EDITOR: The Unbearable Lightness of Political Hypocrisy
In Summer 2006, Israel attacked Southern Lebanon, destroying its whole infrastructure for the nth time, creating over a million refugees fleeing their home, murdering over 1500 innocent civilians, and forcing thousands to flee Lebanon to Cyprus and beyond. During the month of this brutal carnage, the western democracies, led by the US and UK, have done their best to delay and frustrate any international attempt at controlling or stopping Israel in its wanton destruction. Tony Blair has been especially adept at making sure the murderous attack can go on unhindered. Israel knew it had free hand to murder and destroy at will, and that no power on earth can or will stop it, before it decided to do so itself. In the end, the insane military adventure was stopped when Israeli losses intensified dramatically, caused by Hezbollah fighters.
Few days after Christmas 2008, Israel has attacked Gaza for the nth time. This time the operation, dubbed Cast Lead with typical Israeli militarised humour (‘cast lead’ are words taken from a children’s lullaby sang during Chanouka, the nationalist winter festival in Israel) had lasted 22 days, and brought about the total destruction of infrastructure in Gaza, such that still existed after years of Israeli attacks and illegal blockade. Israel has managed to kill over 1400 Palestinian civilians, over 400 of them small children, at a cost of 13 of its own soldiers killed, four of them by ‘friendly fire’ of the Israeli forces themselves. The brutalities are well known, and beyond description here. Throughout the period, Israel was protected by the same allies, the US and UK, with both leaders making sure that the UN is unable to bring about an end to carnage. Again, Israel was safely allowed to create another bloodbath, one which took the prospect of peace in the Middle East even further away into the never-neverland of idealised futures.
What rational objective was served by such attacks? Did they serve the interests of Israel in any way, apart from extending its rein of terror? Did they assist a negotiated, just peace in Palestine? Had the carnage improve the security in the region, the security of anyone at all? Even the Israeli government will be hard-pressed to claim such success. Were western leaders not aware that such attacks further undermine the future stability of the whole region? Yet, their actions, and inaction, speak volumes.
On both occasions, like on so many others before, Israel received not just the military and economic assistance that made it the strongest country in the Middle East, but also the political and diplomatic umbrella which allowed it to act illegally and immorally, but with impunity. While nations like North Korea and Iran were hounded when developing nuclear weapons, Israel was actively supported in developing its own, and holds over 300 undeclared nuclear devices. One wonders what use is planned for such an arsenal of destruction, an arsenal larger than that held by China?
But the current iteration of Israeli aggression and western appeasement seems to surpass all others. In a well-orchestrated propaganda campaign, started in 2006, Israel spent untold sums and huge effort in preparing to attack Iran, under the pretext of destroying its nuclear industry, which Iran claims is for non-military purposes, and which no one has yet disproved. The hypocrisy involved is staggering, to put it mildly. A state which attacked and occupied numerous UN member states is preparing to attack another one, one which is innocent of such aggression itself. A state with hundreds of nuclear weapons, is planning to attack a state with none; A state which has made 800,000 Palestinians refugees in 1948, and refused to allow any of them back into their own land, in open defiance of UN resolutions, is preparing to attack a state which has absorbed an even larger number of refugees created by western aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan; A state which never allowed any international authority to inspect its illicit nuclear facilities, is going to bomb a country which allowed numerous inspections of its own facilities. A state which continues a brutal military occupation for almost five decades, of the territory of four other UN member states, defying UN resolutions to vacate the territory, is now likely to attack another state which has done none of these things.
Now it is true that Ahmadinejad’s Iran is a difficult regime to like or wax lyrically about, and guilty of political oppression of the worst kind. It is also true that it is not alone in this, and that Israel of course has done so much more to oppress and suppress its Palestinian captive population of millions. What is clear is that in the case of Israel, the phrase ‘double standards’ is a somewhat limp attempt to describe a rogue state which instead of being brought to book for its multitude of illegal infractions and transgressions, is actively assisted in breaking international law and breeding more death and aggression. The current state of the US presidential campaign, and the role played by AIPAC in writing US policy for its senior politicians is clear for all to see; no American politician is safe for a moment after mouthing even the mildest criticism against Israel, and none will be elected if they defied its wishes. What was in the past the fevered fabrications of anti-Semites, seems now a daily reality in Washington.
The war Israel wishes to push the west into, another destructive war against Muslims, is as unjustified as the last one in Iraq, and the ‘information’ used to justify it is just as bizarre and false. The same media are again unquestioningly supporting their politicians in sliding into another armed conflict, despite clear knowledge that this is a manufactured conflict, like the last one which brought so much death and destruction. It seems that the west finds its crusader, imperial and colonial heritage difficult to resist, a default knee-jerk reaction to any political difficulty it encounters, and that in this Israel combines the roles of Iago and Macbeth, driving the west into more and more conflict and confrontation with the rising forces of the Arab and Muslim world. That this takes place in the midst of the Arab Spring, and in the middle of a bitter struggle for democracy in the Middle East, is one final irony in this painful play unfolding before us. Will the political leaders of the west be allowed to traipse unthinkingly, again into the historical minefield now facing them, and us all?
Haim Bresheeth
Israel must not bind itself to Netanyahu’s vulgar rhetoric on Iran: Haaretz Editorial
The spine-chilling fear is that one day, all of us will discover too late that we have become hostages to his Churchillian speech, but without a Churchillian victory.
Anyone who cares about Israel’s future could not help but feel a chill upon hearing Benjamin Netanyahu’s recent speech at the AIPAC conference – if not because of the gravity of the existential threat it described, then because of its sheer vulgarity and bad taste. The prime minister, as if he were no more than a surfer leaving feedback on a website, did not hesitate to crassly compare Israel today to the situation of European Jewry during the Holocaust. And to spice up his speech with one of those visual gimmicks he so loves, he even pulled out a photostat of correspondence in order to imply a comparison between U.S. President Barack Obama’s cautious approach toward attacking Iran and President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s refusal to bomb the rail lines to Auschwitz.
Netanyahu sometimes seems like he is holding a debating competition with himself. Every speech is the “speech of his life” and must overshadow its predecessor, while afterward, as if they were rehashing a sporting event, he and his aides gleefully count the number of standing ovations, especially from his American listeners. And in order to wring an ovation from the end of every sentence, it seems as if all means are legitimate: kitsch and death, threats and vows, warnings and rebukes of the entire world.
This time, too, it’s not quite clear what he wanted to obtain via this inane rhetoric – a combination of wretchedness and megalomania – aside from applause. Did he want pity? To prick the conscience of the world? To terrify himself, or perhaps to inflame the Churchillian fantasy in which he lives? But one thing is clear: Aside from the fact that he deepened our feelings of victimhood, insulted the American president and narrowed the options for diplomacy, Netanyahu did not improve Israel’s situation one jot by this speech, just as he hasn’t by any of his others.
Netanyahu isn’t the first Israeli prime minister, especially from the right, to harp on the trauma of the Holocaust. But in contrast to Menachem Begin and Ariel Sharon, who at the moment of truth also displayed diplomatic and leadership abilities, Netanyahu was and remains essentially a PR man: someone for whom words and rhetoric replace reality. The spine-chilling fear is that one day, all of us – himself included, despite his caution and hesitation – will discover too late that we have become hostages to his Churchillian speech, but without a Churchillian victory.
War with Iran is not inevitable, says Netanyahu: Guardian
Israeli PM warns Iran has ‘bamboozled the west’ and that only military threat will deter Tehran from developing nuclear weapon
Chris McGreal in Washington
Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, has said that an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities is not inevitable. But he claimed it is the threat of military action, not sanctions, that will deter Tehran from developing an atomic bomb.
Following his White House meeting with Barack Obama this week, Netanyahu differed with the president over the value of diplomacy and was sceptical about a fresh round of talks between Tehran and the major powers, telling Fox News that Iran has “bamboozled the west”.
The Israeli prime minister said that, like Churchill, he is sounding the “jarring gong of danger” to wake democracies from their slumber to the coming danger. Asked if “war is inevitable”, Netanyahu replied: “I don’t think so”.
But he brushed off Obama’s demand this week for an end to the “loose talk of war” and “blustering” over Iran – criticisms evidently aimed at months of threats from within Israel – to argue that Tehran is more likely to respond to fear of attack than sanctions.
“We’ve seen, in fact, that Iran backed off from its nuclear programme, its nuclear weapons programme, really only once in the 15, 16 years that I’ve been warning the world about the dangers of a nuclear-armed Iran. And the only time they backed away was in 2003, when they thought there’d be a credible military threat against them,” he said. “So in fact, the paradox is that if they actually believe that they’re going to face the military option, you probably won’t need the military option.”
The US defence secretary, Leon Panetta, reiterated the military threat on Iran by saying that Washington has been preparing the plans for an attack “for a long time”. But, in an interview with the National Journal, he marked out the sharp difference with Israel over the timing of any assault by effectively saying that if an attack becomes necessary it would be better to wait and let the US carry it out.
“If (Israel) decided to do it there’s no question that it would have an impact, but I think it’s also clear that if the United States did it we would have a hell of a bigger impact,” he said.
At their White House meeting this week, Obama sought to persuade Netanyahu to hold off on any attack against Iran with a promise that even if Tehran was able to move its nuclear programme to fortified underground facilities beyond the reach of Israel’s military, the US would still be able to destroy them.
But that requires Netanyahu to place the decision on whether to attack Iran in Washington’s hands, something he has said he will not do.
The Israeli premier declined to discuss a possible timeline for Israeli military action but said the Iranians are getting “very, very close”.
He said that increasingly stringent sanctions are taking their toll on Iran, but not where it matters.
“It’s hurt their economy. But it has not stopped their (nuclear) programme by one wit,” he said.
While Obama has said the US assessment is that Iran has not yet made the decision to develop a nuclear bomb, Netanyahu repeated his assertion that he has no doubt that is what Tehran intends to do.
“Why do you think Iran is doing all of this – developing these underground halls with thousands of centrifuges to enrich uranium? … They’re building ICBM, intercontinental ballistic missiles, to carry, what? Medical isotopes? That’s their explanation? They are absorbing these crippling sanctions,” he said. “So I don’t think anyone seriously thinks that Iran is doing all of this, going through all of this huge investment, taking huge risks for anything but a nuclear programme, and I think we should recognise that.”
Netanyahu was sceptical a new round of talks agreed between Iran and the five permanent members of the UN security council plus Germany will change very much.
The group appealed in a statement on Thursday for Iran to enter into a “serious dialogue” on its nuclear programme and said it was “concerned that, despite efforts made so far, no agreement was reached, including on the access to relevant sites in Iran, requested by the [International Atomic Energy Agency]”.
It called for Iran to fulfil an undertaking to grant access to the Parchin military base where IAEA inspectors suspect Tehran has possibly undertaken research into triggers for nuclear weapons. Diplomatic pressure was ratcheted up on Iran over the site with the release of satellite pictures suggesting it was cleaning up the military base to hide evidence of the research. However, the pictures were met with scepticism by some experts.
Netanyahu said Tehran has previously used negotiations to “deceive and delay” and could do so again.
“The only way you get a result if you got them to agree to freeze their enrichment, take out all the enriched uranium that they have enriched, take it out of Iran, the stuff that can make bombs. If they want to make medical isotopes, you can give them back – uranium that can serve that purpose, a peaceful purpose,” he said. “And they can dismantle this underground facility they have in a place called Qom, which is basically an underground nuclear bunker. They could do all of that. Then you would have an indication that the talks have actually produced something. But personally, I’m sceptical. I think they have bamboozled the west. And they think they can get away with it.”
Asked whether the intelligence on Iran might prove to be as flawed as the false reports of weapons of mass destruction in the runup to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, Netanyahu said there was “no comparison”.
“In the case of Iraq, I was on the Israeli cabinet when we discussed this issue. We didn’t know. We couldn’t say that they didn’t have a nuclear weapons programme, we couldn’t say if they did. In the case of Iran there is absolutely no question. We share all of that information. We know the stockpiling of enriched uranium. We know the development of ICBMs. We know a lot more. And we share this information. I don’t think that’s comparable.”
During his visit to Washington this week, Netanyahu persuaded leading members of Congress that Israel is serious about attacking Iran – and that the warnings of military action are not just bluster in order to pressure the west in to ratcheting up sanctions on Tehran.
They include Dianne Feinstein, the chair of the Senate intelligence committee, who told CNN that following her meeting with Netanyahu and discussions with other officials she believes Israel is serious about being prepared to attack Iran.
“I followed the intelligence very carefully, I’ve met with Israeli generals … with the president, and here’s what I believe: I believe that Israel will attack. I believe that it is important that diplomacy be given an opportunity, I believe it is possible to achieve a diplomatic solution,” she said.
Asked about Netanyahu’s attitude, Feinstein said: “His resolve is very firm, no one should doubt that. He told us he’s not asking anything of the United States. Israel believes they are prepared to handle it. Now what happens after an attack is very different.”
But the senator said Netanyahu is likely to respond to Obama’s appeal to give sanctions time to work.
“I believe the Israelis will wait to see what happens,” she said.
Netanyahu: Strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities possible within months: Haaretz
Prime minister says he prefers diplomatic pressure be used to stop the Iranian nuclear program and war be avoided.
By Jonathan Lis
An attack on Iran could take place within a matter of months, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in a series of television interviews on Thursday.
“We’re not standing with a stopwatch in hand,” he said. “It’s not a matter of days or weeks, but also not of years. The result must be removal of the threat of nuclear weapons in Iran’s hands.”
Netanyahu gave separate interviews to all three Israeli television stations, the first he has given since his return from Washington earlier this week. The full interviews will air on Saturday night, but excerpts were broadcast Thursday.
“I hope there won’t be a war at all, and that the pressure on Iran will succeed,” the prime minister stressed, noting that his preferred choice would be for Iran to halt its nuclear program and dismantle the uranium enrichment facility located in an underground site near Qom. “That would make me happiest,” he said. “I think every citizen of Israel would be happy.”
“Making decisions isn’t the problem; it’s making the right decision,” Netanyahu added. “If you don’t make the decision and don’t succeed in preventing this [an Iranian nuke], to whom will you explain this – to the historians? To the generations before you, and the generations that won’t come after you?”
He also spoke about the departure of his former bureau chief, Natan Eshel, who was forced to resign over allegations of harassing a subordinate. “I had a connection with Natan Eshel, a connection going back many years,” he said. “This is very painful for me personally, and you part ways humanely.
“On the other hand, what he did, or what he confessed to doing … is very serious. This is a serious, inappropriate thing, and I condemn it.”
Netanyahu insisted that he backs the three officials who informed the attorney general of the suspicions against Eshel: his military secretary, Maj. Gen. Yohanan Locker; Cabinet Secretary Zvi Hauser; and the former head of the National Information Directorate, Yoaz Hendel.
“Let there be no doubt: I also think the men who acted, acted rightly,” he said. “They had to go complain about this.”
Nevertheless, he added, his criticism of them for not informing him was justified: “In my opinion, I’m the head of the system, as prime minister, and they should have told me.”
IDF upgrades notification system in face of growing missile threat: Haaretz
Modified version of the Castle Lake system already in use will allow Home Front Command to view impact points of incoming missiles; MI chief speaking last month: 200,000 missiles aimed at Israel.
By Gili Cohen
The Israel Defense Forces has acquired a new system that will let it see exactly where every missile strike has landed if the home front is under attack.
The new system is a modification of an existing command-and-control system called Castle Lake, which gives details on the location of Israeli forces and, as far as they are known, of enemy targets – anything from rocket launchers to enemy commanders.
With the modification, Castle Lake will now also display a map of the country on which every missile that hits will be marked. In addition to giving the location of the hit, the system will provide information on what kind of missile was launched, how much damage it caused and how long the home front has been under assault. That will enable commanders to factor developments on the home front into their operational decisions.
The home front data will also enable commanders to evaluate the effectiveness of Israel’s operations against the enemy: for instance, whether attacking a Hezbollah stronghold in Lebanon had any effect on the rate of rocket launches from Lebanon.
The system was used for the first time last week, as part of a large-scale war games exercise.
“Essentially, commanders can see the effectiveness of the decisions they made and the way in which forces are being deployed,” an officer in the army’s C4I directorate explained. “It will be possible to go into the details of every launch – where it was fired from, what kind of missile it was, and how much damage it caused.”
Last month, speaking at the annual Herzliya Conference, Military Intelligence director Maj. Gen. Aviv Kochavi warned that there are currently some 200,000 rockets and missiles aimed at Israel. MI estimates that most of these missiles have a maximum range of 40 kilometers, but thousands of them have ranges of hundreds of kilometers.
“These ranges cover all of Gush Dan, from Syria, Lebanon and Iran,” said Kochavi, referring to the coastal plain around Tel Aviv. “The warheads on these missiles are becoming ever more deadly, weighing hundreds of kilograms. They are becoming ever more accurate, and the entire network is becoming more dispersed, more concealed, and more integrated into an urban environment. Every tenth house in Lebanon has a missile arsenal or a launching pad.”
Kochavi’s remarks underscored the growing missile threat on Israel’s home front. While the Home Front Command has been working on a plan to reinforce buildings in the most vulnerable parts of the country, even after it is complete, 1.5 million Israelis will lack appropriate access to shelters.
During the Second Lebanon War of 2006, some 4,000 rockets were launched at Israel. The IDF expects the number of missile launches in the next war to be ten times that figure, of which it expects several thousand to actually hit: around 7,500 to 10,000 short-range rockets, 1,800 to 2,300 medium-range rockets and some 300 long-range rockets. It predicts that these missiles will kill about 200 civilians and destroy thousands of homes.
To counter this, Israel has developed a range of missile-defense systems, including Iron Dome for short-range rockets, David’s Sling (also known as Magic Wand ) for medium-range missiles and the Arrow for long-range missiles. The IDF believes that nine Iron Dome batteries could protect a sizable percentage of the population in any future war, and that without these batteries, civilian deaths would be double the 200 cited above.
Nevertheless, IDF officers stress that these systems can’t provide hermetic protection: People will still have to run for shelters if they want to maximize their chances of survival.