9 thoughts on “Former Shin Bet Chief, Diskin Loses Confidence in Netanyahu, Barak Leadership – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.

  1. If public opinion would listen to Gantz, Diskin and Dagan, the common idea that the Israeli leadership is rational, while the Iranian leadership consists of Mad Mullahs would be reversed…

  2. This is a very important post. The tide is turning. War with Iran is no longer imminent. In fact, it is most likely not in the cards. These leaks are helping Israel save face when they ultimately make the determination that an attack is futile.

    1. I have no idea how vast is your knowledge base regarding Yuval Diskin.
      The guy served as Head of Shabak for 6 years, 3 of those under Netanyahu. Before he resigned he expressed his interest to serve as the head of the Mossad under Netanyahu & Barak. (http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART2/125/045.html)

      So you mean to tell me that before finishing his term in the Shabak at 2011 to his speech given few days ago he learned some new facts about the way Netanyahu & Barak operate ?
      To me it seems that his speech had nothing to do with Iran but everything to do with the predictions that Israel will face election later this year.

      1. He sounds more like the American generals who, with great reluctance, tried to warn against invading Iraq. Thde genrals were right: the Bush administration lied, almost whimsically lied. Recall: invade now or Iraq will have a nuke in a year or two. “We don’t want that smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud”, as Rice quipped, to her shame.

        The result has been a catastrophe.

        The same neo-con idiots have been shrieking up a war against Iran. President Obama has clearly said “no”, and the Pentagon leaks were certainly warnings to the Israeli government that the US does not want Israel to pull us into a war with Iran.

        Israeli military/politicians cannot all be delusional cranks. This guy seems to be speaking sense. An Israeli attack on Iran would be crazy.

        1. Most of Diskin’s critique had to do with Barak’s and Bib’s personalities. Very little delt with substance about Iran. He was exposed to their personalities for many years, if he had any integrity he should have stepped forward a long time ago, and not keep silent to see if he will be nominated head of Mossad.
          This was a launch of his political campaign.

          1. That’s revisionism. Of course there was substance on Iran. He said an attack on Iran wouldn’t end the Iranian nuclear threat, rather it would intensify and speed up Iran’s getting a weapon. Is that enough “substance” for you?

            Diskin is completely non-political as every Israeli reporter and politician knows. That’s one of the reasons this is so damaging to Bibi since Diskin harbors no political ambitions.

  3. Oh, but were it to be just Netanyahu and Barak… this stretches far beyond their terms. Let’s be real here: for the last decade+ Iran has been intensely represented as a country that just “had” to be attacked or otherwise softened up for an attack via sanctions. The Israeli government and proponents have a strong influence over Western media. Hence, Iran is portrayed firstly as anti-Semitic, then otherwise as belligerent, irrational, and any other reduction of a new-age Hitler caricature you can think of outside of a Mel Brooks’ play. Namely, Iran is portrayed as 1- irrational and 2- messianic.

    Here, we have the leadership coming out to say 1- Iran is rational and 2- in fact, it is the Israeli leadership who is messianic.

    So, I ask again, who is the one foaming at the mouth, with a megalomaniac/messiah complex, a veritable combover (I checked during the Erin Burnett/CNN interview and it seems my joke actually is real), screaming about racial purity in his motherland while he is armed and funded to the teeth with the power to destroy many?

    And the horror of this all is that they say they appeased Hitler. What are they doing to Bibi?

  4. “messianic motives”, indeed. 19th century Americans referred to it as “Manifest Destiny.”

    Same agenda: a way to rationalize displacing indigenous people from their land by force while looking like the good guy.

    Probably same result, and followed by Jim Crow.

    America’s legacy knows no bounds.

  5. How nice, maybe finally “regime change” where it is really needed, even if Jabotinsky would disapprove?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *