long way toward persuading George Bush that he should not allow him number 1 male rogue, Dick Cheney, lead him into war.  I’m not sure whether the Israeli military has the will, spine, or strength to stare down a Bibi bent on raising David’s sword against the Iranian Goliath (never mind that this David has up to 400 nuclear warheads at his disposal!).

Though I’d prefer not to believe this, I believe that George Bush exerted a much firmer restraining hand on Ehud Olmert than Barack Obama can on Bibi Netanyahu.  First, Olmert was more pragmatic than Bibi and willing to be restrained.  Second, Bush had a far more favorable relationship with Israel than Obama (whether portrayed rightly or wrong).  Third, Obama seems to lack any spine or convictions on any matter related to Israel or indeed the entire Middle East.  Put frankly, if Bibi launched the F-16s I don’t think Obama could or would stop him.  I never thought I’d say this and didn’t believe it for the longest time.  I hope, of course, that I am wrong.  But fear I am not.

We now have U.S. senators like Dianne Feinstein stating publicly (on FoxNews no less) that we’re on a “collision course” with Iran and that it will be “only a matter of time,” before we crack heads.  From there it’s not such a leap to imagining the Obama administration might actually try to spin an Iran attack as it did the Bin Laden and Al-Awlaki assassinations–as bold strikes against world terror.  After all, it’s not hard, in the minds of many Americans to turn the Iranian nuclear program into a dastardly attempt to turn the Middle East into a radioactive wasteland ruled over by crazy, messianic Iranian mullahs.

Israel and the March to War

Friday, October 14th, 2011
osirak attack

Decal affixed to F-16 that attacked Osirak reactor (nuclear reactor image on left)

Two new pieces from the Israeli media, whose more perceptive journalists are monitoring what I’m beginning to think is a march to war on the part of Bibi Netanyahu and Ehud Barak. Amir Oren writes in Haaretz (one explanation is in order to give context to one phrase below–the medical residents are on strike in Israel for higher wages):

The modus operandi of Netanyahu and Barak shows a willingness to absorb a small loss if they think it will help them attain a great success. The behavior of prime ministers and defense ministers in previous affairs provides telling indications that add up to a clear direction: toward some sort of military adventure.

…Barak and Netanyahu regretted Gabi Ashkenazi’s fourth year as Israel Defense Forces chief of staff, Yuval Diskin’s sixth year as head of the Shin Bet security service, and Meir Dagan’s eighth year as head of the Mossad…Ashkenazi and Dagan made it hard for Netanyahu and Barak to take action against Iran.

…As for the green light from Washington, Netanyahu and Barak’s gamble is especially big. Maybe they think that Barack Obama will show restraint… If the two Israeli ministers are wrong, this is a particularly dangerous illusion. After the statement by U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta on board his flight to Tel Aviv and again at IDF headquarters – that “coordination” is required against Iran – should Israel take action, it would give an impression that there is such coordination.

…To put it in the terms of which Netanyahu is so fond, he behaved like Chamberlain this week, in trying to depict capitulation as an accomplishment. The day is not far off, Netanyahu believes, when Churchill will emerge from him. Until that happens, he would do well to give in once more, this time to the medical residents. They are needed in the hospitals, in preparation for the “escalation” for which the Shalit deal was prelude.

This follows on themes developed by Alex Fishman in a Yediot story I translated here a few days ago, in which he reported that Bibi was prepared to make concessions on a lesser matter in order to lay the groundwork for a much bigger objective: Iran.

Next up, Ben Caspit, who I’ve also reported on here previously regarding his fears of an Iran attack. Today’s column, while presented as a quasi fairy tale (or is it horror story?), nevertheless warns us of very real dangers of war fast approaching:

There was a strange phenomenon happening over the past few weeks. More and more people, mostly former senior officials and even a few currently serving in security and intelligence services, who are making their way carefully and stealthfully to the light. That is to us, the media.

They meet with us in far-flung places. They whisper. They are afraid. They believe the great anticipated event in the East is approaching. They read and heed the words of Meir Dagan. They hear more words of others which don’t reach the ears of the public (because of the censor repeating the mistakes of 1973 [several major stories predicting the Yom Kippur War were censored in the days leading up to it]).

They cry out for help. They tell of one Benny Gantz, Israel’s chief of staff, alone in the Kirya [Israel's Pentagon], who also needs help.  During the previous term, there were those three giants Ashkenazi, Diskin and Dagan who stopped an earier disaster with their own bodies (in their words).  But the previous term is over.  Now we await the next term.  Ashkenazi, Diskin and Dagan are no more.  Their successors (Gantz, Cohen and Pardo) think as they did.  But they haven’t developed their own authority…They need help.  They’re not persuaded that the pair of Netanyahu-Barak, or more precisely Barak-Netanyahu can realize its dangerous fantasies.  Neither are they persuaded they can’t.  They’re aware how big the bet is, how great the danger.  And some of them believe this isn’t just their imaginations, that Bibi doesn’t fully understand, and that Barak is satisfied playing on his fiddle on high as the city burns below.

I don’t have much to say to these people.

The American defense secretary, Leon Panetta, said it out loud [calling for Israeli restraint], and the people heard during his last visit two weeks ago.  That’s why he came.  Was the message heard in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv?  Not everyone is so sure.  According to the fatalist version, signing the Shalit deal was meant to “clear the table,” because afterward there would be nothing and no one with whom to sign because everything will be burning.  Let’s hope we’re talking about a child’s tale.

There are only two possibilities here: either the increasing mass of serious journalists writing in such a breathless gasps about looming war are right.  Or Bibi and Barak are attempting to psyche out the Iranians so that they’ll do the west’s bidding and compromise about their nuclear program.  Even if number 2 were true, any fool can see it’s not working and the Iranians are not folding.  That leaves us only with number 1.

In circumstances like this you always examine the motives and political leanings of your source.  And I’ve considered that in the case of Alex Fishman, Ben Caspit and Amir Oren.  If they were all hawks clamoring for war; or alternatively if they were all left-wing alarmists warning their readers because they were anti-war, of course I would discount them.  As it is the each represent different political allegiances with Oren on the (center) left, Fishman in the middle and Caspit on the right.  Caspit certainly is known for being right wing and is a close ally of Meir Dagan.  But even if you discount his views (which I don’t in this case), that still leaves you with two other journalists who don’t appear to have any axe to grind.

Some of you may wonder: how could Israel be preparing for the massive effort it would take to attack Iran and we wouldn’t know about it?  I remind you that Israeli censorship would prevent any specific information from being published that would offer any direct confirmation of such preparations.  And reporters know the system well enough that they pre-censor their material, or shape it so that they allude rather than state explicitly information they know won’t pass the censor.  That is why reports like the ones above give me such concern.  The only thing they don’t offer is a smoking gun…or F-16, fueling up for its rendezvous with destiny at Qom or Natanz.

I just consulted a trusted Israeli source, asking over the history of Israel’s wars, what was the media climate that preceded them.  I asked whether there were these mounting, thinly veiled warnings from the media after which war came; or whether wars came on more suddenly, without such media chatter.  S/He told me that Israel’s wars of choice (Cast Lead, Lebanon 1982, etc.) were much more like the current situation.  All of which makes me very, very scared.

I don’t know if Fishman, Oren, Caspit, Dagan and others are right about the oncoming war.  But their views are too sobering NOT to take seriously.  I would rather be wrong and have spoken out, than be right and not have said anything for fear of being wrong.

Yediot: Bibi Did Shalit Deal Because He Has Something Bigger Prepared for Iran

Tuesday, October 11th, 2011

A number of very peculiar things have happened or been published today that relate directly or indirectly to the Shalit deal.  First among them is an official IDF statement that the Israeli and Egyptian militaries have completed their investigation of the Israeli assault on Egyptian forces that followed the Eilat terror attack.  The Israeli media, including yesterday’s Haaretz (Hebrew), says the IDF killed five Egyptian officers, so why does Ethan Bronner and his entire NY Times Israel bureau continue to say, and repeatedly, only three were killed?  The report is under seal (of course) because presumably there are many things in it that would be embarrassing to the IDF and create greater tension between Israel and Egypt.  But the important passage is this:

Based on the findings of the investigation, Barak decided to express an apology to Egypt for the deaths of Egyptian policemen as the result of IDF fire.

Haaretz reports the apology in its Hebrew edition.  Interestingly, neither the official IDF statement or Haaretz’s report makes clear that Israel invaded Egyptian territory in hot pursuit of the terrorists.  This of course would’ve been dealt with in the secret report, which is why it’s secret.  H/t to reader Ruth.

News reports also indicate Israel will free some 80 Egyptians held in Israeli prisons and that Egypt will release Ilan Grapel, the Israeli-American arrested during the Tahrir Square protests several months ago.  It would seem (and Amos Harel confirms this in the Hebrew report linked above) that the Israeli apology for the killings in Eilat is part of this package deal.

israeli attack on iranPerhaps the most ominous story coming out of today’s news, is this report (was originally only in Hebrew, now published in English) by a well-placed, well-regarded Israeli journalist, Alex Fishman, who says the reason that Bibi did the Shalit deal now, is that he has something really big up his sleeve.  Read on:

All Because of Iran

Bibi Netanyahu is dying to clear the table ["clean house"] and redecorate in preparation for something different, something bigger, something more important.

…If you’re looking for the things that worry Netanyahu and Barak they’re always connected to Iran.  This appears to be the background for the prime minister’s decision to back down from his previous position and to pressure the senior ministerial committee not to interfere and to close the Shalit deal.

Whatever’s happening regarding the Iran chapter [of this story] isn’t clear.  But it’s clear that this is the next hot subject and it’s important that Israel comes to it with the image of a moderate, pragmatic state prepared to compromise.  The Europeans will applaud us.  This is no less important: this will strengthen the international consensus and the image of the prime minister in the face of the next challenge.

The article details all the compromises and back pedaling Bibi agreed to in sealing this deal, all the retreats he made from previous red lines he’d drawn.  Fishman says there has to be a reason for Bibi capitulating to so many Hamas demands he’d been loathe to do before.  The answer: something’s cooking with Iran:

From Bibi’s point of view this deal is a default setting.  In his view, not completing it would’ve caused far more damage in light of the preparations for the battle with the great enemy [Iran] to come.

Bibi knew that if he attacked Iran, Hamas might never free Shalit.  In light of this, Bibi’s explanation that the deal was a “now or never” thing; that if it wasn’t done now the uncertainties and dangers of the Arab Spring might prevent a deal from ever being sealed–all make sense in a perverse way.  What he’s saying, if I’m right, is that the aftermath of an Israeli attack on Iran will leave the region so unstable that we might never see Shalit again.  And Bibi, and what little moral conscience he has, was troubled by this considering that he’d made numerous promises to free the Israeli soldier during his term in office.

If you read today’s news of our exposure of an alleged Iranian terror plot and the clear exaggeration the Justice Department is offering to explain the conspirators, their goals, and the means they attempted to use to achieve them, I think it reads like the U.S. and Israel preparing the world for an attack on Iran.  Before they do, they need to ratchet up pressure, intensify the demonization campaign.  They need to make Iran look the part of the villain before they strike.  Read Muhammad Sahimi’s further reporting on the alleged plot here.

Looking at the map above, isn’t it convenient that we uncovered this alleged plot against Saudi Arabia which has a possible Iran attack route outlined above.  The article specially notes that Saudi Arabia may wish to take steps of its own against Iran.  Gee, what might they be?  I wonder.

Finally, Yoram Cohen, Israel’s Shin Bet chief, has reassured Israel (Hebrew) that none of the Palestinian prisoners with “blood on their hands” will be released, by which he specifically refers to Ahmed Sadaat and Marwan Barghouti among others.  Frankly, I find it hard to believe that Hamas would wait six years to do a deal and not manage to free the most important of all the prisoners, Barghouti.  I believe, despite what Cohen says, that there must be a provision involving freeing Barghouti, even if it’s not considered formally part of the overall deal.

Performance Optimization WordPress Plugins by W3 EDGE