38 thoughts on “Bibi: Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.

  1. I’m not sure it’s meant to work.
    But to anyone not looking too deeply at the matter, it looks as if Mr Kerry has had a really determined try at getting negotiations going.

    I think that Mr Kerry isn’t just fighting Israeli intransigence, he’s fighting Obama’s indifference as well. To that end, he probably has to have some sort of process going to even get his president’s attention, let alone authority for any serious banging of heads.

    But what I think the Israeli government will do is:

    say “look how we tried!”

    implement the murderous “solution” that was becoming perceptible in the rhetoric for a while last year.

  2. “gift of the latest bunker buster dedicated to Fordo …”

    Do you mean gift wrapped with a B-52 or perhaps a B-2a Stealth bomber for delivery?

    I have written about this non-existing option for Israel. This means the US and Obama has leverage on Israel for the IAF can’t go it alone and strike Iran’s deep underground facilities.

    1. I have this image in my mind of a B-52 carrying a huge bunker buster underneath it all tied up with blue & white ribbons & landing at an Israeli military airport. That’s about the size of what it would take to buy Bibi off.

      1. “I have this image in my mind of a B-52 carrying a huge bunker buster underneath it all tied up with blue & white ribbons & landing at an Israeli military airport.”

        Possibly so, but unless the USA also gifts the B-52 then that bunker-buster is useless to the IDF; nothing they have can take off with a huge bunker buster strapped under its wings.

          1. Richard: “Maybe the U.S. would lend the B-52 to Israel for a few days…”

            And the pilots too, presumably, since I doubt that there is anyone in the IDF who knows how to fly a B-52.

            At which point you’d have to ask why the USA would bother with the subterfuge.

            After all, if the Americans have to gift the IDF
            A) The Bomb
            B) The Plane to carry that bomb
            C) The crew to fly that plane that carries that bomb
            then in what way is that still an Israeli air-force operation?

            Why not simply refuse to play pretendies and just send the USAF instead?

  3. “John Kerry and his pro-Israel sidekick, Martin Indyk.”
    Indyk will be a fair mediator.
    Since you (and the Palestinians) think he’s pro-Israel and the Israelis think he’s pro-Palestine and the truth is usually can be found somewhere in the middle…

    1. You can count me in on the side of Richard. Do you have any link of Israelis not satisfied with former AIPAC research director and WINEP’s founding director Martin Indyk?

      1. @oui, the following was written for Al-Monitor by Ben Caspit.
        “Now extreme right-wing Israelis are trying to reject Indyk. Somehow Indyk’s name is connected to the New Israel Fund: He serves as co-chair of the fund, in its international council,a position which led Deputy Minister of Defense Danny Danon and his friends to label him “an enemy of Israel.” ”


          1. @Oui you are welcome.
            With respect to your analysis: “I have written about this non-existing option for Israel. This means the US and Obama has leverage on Israel for the IAF can’t go it alone and strike Iran’s deep underground facilities.”

            I Suggest you’ll listen to the following discussion Featuring Nicholas Burns, Amos Yadlin, and Jeffrey Goldberg
            Yadlin states in very clear terms that Israel can achieve its target should i decide to attack Iran on it’s own.

            No disrespect but if i would have to chose between your analysis and the one of Amos Yadlin the Former head of Israeli military intelligence, who served many years as a pilot with the IAF… I will chose Yadlin’s any give Sunday.


          2. @Gonen: You’d choose to believe Amos Yadlin, a leading member of the military organization known for lying & saying whatever it takes to get whatever it wants? Yadlin says whatever helps the IDF. Of course he says Israel can destroy Iran alone, because to say otherwise would mean he was saying his own organization to which he devoted decades of his life, was a failure.

            Almost every non-Israeli serious military analyst (and a number of Israeli analysts as well) has said very publicly & clearly that Israel cannot do significant damage to Iran’s nuclear program in an attack on its own. Claiming that Oui is the only person who believes this is an easy way out for you. But it just won’t do.

          3. @ Richard: I never claimed Oui was the only person who stated that. I do believe however that General Yadlin has two big advantages over most analysts (including analysts wanna be’s)
            A. He knows exactly what Israel capabilities are in terms of weapons and abilities.
            B. He knows exactly what the Israeli Targets will be.

            can you name a single analyst that knows the two ? Not someone who speculates, someone who really knows.
            didn’t think so.

          4. @Gonen: You set up Oui and Yadlin as a misleading pair, when some of the world’s most distinguished security analysts have agreed with Oui. A more apt comparison would be between Yadlin and Reuven Pedatzur or Anthony Cordesmann, who both think Israel would have to be out of its mind to attack Iran alone. Both are among the most esteemed analysts in their fields. There are scores of others as well.

          5. Pedatzur ? a credible source ? you need to distinguish between air-time and credibility. Five months ago there was a big debate in Israel over the performance of the “Iron Dome”. Pedatzur appeared on London and Kirshanbaum (A program on TV channel 10) and presented himself as someone who fails in using basic logic.
            You can watch the debate he had with Uzi Rubin, who was the head of the Israeli Anti-Missile program for years (and holds an MA in Aerospace engineering from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute) in which Mr. Rubin asks Pedatzur one simple question: “If iron dome didn’t work as you claim and intercepted only 5% of the rockets that were fired from Gaza – 1560 is the number announced by Hamas, 1506 in the number announced by IDF – , based on Hamas numbers, what happened to another 500 Rockets ? evaporated in mid air ?” (time marker 5:00 in this video) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmbJO3DEbUM
            I have no idea who Anthony Cordesmann is.

          6. @Gonen: Yes, I would say a decorated IAF pilot, university professor and security columnist for Israel’s leading liberal newspaper is not just a credible source, but a distinguished one.

            Further, I’ve written about the failure of the Iron Dome system which is quite well documented by MIT’s Prof. Ted Postol, who I’ll put up against Uzi Rubin any day of the week. Postol has no axe to grind in this matter. While Rubin is part of the Israeli missile mafia, probably a consultant for Iron Dome’s manufacturer, & definitely not an independent source.

            Further, whether Israel can successfully attack Iran or not has nothing to do with Iron Dome. You’re mixing apples & oranges as apoligists like you always do.

            The fact that you don’t know who Anthony Cordesmann is speaks volumes to your ignorance on matters of Middle East military strategy & policy.

          7. @ Oui “Only the latter will be decorated in the military and security state of Israel”
            Really ? Israel’s achievements are well known all over the world, from the Nobel peace prize 2 Israeli leaders won (Rabin & Peres) to the intel chip inside your computer. You expect the bravery and valor of Israel’s soldier to be judged by third party ? Doe’s that’s the way it works with the US armed forces ? I’m sorry but i don’t understand your statement.

            @ Richards & Oui, You brought the name of Anthony Cordesman and presented him for being the oracle of Delphi. I’t appears that you trust his analysis through and through.

            The following is a study he wrote right after operation cast lead. in which he writes “The analysis reveals impressive improvements in the readiness and capability of the , Israeli Defense Forces since the fighting against the Hezbollah in 2006. It also indicates that Israel did not violate the laws of war.”

            So the question is vis-a-vis Cordesman’s analyses Re Israel’s ability to attack Iran, is Cordesman always right ?


          8. @Gonen: Wow, you have the strange notion that if an expert speaks accurately on one subject he speaks accurately on all subjects. Most of the rest of the world doesn’t believe this. But apparently in the hasbara war in which you’re an active participant, you hold such simplistic views. The rest of us don’t.

            And no, anyone who holds that the IDF performed well during Cast Lead and didn’t violate the laws of war is wrong. Flat out wrong. If Cordesmann wrote this, then he’s wrong. In this particular case. But not in every statement he makes about any other subject. Does your limited comprehension apprehend this idea?

        1. Ironic that Caspit would write that because he himself smeared Shamai Leibowitz for supporting BDS when Shamai was an NIF law fellow. His reporting caused NIF to dump Shamai from the program.

          I hope Caspit has had a change of heart and moderated his politics.

          At any rate, what Dannon & Im Tirzu object to is not NIF’s being an enemy of Israel, but being an enemy of Likudism. Of course, Likudniks don’t see any difference, but there is.

          But you really want to argue that because Indyk is smeared by assholes like Dannon that this means he IS anti-Israel? You argue this with a straight face?

          1. @ Richard, if it was directed at me – i have no idea. don’t know enough about Indyk and didn’t form an opinion.
            I was simply providing Oui what he was asking for.

    2. The only Israelis who think he’s pro-Palestinian are Likudniks so far to the right they’d be best friends with Meir Kahane if he were alive.

      Objectively, Indyk cannot be a “fair mediator.” He’s in Israel’s pocket & will ensure any agreement reflects Israel’s interests overall.

      1. Objectively? Realy?
        Extreme leftist on one hand and extreme rightist on the other.
        Objectively, he’ll do fine.

        1. Coming late to this thread, but the US can’t be a fair broker. I think the claim that Kerry made that peace has to be made in 9 months puts most of the pressure on the Palestinians. They’re the ones who are powerless and are under the boot of the Israelis, and furthermore, if talks fail, nobody thinks the US will abandon Israel. So what that means is that if talks fail, the blame will be put on Palestinians, as usual. It will be said that this was their last chance, they never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity, and now the US will just wash its hands of the problem. In practice that means the US will keep supporting Israel and Israel will have an almost free hand. The pressure on the Palestinians to give in to whatever the US proposes will be enormous. The pressure on the Israelis won’t be anywhere near as great. It can’t be, given the strength of the Israel lobby in Congress.

  4. If peace will stand or fall on the ROR issue, no doubt peace won’t be coming this era, if the meaning of ROR for Palestinians is the return of all refugees (and their descendents) to their former place of residence.

    1. You either don’t understand what ROR is or you display willful ignorance. ROR means offering to Palestinian refugees the right to return to their former villages or homes in Israel. It doesn’t mean all eligible refugees will do so. The Geneva Accords estimated that about 400,000 would pursue this right, a development that would be barely a blip within Israeli society (which resettled 1 million Russian Jews within a few years time), especially if international agencies participate in helping resettle them.

  5. @Gonen: Jeffrey Goldberg stated: “The US didn’t want Pakistan to have nukes.”
    This is proven a false statement as I have written many years ago.

    The conversation is highly hypothetical and Amos Yadlin will never say Israel’s Air Force cannot dectroy the Fordo underground nuclear facilities. He does say: “It’s doable.” And Israel should have the legitimacy of an attack on its side, including support from ally United States. The only way the IAF can pack sufficient power in its strikes is by using a nuclear bomb. You know what the international repercussions will be!

    Furthermore, Goldberg loosely uses the argument that Syria has crossed the red line set by Obama on the use of chemical weapons. This too is a highly contentious statement not based on facts. A nice discussion in public, not valued as strategic talks about the real issue of Iran, its nuclear bomb and proliferation in the region.

    1. There are non-nuclear weapons that will do this, the first (and most efficient) of which appeared in 1944.

      The problem is the delivery system, and that might be solved by converting a small airliner into a drone and simply blowing the tail off with explosive bolts to extract the munition over the target.

      Or by converting a large airliner.
      Marshals converted a Tristar to carry and release a satellite launcher six times heavier than a Tallboy bomb.


      Wikipedia is edited by patriotic Americans: no mention, anywhere, of who actually designed a cradle capable of not bending the rocket on release and adapted the aircraft to safely release a 44 tonner.

      The original Tallboy was used to destroy numerous sites of enormous toughness:


      I’m not saying that Israel has anything like this, merely that it’s not necessary to use nuclear weapons for this purpose.

      During the Cold War, the RAF’s Victor bombers were equipped to use (guided) Tallboys and Grand Slams against Soviet (or potentially in 1966, Indonesian) command bunkers as an alternative to nuclear weapons, because they could do more damage to deeply buried targets than the Golden Sun H Bomb.

      At high altitude, an aircraft is flying in a narrow band between a low-speed stall and a potential transonic stall. In the case of the U2 at full height, this band is about four knots wide. The Vulcan and Victor bombers had aerodynamics that allowed a much wider speed range at great height (over 50,000′), which meant they could retain control when releasing a very heavy load, leading to instant changes in centre of gravity and aerodynamic trim. If you haven’t got a Victor or a Vulcan, an expendable airframe where you pop the tail off, is probably easier than solving all the various ways in which the release makes the aircraft impossible to control.

      I think that the Stargazer releases its load in a shallow dive at around 40,000′ to avoid stalling and the rocket actually glides down to 35,000′ and stability before lighting up and climbing into space.

      The older Valiant bomber, like most of its Soviet counterparts, had to do a shallow dive even from 30-40,000′ to release a 14,000lb nuclear bomb without the risk of a stall.

  6. There is lots of disinformation and leaking out there, by various parties with their own political goals, Therefore, I don’t think that any in depth analysis such as this post can be reliable at this point. Although I admittedly come from the opposite spectrum as you, I agree that most likely these talks are a facade, necessary because of political considerations of the US, Israel, and Europe. Logically speaking, there are 3 possibilities:

    1. The talks are pretense with nobody expecting a favorable outcome, they are just an attempt to manage the conflict and delay an explosion.
    2. Behind the scenes and unknown to the public, there are secret agreements and these talks are just a formality to give time for the parties to prepare their publics for painful compromises. Something like the Begin-Sadat talks.
    3, The talks are actually substantive and an attempt to reach an agreement. I consider this the least likely scenario.

    In any case I don’t understand your bitter criticism of Netanyahu for entering the talks. You criticize him for making a concession to enter the talks, and you criticize him for not negotiating. Lies, deception and posturing are all part of politics and the art of negotiation in the Middle East, so why does it bother you so much?

    As history has shown, only a right winger (or former right winger) can muster the credibility to make peace.

  7. @ Richard:
    1. “decorated IAF pilot”, What decoration did Reuvan Pedatzur ever received ? The following site, lists all the decorated soldiers ever served with the different branches of the IDF. The name of Pedatzur is no where to be found.
    2. University Professor ? He’s a Dr. not a professor.

    For you anyone who’s part of the establishment, whether the Israeli or the Egyptian one, isn’t a credible source. This leads to a very narrow minded discussion, I find no interest in participating in one.

    Pedatzur involvement within the Irone Dome debate was brought as an example to his lack of logic. If you want to relay on such Analysis it is your prerogative, i rather deal with substance not with fiction.

    I would appreciate if you’ll hoist the personal insults, it seems to be your modus operandi when dealing with Israeli commentators, with whom you disagree. Responding in kind based on how little you know about those whom your quote (in this case Pedatzur or the rate of default bank account’s within the Israeli Jewish and Arab communities) , isn’t a big deal, i chose not to.

    1. @Gonen: If you’d bothered looking for this easy to find bio of Pedatzur you’d have avoided the errors you made in your claims:

      Dr. Reuven Pedatzur is a senior military affairs analyst with Ha’aretz newspaper and Senior Lecturer in Political Science at Tel Aviv University. He was previously an IAF fighter pilot; a commercial pilot (Arkia Airlines); Academic Director of the Daniel Abraham Center for Strategic Dialogue at Netanya Academic College; and Visiting Scholar (1993-1994) at the Center for Strategic Studies at MIT. He is one of Israel’s leading commentators on missile defense, nuclear and other non-conventional weapons, the IDF’s strategic doctrine and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

      Author of Rearming Israel: Defense Procurement Through the 1990’s (1991, with Aharon Klieman); The Arrow Project and Active Defense: Challenges and Questions (1993); Evolving Ballistic Missile Capabilities and Theatre Missile Defense: The Israeli Predicament (1994); Conventional Arms Transfer in the Middle East (1998); Ballistic Missiles in the Middle East: The Next Challenges (2001); The Israeli ‘Security Culture’: Its Origins, and Its Influence on the Israeli Society (2003); Israel: Coping with a Proliferated Region (2005); The Iranian Nuclear Threat and the Israeli Options (2007); The Rescue of King Hussein’s Regime (2008).

      BTW, Pedatzur’s military rank is Major. Not as high as Yadlin’s, but I’ll take an honest major over a dishonest general any time.

      Are you still holding with your former claim he isn’t credible? Or as credible as Yadlin? Further, Pedatzur has no motivation to lie about Iron Dome whereas Yadlin has every reason to do so. Also interesting that you claim someone with a PhD in his field, IAF experience, & a respected columnist writes “fiction.” The only fiction I’m seeing is yours.

      1. @ Richards, with all due respect
        1. You claimed Mr. Pedatzur was a “decorated pilot” (Your words not mine) he’s not. It appears you don’t understand the difference between a pilot to a decorated pilot. Within the IDF (IAD is a branch of the IDF same rules apply) there are 3 decorations and 4 citations that can be awarded to a solider/officer, Pedatzur received none. nowhere in his bio a decoration or citation is mentioned, Hence your claim that Pedatzur was a “Decorated Pilot” is absolutely wrong.

        2. You claimed that Reuven Pedatzur was a professor, he’s not, he’s a PhD not a professor. Do we need to go over the differences ? and just for the record Pedatzur PhD is in political science, he’s not an analyst, he’s expertise has nothing to do with missile nor does it have anything to do with International relations/Strategic Studies (Such program is available at Johns Hopkins University and Tel-Aviv University)

        As for the credibility of his analysis, when Pedatzur (or you if you so wish to claim in his place) would be able to explain what happened to 500 rockets fired by Hamas and reached nowhere, i will take it seriously, until then I do not consider him a serious analyst. Just to clarify: this is the problem with Petatzur Iron Dome critique: Hamas claims to have 30% success rate of firing into Israeli cities (Israel admit’s that’s the number). Hamas also claims it fired during Operation Pillar of Defense a total of 1560 rockets, 30% of the total is about 500 which should have hit Inside Israeli cities. The number wasn’t closed even by Pedatzur statement, who argued that the police states it dealt with a 109 rocket related incidents (the explosion of a single rocket creates multii-incidents).

        When someone makes such a fictitious statement – i am sorry, i do not take him seriously. If you chose otherwise, this is your site and your prerogative.

        The only fiction here is provided by you with respect to Mr. Pedatzur’s credentials, you were unable to provide any proof to back your claims. and for some reason you are unwilling to admit you were wrong in both statements.

        I have nothing to add on this subject and will be very surprised if you would be able to come with a proof to back your claim about Pedatzur credentials, or Pedatzur’s strange iron dome critique. actually if you will i will join Guy Maroz (channel 10) initiative and will head jump for a short swim in the Yarkon River.

  8. The State Department web site has the transcript of a background briefing for the press, so the names of the “Senior Whitehouse Spokesman” and the “Senior State Department Spokesman” are redacted.

    But here is the money-shot from the Whitehouse Flunky explaining what Kerry is trying to do:
    “I think we’ve all been very clear about how things could develop if we couldn’t get negotiations started again. The Palestinians, as you know, went to the UN last September and got a significant amount of support for elevating their status. The United States opposed that, but was in the minority. And the Palestinians throughout the course of this year have been making clear that if they couldn’t see progress on the peace front, that their intention would be to seek other elevations of their status, whether at the UN or other international organizations, which is not something that the United States supports but is something that could have created a significant amount of friction with Israel and really interrupted the progress we want to see in the region.
    So it’s no secret that one of the motivating factors, I think for everybody, was to avoid that sort of train wreck that would have happened, that might have happened, if we weren’t able to get negotiations started. And I think – again, I mean, there are no guarantees in anything, but so long as this process is moving forward I think the risks of that sort of thing are reduced, if not entirely eliminated.”

    There you have it: the USA doesn’t **really** expect anything to come out of these negotiations.
    All it is doing is trying to use these negotiations as a roadblock to stop Abbas going to the UN and – after that – to the ICC.

Leave a Reply

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