I reported here several days ago that Alex Fishman, Yediot’s military correspondent, was the first journalist to reveal the contents of the secret IDF report on its failings during the Eilat terror attack. Among the jaw-droppers he exposed, was a claim that the terrorists who attacked Israel were not Gazans, but Sinai-based Egyptian Islamists whose attack was supported by Iran. Intriguingly, Fishman offered no further evidence to support the claim. But unlike other generally unsupported Israeli charges that Iran arms Hamas, etc. Fishman is one of Israel’s most credible and serious journalists. So I take his claims seriously.
I’ve now learned that the reason this report doesn’t reveal any further substantiating evidence about Iranian involvement is that the military censor has forbidden it. Again, this doesn’t mean that the claim is true, but it does at least explain why Fishman could not substantiate the charge.
Lest pro-Israel apologists jump on this story and use it as an “Aha” moment to verify the charges that Iran is a terror state, let’s keep in mind the reasons why Iran might initiate a proxy terror attack against Israel. As I reported earlier, Israel is widely believed even by its own security correspondents to have orchestrated widespread acts of assassination, military sabotage and cyberwarfare against Iran over the past few years. If Iran initiated the Eilat attack, it surely did so in revenge for the mayhem the Mossad and its likely MEK proxies have waged inside Iran.
What goes around comes around, and if Israel (and the U.S., which participated in the creation of the Stuxnet computer worm) want to play with the fire of terrorism they too can, and likely will, get burned.
I love it. Fact that censor moved in doesn’t necessarily mean that the assertion is true. Reminds me of line in Stoppard’s Arcadia (roughly) “that the fact that my eyes were closed, during a lecture, doesn’t necessarily mean that I was paying attention.”
FAILURE TO PUBLISH FACTS NEVER PROVES ANYTHING. Ask any fact-checker.
What I am interested in is the first event where a drone aircraft bombs “assets” of the USA or Israel (or anyone else who has used drone aircraft to bomb anyone else) — and cannot be identified — and claims sprout like mushrooms to the effect that Iran (or another) is KNOWN to have been responsible.
But, of course, countries which can get away with claims to “know” facts without showing proofs (because secret evidence would disclose methods and sources) due to excessive deference of their own courts (or of the world) can say (and do) whatever they want. And, thus, black-flag ops (as 9-11 seems to me to have been) can serve as a causus belli justifying an aggressive act of war by describing it as retaliation or prevention.
Do you equate the murder of civilians to an industrial sabotaging computer virus?
Richard Silverstein says
Only if you’re semi-literate. My shorthand comment referred to the fact that the U.S., by collaborating with Israel to create Stuxnet, has added yet another example of anti-Muslim terror to its arsenal, wihch now includes extra-judicial assassination, extraordinary rendition & other horrors. If Stuxnet ever reaps the whirlwind & really causes huge damage like exploding industrial plants, etc. then we can expect the world to detest us and Iran to seek vengeance.
Study up on what Stuxnet is capable of. When you sabotage a huge industrial plant you can cause catastrophic failures sometimes by intent and sometimes unintentionally.
And what makes you think that Stuxnet is the only act of terror or sabotage which we’ve perpetrated against Iran?
I see you edited out your inflammatory remarks from your original response. Good job.
I guess if a fully-literate genius as yourself writes something then it means exactly what he wants it to mean.
Calling operations against Iran “anti-Muslim” is the same as calling disagreement with Israel’s policies “antisemitism”, i.e. ridiculous.
Richard Silverstein says
Actually, I edit myself frequently. I decided you likely weren’t any of the earlier adjectives I used so I deleted them. But semi-literate seemed to fit so I retained it.
I’m not a genius & yr sarcasm isn’t witty or convincing. I could’ve called U.S. terror operations in the Arab world “anti-Arab” but that wouldn’t have included Iran, so I had to use the term “anti-Muslim,” though it doesn’t fit quite as well as “anti-Arab” would.
Tim Haughton says
“Proxy war” is a lovely term, but it’s not one we’re allowed to use consistently:
Iranian regime provides loose change for Hamas/Hezbollah, this is a proxy war. The American regime provides billions in (illegal, imo) military aid to Israel, but this isn’t a proxy war against the Palestinians.
I hope Mr. silverstein Iran use a proxy on you.
Israel needs to do things to help me and my family to stay alive, when we want to go to have fun in Eilat or any place in Israel.
Richard Silverstein says
You have violated my comment rules & the next time you even insinuate a threat to my personal safety or well being, you will be banned.
http://www.scoopim.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=252 wrote about this post.