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 ‘yoram cohen’

If You Want to Be Shin Bet Chief, Get on Sara’s Good Side

Thursday, February 2nd, 2012
sara netanyahu

Sara Netanyahu (Flash 90)

Of all the qualities that are necessary for a good Israeli intelligence chief, there’s one essential one you’d never think of in a million years: don’t cross Sara Netanyahu.  You won’t find that one listed on any job description or set of requirements for the position, but in some sense it may be more important than all the other qualifications a successful candidate must have.

For a number of months, I reported that the next Shin Bet director to replace Yuval Diskin would be Yitzhak Ilan.  Yet somehow he lost out to Yoram Cohen.  I scratched my head and asked, what happened.  Israeli media was full of rumors that the top candidate lost out in the end to a dark horse through some sort of taint or blemish that sunk his candidacy.  The truth is that, in fact, until two hours before the announcement, Ilan was still the favored choice.

Ben Caspit hinted (Hebrew) that the settler movement hated Ilan (his previous intelligence jobs had involved investigating their acts of violence and extremism).  Now, it appears likely that Sara and Eshel pointed out to Bibi that he had two good candidates, but that one angered one of his core constituencies (the settlers).  So why not appoint the other and so retain their support?  From this we can also expect that Cohen will go lightly on settler acts of terror and violence.  Indeed, the fact that no one has been charged, prosecuted or imprisoned for a host of price tag attacks going back months may be ascribed to Cohen knowing on which side his bread is buttered.

In a recent conversation, a knowledgeable Israeli insider told me that Ilan ran afoul of Mrs. Netanyahu, though I never found out why.  The benefit of the Eshel sexual harassment scandal is that it’s blowing the lid off other stories.

Today’s Haaretz provides examples of the ways in which Eshel abused Rivka Kidron on the job.  One of them was to threaten her with surveillance by the Shin Bet:

One employee of the bureau [prime minister's office] who testified in the Civil Service Commission probe said that Eshel told R. he was following her every move on orders from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s wife, Sara. According to this worker’s testimony, Eshel also told R. that she only had her job because of him, and that he was the one who had convinced Sara Netanyahu to okay her employment in the bureau.

Another person who testified to the commission said Eshel had let it drop to R. that he had a role in the appointment of Shin Bet security service head Yoram Cohen, and could therefore get help from the Shin Bet to monitor her activities.

We already know of the extraordinarily close relationship between Sara and Eshel.  In fact, he was her eyes and ears in the PMO.  He did her bidding.  It now becomes obvious that one of the ways in which he did this was to promote the fortunes of the successful finalist, Cohen (who is, like Eshel, an Orthodox Jew).  What does it say about a nation’s intelligence services that to be a successful candidate you have to cultivate the favor of the prime minister’s wife as much as or more than touting your actual professional qualifications?

Returning to the Eshel-Kidron case, it’s known that Sara disapproved of the former.  This gave Eshel yet another point of leverage against the victim.  He could go to her and say that Sara hates you, I’m the only one who stands between you and a pink slip.  This is the mark of a canny sexual predator seeking pressure points to exploit for his own advantage.  It reminds me of a previously exposed high level convicted rapist, Moshe Katsav.  The only difference was that Katsav had numerous victims.  Eshel appears not to have succeeded in his blandishments toward Kidron.

Netanyahu Gags Shabak Director, Subverts Knesset Oversight Regarding Eilat Attack

Sunday, September 4th, 2011
yoram cohen shabak chief

Yoram Cohen, Shabak chief, usually gags others; this time he is gagged

For those of you who harbor quaint notions about Israeli democracy, tonight’s post should further disabuse you of your illusions.  In most western democracies, the legislative branch of government exercises some oversight of military and intelligence functions.  In the U.S., this includes House and Senate committees charged with reviewing, approving and funding the U.S. military and various intelligence agencies, both overseas and domestic.  Though there is always a tenseness in this relationship and the executive branch at times resists such oversight, the legislative bodies have ultimate authority and can use their subpoena power if their rights to oversee their charges are rejected.

Not so in Israel, where civilian bodies, including both the Knesset and even the prime minister, often exercise nominal control of these government functions.  I’ve reported in the recent past, that Defense Minister Ehud Barak refused to allow chief of staff Benny Gantz to testify to a Knesset committee about Israel’s covert programs to contain Iran.  Now, none other than the prime minister himself has directed the Shabak chief to refuse to appear before the same committee to address questions about the Eilat terror attack.  Yoram Cohen, Shabak director, sent an underling in his place who also refused to discuss the terror attack when asked point-blank by the committee, which is chaired by former chief of staff Shaul Mofaz.

Haaretz has only reported the latter fact, that a Shabak officer refused to answer questions about Eilat.  In truth, my own well-placed source confirms that Netanyahu refused to allow Cohen to even appear before Mofaz’ committee.  Perhaps one should even question the Israeli media itself as to why it hasn’t reported that Netanyahu actually refused to allow Israel’s most senior intelligence officer to testify before the Knesset.  Is my source the only one who knows this happened?  Or do other reporters know the truth and can’t or won’t report it?  Frankly, I don’t know the answer.  I only know that Haaretz and other outlets reporting the story are only reporting half of it, which in turn does a disservice to the Israeli public and Israeli democracy (or what’s left of it).

Ynet indirectly affirms the report of my source by quoting Avi Dichter, himself a former Shabak chief and now Knesset MK, as saying that when he was its director he appeared before the Knesset committee Mofaz chairs.  Maariv quotes Dichter using extremely harsh language, labelling the decision a “gag order” placed upon the Shabak director and chief of IDF intelligence.

Clearly, this is an attempt, so far quite successful, by the prime minister to deny a legitimate legislative body oversight of the IDF and intelligence bodies and to review failures when they occur.  If such a thing happened in America, there would be immediate subpoenas filed to compel Cohen to testify and the matter would end up in court.  Eventually, even if the president dug his heels in hard (which rarely happens, these things are usually ironed out), the court would likely find the executive would have to bend to Congress’ will–at least in terms of appearing and answering questions, if not changing policy.

What is truly poisonous about this is that it leaves the executive to police itself and learn from its own mistakes without the benefit of the people’s elected representatives being able to intercede and learn what happened in events like Eilat and how to avoid them in future.  A society whose legislators are bound and gagged when it comes to exercising this function is a society in which the blind lead the blind.  And it’s no surprise that such a nation will repeat its mistakes over and over because no one can come forward from the legislature and say: No, that didn’t work, you’re not going to try that again.  You’re going to try something else.

I’ve posted here that the Israeli approach to the Eilat attack was a fashlah of massive proportions.  When things like this happen you need legislative oversight to uncover what went wrong and prevent it from happening again.  Such activity by the Knesset would reassure the people that someone, somewhere is concerned about the welfare of the nation.  When the prime minister prevents this, it will only erode confidence that the military and intelligence circles can learn from their mistakes.

Can you imagine the aftermath of 9/11 and Pres. Bush refusing to coöperate with the 9/11 Commission?  This is something like what Bibi has done in this case.  He’s thumbed his nose at Mofaz and told him: I don’t owe you nuthin’.  Losing sight, of course, of the fact that in a true democracy the leader does in fact owe a great deal to the legislature.  In a real democracy, the legislature could turn around and reject the next appropriation bill for the agency refusing to coöperate.  The only problem is that in Israel this type of independent behavior is unheard of.  No Knesset member would dream of rejecting an IDF or intelligence appropriation.  In fact, these budgets are so hush-hush that there are hardly any members who know what’s in them.  They ratify them in a pro forma manner with hardly any discussion or debate.

Of course, there are calls for cutting the defense budget heard when belts need to be tightened.  But invariably, all it takes is one terror attack for those voices to be quashed, but good.

Performance Optimization WordPress Plugins by W3 EDGE