Is Israel headed towards an initiated war in Lebanon?

The series of public messages conveyed by Israel in the past few days, particularly to the Lebanese government, and Monday’s meeting between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow, leave no room for doubt: Israel is moving quickly towards a “war by choice” or, in other words, an initiated war in Lebanon.

 

On Sunday, the IDF spokesperson published an op-ed in Lebanese opposition websites, threatening that if Lebanon allows Iran to build missile factories on its territory, “we will attack them accurately.” On Monday, Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman made Israel’s determination clear, and determination in such cases means use of force.

Meanwhile Monday, the Russians released an image showing Israel’s Military Intelligence director, the prime minister’s military secretary and the military attaché in Moscow briefing Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoygu before entering Putin’s bureau.

Defense Minister Lieberman. Aware of the slippery slope (Photo: AFP)

None of this is coincidental. Everything is calculated. Israel is exerting intensive pressure in an effort to deter the Iranians from building precision-guided missile factories in Syria and in Lebanon. So the IDF spokesperson is turning to Lebanon’s residents, Lieberman is preparing Israeli public opinion and Netanyahu is appealing to the Russians to use their influence.

In the previous round, it worked. Last year, Israel estimated that the Iranians had made a real effort to build a factory for assembling precision-guided missiles in Lebanon. The goal was to bypass the Israeli ability to target missile shipments from Syria to Lebanon. According to foreign reports, the factory was dug underground, and Israel apparently located it.

The Israeli display of force and diplomatic messages likely led to the project’s termination while it was still in its infancy, although it’s reasonable to assume from Monday’s reports that the Iranians didn’t give it up and simply moved it somewhere else in Lebanon.

On September 7, according to foreign reports, the IDF attacked a precision-guided missile factory built by the Iranians in Masyaf, Syria, near the city of Hama. Israel was under the impression that Iran had taken the hint and lowered its profile in terms of the construction of underground factories, mainly in Lebanon. Well, apparently not.

The Iranian Revolutionary Guards and Hezbollah are suffering from hubris, taking pride in what they see as a clear victory in Syria, Iraq and Yemen. Not only have they defined the IDF spokesperson’s threat as “nonsense,” they have also produced a threat to Israel in light of the fortification work being conducted on the Lebanon border. Moreover, threats Israel is directing at Lebanon, Syria and Iran concerning the rocket factory issue belong to a very slippery field in the deterrence doctrine.

Prime Minister Netanyahu with Russian President Putin. Moscow is prepared to listen to Israel (Photo: AFP)

Israel is climbing up a high tree, knowing that it will either slip off with its tail between its legs without achieving a thing or will be compelled to use force. A strike in Lebanon will most likely lead to war, as the chance to deter the enemy is quite small. Classic deterrence is when you threaten an enemy not to target you on your own territory.

In this case, Israel is demanding that the enemy refrain from acting on its own territory or risk being targeted. In terms of international legitimization and from a historical perspective, the chance that such a threat will be accepted by the international community and make the enemy stop acting on its own territory is very small.

The defense minister is aware of this slippery slope. When asked on Monday why Israel wasn’t striking in Lebanon and destroying the missile factories, he replied that there were other ways of acting apart from bombs, that there were other leverages. “The last thing I want is to enter a third Lebanon war,” he said.

Lieberman has something to count on. Moscow is prepared to listen to Israel today. The Russians understand that Netanyahu is the last leader in the world who has a good relationship both with Putin and with US President Donald Trump. As far as they’re concerned, he is a vital tool vis-à-vis the Americans. Furthermore, his threats can be used to minimize Iranian influence in the region.

It all sounds good in theory. In practice, if the Iranians keep digging missile factories, Israel will get stuck on the tree it climbed and will be forced to make a decision: Are two or three missile factories in Lebanon a casus belli for an initiated war or not? This is the dilemma the government should present to the public: A war by choice or living under a growing threat of precision-guided missiles.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Is Israel headed towards an initiated war in Lebanon? : http://ift.tt/2Fzrd5T

With Trump and Pence, who needs AIPAC?

For many years, we got used to hearing about the Jewish lobby’s mythical power in US foreign relations. The Jewish lobby was described by many as a dominant, aggressive power in American politics, and was linked to strength and conspiracies around the world, including in the Arab and Islamic world.

The lobby’s critics in America accused the Jews of selling out the values of democracy and liberalism for the sake of an aggressive and occupying Israel. Others argued that the Jews’ loyalty to Zion came at the expense of their American patriotism and was harming US interests in the Middle East and in other international arenas.

Trump addresses AIPAC in 2016 (Photo: AFP)

So how is it possible that while most Jews are hostile towards President Donald Trump’s administration, relations between Washington and Jerusalem are thriving? Why is an administration which most Jews are opposed to, and which doesn’t even listen to Jewish lobbyists, embracing Jerusalem this way and being embraced in return by the Israeli government in a way we have never seen before?

In President Barack Obama’s era, criticism against the Jewish lobby reached new heights, with claims that the lobby had gotten America entangled in Iraq and was damaging its image in the Arab world. The lobby was accused of preventing a solution to the Middle East conflict and an acceptance of Iran.

When Washington conveyed real hostility towards the Netanyahu government, it was often backed by “the alternative Jewish body” (J Street), which aimed to “balance” the “destructive” Jewish power of AIPAC, which allegedly supports Israel automatically against American interests.

During the days of Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry, AIPAC was forced to defend itself concerning the lobby’s strength, and when presidential hopeful Donald Trump addressed AIPAC in 2016, its leaders apologized when members of the audience stood up to applaud the controversial candidate.

Trump was elected, as we know, with minimal Jewish support. In the past year J Street has been shoved to the sidelines, and when the United States recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, the organization sounded more like a Palestinian victim than like a pro-Israel organization. Even AIPAC itself seems like a restrained and toothless organization compared to Trump and Vice President Mike Pence’s enthusiasm towards Israel and its policy.

The reason for the decline in the Jewish lobby’s standing as a key player is the tectonic shifts that have taken place in the Middle East and in Israel in recent years. The Arab Spring failure, the Islamic State terror, the civil war in Syria, and of course the rise of the Trump administration, whose entire essence is to reverse Obama’s policy, have all changed the balance of power in America. The Israeli government no longer sees the lobby as a key asset in its national strategy either.

Pence at the Western Wall in Jerusalem, last week (Photo: Ohad Zwigenberg)

The lobby’s failure in the vote on Iran and AIPAC’s inability to restrain the Obama administration in the hostile Security Council vote served as proof to Jerusalem that the real alliance in America is with Christian conservative forces, which are perceived by the Israeli Right as more loyal and reliable than “the Jewish force.” Vice President Pence whispered as he mentioned the option of two states for two people, but when he said “Shehecheyanu,” we all felt the passion in the blessing stemming from real devoutness.

The conservatives and evangelicals in America realized long ago that they can count on right-wing Israel as an ideological and messianic ally, and they loathe the “universal hostility” of liberal Jews, who condemn not only the Israeli occupation but also American right-wing groups.

The decline of the traditional Jewish lobby reinforced the Jewish Orthodox forces in the US. Ambassador David Friedman and special envoy Jason Greenblatt represent the religious American Jewry, which is no longer apologizing for its “unliberal” Jewishness and isn’t afraid of an alliance with evangelical religious forces and with other conservative elements, which are sometimes identified by the liberals as “anti-Semitic forces.”

The dramatic changes taking place in Israel and the internal metamorphosis in America, both among the Jews and among the conservative and fundamentalist streams, are putting the alliance with Israel in a different place, which is weakening the traditional lobby’s role at this time.

Yossi Shain is the Romulo Betancourt Professor of Political Science at Tel Aviv University where he also serves as the head of the Abba Eban Program of Diplomacy and co-chair of the MA Program in Political Leadership.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

With Trump and Pence, who needs AIPAC? : http://ift.tt/2rWuQRv

Trump’s business approach to foreign aid

When US President Donald Trump withheld $65 million from the United Nations Relief and Welfare Agency (UNRWA) and threatened on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum in Davos to pull aid to the Palestinians if they fail to resume peace negotiations with Israel, he redefined the aid rationale.

It’s the rationale of a businessman, which also matches his approach to diplomacy as president. Trump, after all, wants to achieve the “ultimate deal” between Israel and the Palestinians. A “deal,” not a peace agreement, thereby adding a “business approach” to the existing approaches to foreign aid: The strategic approach and the humanitarian approach.

US President Donald Trump and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas (Photo: AFP)

World powers like the United States, Russia and China provide aid primarily as a way to implement strategic interests. During the Cold War, the US used foreign aid to support allies—like Israel—that were dealing with Soviet pressure. The Soviet Union did the same with its own allies, like Cuba. The US gave Israel and Egypt extensive aid to support the negotiations between them and preserve the peace agreements they had signed. This rationale continues to this very day. The military aid to Israel is given also in order to help it deal with any hostile regional coalition.

The rich countries in Western Europe and Scandinavia provide aid primarily for humanitarian reasons. They give donations without expecting anything in return. This aid is also rendered to poor and undeveloped countries, mainly in a bid to reduce the gaps between those countries and the rich world. Some of the rich countries dedicate a fixed percentage of their GDP to such humanitarian aid.

Since the signing of the Oslo Agreement, the Palestinians have received billions of dollars from the United States and Europe. The American aid is given mainly for strategic reasons, similar to the reasons behind the aid that was given to Egypt: Reinforcing and maintaining the peace process with Israel. The European aid is given mainly for humanitarian reasons, stemming from a feeling that the Palestinians are poor, miserable and depressed and need help.

When you give humanitarian aid, you don’t check what it is used for. So Europe avoided inquiring about the reasons for the Palestinian distress, like Hamas’ huge investments of hundreds of millions of dollars a year in the production of rockets and construction of attack tunnels at the expense of Gaza’s poor residents. No one checked how money from these humanitarian donations went to the Palestinian leaders’ private and secret bank accounts. Europe started asking questions only after receiving proof that the Palestinian Authority was using donations to pay respectable salaries to terrorists who had been convicted and jailed in Israel and to build public institutions and name them after terrorists.

Trump with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the World Economic Forum in Davos (Photo: Reuters)

In recent years, the US has been giving the PA some $500 million a year and giving UNWRA $250-400 million. Trump sees this aid as an investment which should yield a good return. Since the rationale for aiding the Palestinians is the existence of a peace process, and the Palestinians are refusing to negotiate, and since they held the same stance during most of Barack Obama’s years in office, the justification for helping them has been dropped. Trump was also offended by the Palestinian boycott of Vice President Mike Pence’s visit and the insults hurled at him by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and his people.

Trump’s business approach could challenge Israel too. Part of the American aid is dedicated to the training and maintenance of the Palestinians' security apparatuses. Freezing the aid could sabotage the PA’s security cooperation with Israel, worsen the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and perhaps even lead to a new wave of violence.

The US gives Israel about $3 billion a year in military aid. Trump said Israel would have to give something in return for his Jerusalem announcement and make significant concessions as part of a peace agreement. The business principle will provide him with a heavy leverage of pressure on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu when he presents his “ultimate deal.”

Prof. Eytan Gilboa is the director of the Center for International Communication at Bar-Ilan University and a senior research fellow at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Trump’s business approach to foreign aid : http://ift.tt/2GxsiN0

After hearing Sara Netanyahu recording, we can no longer say we didn’t know

There’s at least one good reason for airing the shocking recording of the prime minister’s wife. The reason is the growing number of employees at the Prime Minister’s Residence who were victims of the lady’s unhealthy behavior and whose testimonies have been rejected by the prime minister’s people as false claims, as lies, as political motives—as attempts to topple the prime minister.

Those weakened, silenced people, who were denounced as liars, deserve this golden piece of evidence in which the prime minister’s wife is finally exposed in her own voice, in an utterly disproportional response to something marginal, negligible, unimportant: A small, and even positive, paragraph in a Yedioth Ahronoth gossip column.

One can only imagine the lady’s responses to much more acute and stressful events she had to deal with, and the kind of recordings or testimonies we might have been exposed to had the witnesses to these incidents had the courage to share them with the public.

ara and Benjamin Netanyahu. Listening to the recording, one can’t avoid thinking about the atmosphere the prime minister is living and operating in (Photo: Reuters)

Her interlocutor in this case was veteran advisor Shaya Segal, who passed away about a year ago and who possessed evidence of endless examples of this behavior. If this is how the prime minister’s wife spoke to a veteran advisor, a strong and independent person who could have slammed the phone down at any given moment and disconnected himself from the Netanyahus, imagine what hard-working employees had to go through, knowing that their livelihood depended on her and that if they opened their mouth they would be sentenced to a life of humiliation and condemnation.

When Shaya Segal could no longer take the heavy burden, he shared the stories with his associates, but made them swear not to tell. He wanted to control the information he had, to use it at his own convenience. Had Segal, who was one of the closest people to Benjamin and Sara Netanyahu, shared everything he knew and heard, we may not have reached a situation in which we need evidence to prove that something wrong, very wrong, is taking place in the most important residence in this country.

And this isn’t the only recording in which the prime minister’s wife loses it. We have known about one of these recordings for years from former Sderot Mayor Eli Moyal. His partner, Monique Ben Melech, received a phone call from the prime minister’s wife during Operation Protective Edge and has yet to recover from that conversation. Those recordings may pop up too, just like stories of sexual harassment or assault victims surface after one woman complains.

One can only imagine the lady’s responses to much more acute and stressful events she had to deal with (Photo: Haim Zach/GPO)

Those who were exposed to the recording for the first time on Sunday (and it was impossible to avoid it) probably thought at first that it was just another crazy fit thrown by Inbal Or, the former real estate entrepreneur whose empire collapsed two years ago. The high voice, the intonation, the unclear sentences, the accusations, the delusion of grandeur. When it became clear that the speaker was Sara Netanyahu, even those who were familiar with the stories were shocked. Every decent person, who has been rejecting the stories about her abuse of workers, will find it difficult to remain untrue to himself and keep saying that it never happened.

But listening to the recording, one can’t avoid thinking about the atmosphere the prime minister is living in, operating in and handling the most important issues concerning our life and future.

And here’s another reason for publishing the recording: Even those who have been dismissing the rumors about Mrs. Netanyahu's condition, claiming that it’s unimportant gossip, will have trouble sticking to this argument after hearing it with their own ears.

So we can pity the prime minister, admire him for functioning under impossible conditions—but we must take into account that Netanyahu is a prime minister under an influence, especially as we know about his wife’s involvement in the most critical and fateful decisions concerning our life.

Now, after hearing it with our own ears, we can no longer say we didn’t know.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

After hearing Sara Netanyahu recording, we can no longer say we didn’t know : http://ift.tt/2EpmCE1

Lieberman’s explicit warning to Iran

The northern front is allegedly calm and no unusual incidents have been recorded there. But that’s only allegedly. Below the surface, the lava is boiling and tensions have reached a peak. How will Israel act against the precision-guided missile factories (https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4986772,00.html) Iran is building in Lebanon for Hezbollah?

Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman, who addressed this dilemma on Monday, explained that the construction of the factories could be prevented—and not just through bombings.

“I can clarify that we are determined to prevent Iran from entrenching itself in Syria. We are aware of missile manufacturing sites in Lebanon, and we are familiar with the people involved in the production of those missiles,” he said.

Iranian missile launch (file photo)

“When it comes to Lebanon, we are using all diplomatic leverages and other leverages to prevent the production of missiles, and the last thing I would want is to enter a third Lebanon war. I think we still have enough measures, enough possibilities, and we are exhausting all options. We are determined to prevent Lebanon from becoming one big factory for the production of precision-guided missiles.”

 

So how is Israel working to prevent it? At the first stage, it will likely exhaust the diplomatic measures with all players in the arena, led by the Russians. If that fails, which seems likely, Israel will probably find other creative ways to prevent Lebanon from turning into an Iranian missile factory. On Sunday, the IDF spokesperson published an unusual op-ed on Lebanese opposition websites, warning Hezbollah and Iran, the residents of southern Lebanon—who are sitting on a powder keg—and the international community that a future attack on Israel would lead to a dangerous flare-up.

On Monday, Lieberman essentially raised the threat level by issuing a clear, personal warning, without any hints, to the Iranians responsible for arming Lebanon, making it clear that from now on they were in Israel’s crosshairs.

Netanyahu and Putin in Moscow, Monday (Photo: Kobi Gideon/GPO)

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Monday was aimed at conveying a similar message. Accompanied by Military Intelligence Director Maj. Gen. Herzl Halevi, the Israeli delegation presented Putin with intelligence from Lebanon indicating that Iran is helping Hezbollah turn “stupid” missiles into precision-guided missiles for the purpose of hitting strategic targets in Israel.

The Iranians’ operational logic was the assumption that building the factories in Lebanon would make them immune to an Israeli strike, because—unlike in Syria—the IDF doesn’t strike in Lebanon. If it does strike as part of the unwritten equation vis-à-vis Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah might respond and bring about a flare-up.

Israel would rather have the international community intervene to thwart the construction of the factories. We have to wait and see how Putin responds. While his leverages of pressure vis-à-vis Iran may be limited compared to Syria, he still has the power to influence the Iranians to calm the winds of war blowing from Lebanon.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Lieberman’s explicit warning to Iran : http://ift.tt/2rP5OU5

Netanyahu's message to Putin: Iranian hegemony also threatens you

Almost every time Vladimir Putin convenes a conference or a meeting on the future of Syria, Benjamin Netanyahu arrives days beforehand to talk with the Russian president. This was the case at the end of last year in Sochi, as it was during the prime minister's visit on Monday ahead of another conference aimed at reaching a political arrangement that will end the civil war in Syria, set to take place Tuesday.

This is the way in which there the silent agreement between Putin and Netanyahu is being handled, with Israel given the status of a non-present participant in discussions about the future of its northern neighbor.

PM Netanyahu (L) meets with President Putin in Moscow, Russia (Photo: EPA)

It is legitimate to ask why Netanyahu needs to make the pilgrimage to the Kremlin whenever Russia initiates a move on Syria. After all, Putin is well aware of Israel's interests, headed by preventing Iranian entrenchment to its north and turning Syria into part of the northern front that Tehran is forming against the Jewish state. The reason for this is that the reality on the ground—including the process of establishing Iran's foothold in Syria—is constantly changing. It is similar to a kaleidoscope in which each image displayed is unlike the previous one. This is the case in Syria and this time also in Lebanon. The prime minister likely tried to convince Putin this time that an Iranian hegemony is not only threatening Israel, but seriously harms Russia's economic, security and political interests. All Moscow has achieved with its military involvement in Syria is now hangs in the balance and is threatened by Iran's moves, some of which are designed to usurp Russia to directly assert itself as the dominant and most influential force in Syria.

Netanyahu probably told Putin: "We have a common interest—not to allow Iran to send Iraqi Shi'ite militias to Syria, to build armament production factories and missile bases in Syria and Lebanon, and to be a partner with Syrian oil producing companies in its rich fields in the Deir ez-Zor district."

Netanyahu will apparently refrain from trying to convince Putin to demand amendments to the nuclear agreement with Iran.

Despite the fact that Netanyahu told journalists that he discussed with the president the need to amend the nuclear deal, he knows that the matter is a lost cause and that Russia will not be persuaded to cooperate with moves by Israel and US President Donald Trump to limit Iran's missile program. The prime minister knows that on this matter, Putin will listen to him only with half an ear, because Russia has no interest in entering into a confrontation with Iran on this issue.

Chief of Staff of Iranian Armed Forces Major General Mohammad Hossein Bagheri (center at front), on a visit to Syria

But Putin does not want Iran to destabilize the region, since that would risk damaging Russia's assets in Syria. That is why Netanyahu brought with him the head of Military Intelligence, Major-General Herzi Halevy, and not Mossad chief Yossi Cohen. Cohen is well acquainted with the issue, while Halevy is well versed in Iran's moves on the ground. One of them is the attempt to establish a network of factories in Lebanon in which sophisticated navigation mechanisms will be installed in Hezbollah's "stupid" rockets which will turn them into missiles with heavy warheads and excellent precision-strike capabilities. This effort is in its infancy, but it is estimated that Israel will not be able to let it develop, because it is the most serious threat it faces at the moment. Therefore, one can imagine that Netanyahu will tell Putin that if Iran does not stop building these industrial facilities for Hezbollah, Israel will consider destroying them even though they are on Lebanese soil. An Israeli attack, Netanyahu pobably explained to Putin, will inevitably lead to an escalation in the north, and an ensuing war will almost certainly spill over into Syria as well. Assad will then demand that the Russians protect him, and this could lead to a clash that no one wants between Russia and Israel.

A similar problem that could cause tension between Israel and Russia, and perhaps even cause a clash between their military forces, is the Shi'ite militias that Iran brings to Syria and Lebanon.

Here, too, Israel has set a red line whereby the consolidation of militias—mainly Iraqi and Syrian—near the Golan Heights or the Lebanese border, will draw an Israeli preventive action from which Russia will be indirectly harmed. It is reasonable to assume that the intelligence chief pointed out to Putin that the Iranians have already begun to establish a land corridor between Tehran and Damascus and Beirut, via the al-Qa'im crossing and the city of Abu Kamal on the Syrian-Iraqi border.

Shiite militias waving the Hezbollah flag in Syria

Shi'ite militias from Iraq to Syria are already pouring through this land corridor, and their members already number 20,000. Most of them take part in the fighting alongside the Assad army in northern Syria, but they may soon reach Lebanese territory and the Israel-Lebanon border at the Golan Heights.

Hezbollah's political takeover of the Lebanese government and the entire country is also bad news, not only for Israel but also for Russia, as it destabilizes the region and threatens the strategic assets currently possessed by Russia in the eastern Mediterranean basin. Netanyahu may stress to Putin that regardless of any future arrangement in Syria—Russia and Israel are in the same boat against Iran. They have the same interests that Russia should take into account, not as a favor for Israel but as a favor for itself. The head of Military Intelligence and the head of the National Security Council, Meir Ben-Shabat, was present to provide proof. It is important to note that in contrast to the public statements made by Putin and his Foreign Affairs Minister Sergey Lavrov, Russia and Israel have a kind of unwritten agreement that the two countries maintain. The guiding principle of the current relationship between Russia and Israel is "Do not harm my interests, and I will not harm yours."

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Netanyahu's message to Putin: Iranian hegemony also threatens you : http://ift.tt/2rTJtFg

Pence came to Israel to tick off his to-do list

Mike Pence had no idea he was such an admired leader until he arrived in Israel and was greeted as one, showered with praise for is friendship, his wisdom and his vision. The American vice president delivered greetings from the friends at the White House and brought together the United States and Israel in a way we have never seen in previous American administrations.

While Israel celebrated his short visit to Jerusalem with a mixture of extreme pleasure and excitement, it was hardly covered by the American media, apart from an occasional word or photo and a brief discussion of the “Western Wall rules,” which kept female journalists at the back of the vice president’s visit to the holy site while their male colleagues were given free access. This episode raised quite a few eyebrows and drew comparisons to backward regimes that practice sex segregation—before moving on to the Russia investigation.

Pence at the Western Wall. The visit was hardly covered by the American media (Photo: Reuters)

The probe into the Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential elections is expanding, and last week it was reported that Special Counsel Robert Mueller was about to summon President Donald Trump himself for questioning. Meanwhile, according to reports, Mueller’s people have already interviewed Attorney General Jeff Sessions and CIA Director Mike Pompeo.

Mueller would like to question Trump primarily on obstruction of justice issues. Did the American president ask James Comey, who served as FBI director before being fired by Trump, to drop the investigation against Mike Flynn, Trump’s former national security advisor? Comey addressed the issue in his Congress testimony, implying that the president had lied.

Trump claimed that Comey had asked to have dinner with him at the White House because he wanted to keep his job. Comey said, under oath, that it wasn’t true and refuted other comments made by Trump, which he had documented in memos that he distributed to his colleagues at the FBI in real time. In other words, Comey reported every conversation or meeting he had with Trump. Everything was documented.

Obstruction of justice is a serious thing. President Richard Nixon was forced to resign not because of the break-in at the Democratic National Committee (DNC) headquarters, but mainly because of the attempts to cover up the affair. Nixon was shown the way out because of a cover-up, and now Mueller could accuse Trump of obstruction of justice in the Russia affair.

Trump. Will the president be accused of obstruction of justice? (Photo: EPA)

The “Russiagate” investigation is stirring up the political establishment in Washington and overclouding the American president’s performance. And this is where Mike Pence steps in. If the investigation ends Trump’s political career, the vice president will take charge. So far, the investigation hasn’t led to any information requiring an impeachment process against Trump at Congress, and such information is unlikely to be found. At the moment, according to what has been revealed, there’s no indication that it’s going to happen. The question is how far will the Republican establishment go against the president if it turns out that he obstructed justice or lies or did both, after Mueller puts the cards—I mean, the evidence—on the table. The Republican establishment likely won’t do much against the president, unless the Republicans lose their majority in one of the Houses of Congress—or even in both, as some polls suggest—in the midterm elections, which will be held in less than a year from now. Such an event could wound Trump’s ego.

Senior Republican Party officials have been discussing the possibility that Trump would resign to prevent an impeachment over obstruction of justice and a painful political loss in the midterm elections. According to this imaginary scenario, Trump would tell the Republicans that he was leaving the White House because inferior people like them didn’t deserve to have a giant like him as their president.

The chance of such a scenario occurring is extremely low, considering the size of the president’s ego and his obsessive desire to show the world that he can do everything better than his predecessor, Barack Obama. But as long as Mueller’s investigation is ongoing, it’s unclear what other “bombs” he might drop on Washington’s political system. We’ll just have to wait and see.

Special Counselor Mueller. Have all his cards been revealed? (Photo: AP)

In any event, Mike Pence is unofficially warming up on the bench, just in case. Pence, a former Indiana governor, was pulled out of his dull career in national politics by Trump, and is at the closest position to perhaps replace the Republican president one day.

And this is where the liberal Democrats come into the picture. Some of them told me last week that the way they see it, considering America’s best interest, they would rather have Trump as president. They may see Trump as a blatant, racist and loud bully, but they definitely prefer him over the ultra-conservative Pence.

The Democrats consider the American vice president’s views unenlightened. Unlike Trump, however, he doesn’t change his views according to political needs. He actually has a proper ideology. Pence defines himself first and foremost as an evangelical, and only then as an American. He doesn’t believe in a woman’s right to her own body and is against abortion even if the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest. He has declared that he will never meet with a woman alone unless he has his wife with him, apparently for fear of being tempted by her and committing a sin.

Pence’s visit to Israel was like a dream come true matching his religious faith. He believes in Armageddon and in the revival of Jesus and in the role the Jews should play in it. He loves Israel for deep religious reasons, a love which horrifies many liberals, not just in the United States.

During Trump’s first year in office, there have often been reports of chaos in the place where the US and the world are supposed to be run from. Trump has been accused of being rude and ignorant and of offending minorities, foreigners and women. Pence is the exact opposite. He seems stately, levelheaded, calculated, a man who could have been an air conditioning engineer or a schoolteacher and just happened to find himself in politics. He doesn’t have the obsession to prove at any given moment that the world would stop moving without him. American liberals see the vice president as more dangerous than Trump, because unlike Trump, who has no ideology or proper world view, Pence has an ideology which terrifies half of the American people. Israeli officials didn’t make these distinctions during Pence’s visit, when he was applauded for announcing that the US embassy would move to Jerusalem by the end of the year. Israel’s peace seekers should have been concerned by the statements made during the vice president’s visit, as Pence essentially announced the end of the process, the end of the negotiations. Together, Trump and Pence put a lid on hope. The announcement of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital was perceived by the Palestinians as a slap in the face because it wasn’t coupled with a declaration that east Jerusalem would be the capital of the future Palestinian state.

Kushner. Failed to advance the peace process in the region (Photo: Reuters)

Just like there is no special ceremony to announce the end of democracy in a certain state, there is no special ceremony to announce the end of efforts for peace. But that’s exactly what the Trump administration did. It not only declared Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and announced the embassy move, it also dramatically cut US aid to Palestinian refugees. These two decisions have led to a suspension of ties between the American administration and the Palestinians. A senior American official said in a press briefing during Pence’s visit that there had been no direct contact between American government workers and their Palestinian counterparts since the day Trump recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. The line of communication between Washington and Ramallah is silent. This line was had always been warm with previous American administrations, even during the biggest crises and the most difficult disagreements. Trump took office with major promises to reach the “deal of the century” in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. A year later, he buried the deal before it even took off. Moreover, and that’s what half of the American people are scared of, the Republican president also buried the American ability to serve as an unbiased mediator in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a position it had held for decades in the eras of both Democratic and Republican presidents. When one country gives up its traditional leadership, there is no void left in the world. As soon as the US no longer fulfills its role as the world’s leader and is no longer perceived as a credible mediator, another entity will come along and grab hold of the leadership. Perhaps Germany, or maybe Russia. And when the US is no longer perceived as a credible mediator in the Middle East, it’s not only bad for America—it’s mostly bad for Israel. The only conclusion is that Trump isn’t interested in bringing about a deal, or can’t do it or doesn’t believe in it. He may have realized that he won’t gain any fame from this conflict, being used to deals that crown him as a “winner.” The Russian investigation is paralyzing the White House in several areas. The Middle East is just one of them. The president’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who was supposed to carry out the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations is neck-deep in the “Russiagate” investigation as well. Pence came to the Middle East to tick off his to-do list. He didn’t meet with the Palestinians because they refused. Trump made a lot of noise about the Middle East when he took office. He praised the components of the Saudi peace plan, but his unfamiliarity with the issue and its details led him to a dead end. After one year in office, the Middle East has never been further away from Washington’s heart. Trump promised a peace deal and has yet to deliver the goods. In such a reality, Pence’s visit to the Holy Land will mainly be remembered as a visit that never actually happened.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Pence came to Israel to tick off his to-do list : http://ift.tt/2DO6EGA

A new red line: IDF deterrence efforts reach Lebanon’s citizens

IDF Spokesperson Brigadier-General Ronen Manelis's op-ed, which was published Sunday morning in Lebanese and Arab websites, is a conscious and dramatic move. I can’t remember a similar act taking place in the past 50 years.

In fact, it’s the first time that the IDF appeals directly and officially to all of Lebanon’s citizens, urging them to come to their senses and stop Iran and Hezbollah from turning Lebanon and its citizens into hostages, while fatal decisions about their lives and welfare are being made in Tehran according to the ayatollah regime’s interests.

“These violations don’t threaten us,” Manelis wrote. “On the contrary, the difference between a violation that ends in a report to the UN and a violation that will lead to a security deterioration is, first and foremost, subject to an Israeli decision.” These words come as a sort of red line set by Israel, as it directly warns Lebanon of an Israeli attack.

Iranian flag at a Hezbollah procession (Photo: EPA)

Manelis appears to be appealing to Lebanon’s citizens over the heads of their prime minister and president, who are controlled by Hezbollah, in an unconventional way aimed at making it clear to them that they might suffer a disaster if they fail to come to their senses and work to stop the Iranian takeover of the Lebanese regime and Iran’s physical entrenchment in Lebanon.

He points to the fact that Iran is basically disregarding Lebanon’s sovereignty and gradually turning the country into a branch of the Revolutionary Guards, the Iraqi-Shiite militias operating at Iran’s service and the Iranian military industry.

As Lebanon’s residents seem undeterred by the disaster that the Iranians and their emissaries could inflict on them and on their country in case of a conflict with Israel, the IDF spokesperson is informing his Arab readers of the Israeli army’s growing strength in the past few years, to help them draw their own conclusions on what could happen to them. He is reminding the Lebanese that their situation today is relatively good compared to what could happen if a war breaks out.

The main purpose of the op-ed was to urge the Sunni and Christian opposition to take action, after Hezbollah managed to subdue even Saad Hariri, Lebanon’s Sunni prime minister, following the failed Saudi attempt to get Hariri to curb Hezbollah’s takeover of the Lebanese government and political system.

Hezbollah Secretary-General Nasrallah and Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif (Photo: Reuters)

Between the lines, the IDF spokesperson’s op-ed contains a sense of urgency that wasn’t present in previous messages from military and diplomatic Israeli sources that were directed at Lebanese ears.

Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Gadi Eisenkot conveyed a warning to Lebanon years ago, when he worded what was later known as “the Dahiya doctrine” in an interview to Yedioth Ahronoth. The essence of this doctrine is that the next time a wide-scale conflict erupts with Hezbollah, Israel would act in a destructive, “disproportional” manner, and the result would be similar to the Air Force bombing that razed the Dahiya quarter—which had served as a Hezbollah military center in Beirut—during the Second Lebanon War.

But this message, like other public and secret messages Israel has conveyed to Lebanon in recent years, wasn’t as detailed and wasn’t directly aimed at reaching the common Lebanese citizen.

IDF Spokesperson Brigadier-General Ronen Manelis (Photo: Motti Kimchi)

What led the IDF spokesperson to make such an unusual move at this time? One possibility is that the IDF detected willingness to receive Israeli messages in the Lebanese civilian arena and seized the opportunity in a creative manner. Another possibility is that the successful website of the Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories (COGAT), through which Maj. Gen. Yoav Mordechai has been speaking directly to Palestinians in Gaza and in the West Bank, led the army to the conclusion that a direct appeal to Lebanese citizens—both Shiites and non-Shiites—through the Internet and social media could prove to be as successful.

A third possibility is that the Israeli intelligence may have detected a significant negative development in Lebanon, increasing the threat to Israel and the possibility of an escalation with Lebanon. There may have been a need for a move that would draw the attention of Lebanon’s citizens, of Israel’s citizens, of the world powers, of the Arab regimes in the region and of the global public opinion to the possibility of an imminent escalation and its results.

There are additional signs that Israel has been taking unusual deterrence and warning measures recently, although this time it may also be aimed at serving as media background for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's meeting Monday with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Iran. Russia has a strong interest in preventing an escalation in Syria and Lebanon at this time. An escalation in the northern arena could directly affect Moscow’s ability to implement the achievements it has recorded in Syria and in the Middle East in general in the past few years.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

A new red line: IDF deterrence efforts reach Lebanon’s citizens : http://ift.tt/2niVDT0

Under Law and Justice party, Poland is becoming a darker place by the day

[unable to retrieve full-text content]

Op-ed: The newly passed Polish legislation fits into the general trend of the country’s nationalist-Catholic-conservative regime, which is making an effort to completely rewrite the history of the German occupation and the Holocaust in Poland in a variety of ways, while immensely exaggerating the scale of the rescue of Jews by Poles. Under Law and Justice party, Poland is becoming a darker place by the day : http://ift.tt/2Gt4BW3

Netanyahu the likely winner in peace talks

The joint press conference held between President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu last week in Davos on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum revealed the true positions that they are seeking to conceal, including from one another. It was also further indication that Netanyahu is likely to come out of this peace process on top and possibly convince the president to announce publicly the complete overhaul of the notion of a two-state solution.

Despite the strong relations Israel is currently enjoying with the US and the widespread belief that a perfect convergence of views has taken shape between Netanyahu and Trump, particularly as they pertain to the Middle East, Trump has taken a series of measures designed to have Israel sing his praises today, and keep silent tomorrow, if the peace negotiations ever do revive.

If public declarations are anything to go by, Netanyahu has likely laid out before Trump a peace proposal that he believes Israel could live with and also be deemed acceptable to the latter––a plan that likely falls short of the establishment of a Palestinian state, regardless of the precise boundaries.

  

Whether Netanyahu could ever sell the idea to the Israeli public and its politicians is another matter, but in truth, he has no intention of ever having to get to that point, because the tactics he is employing are designed to overturn the board before the political game has concluded. Trump and Netanyahu are playing it from different corners of the same side of the board, but the conclusion is likely to see a victorious Netanyahu, a vexed Trump and a vanquished Mahmoud Abbas.

PM Netanyahu and President Trump in Davos (Photo: Reuters)

When Trump first entered the White House, it could have gone either way for Israel. His capricious nature made it impossible to predict whether or not the the new president’s embrace observers were expecting Netanyahu to receive would eventually tighten into a bear hug by a president who could ostensibly have become rapidly frustrated with the Israeli premier’s political maneuvers.

Impressive to some though Netanyahu’s political prowess may be, it could have been interpreted as stonewalling by the non-nonsense president and an attempt to treat him like a fool.

But for now at least, it is in Trump’s best interest to ingratiate himself with Netanyahu so that when the time to seek Israeli compromise does finally come, even if it falls slightly outside the parameters Netanyahu has already privately set, the Israeli premier will hardly be able to refuse the president.

Trump has succeeded in getting Netanyahu to praise him for a recognition of Jerusalem which, to all intents and purposes, changes very little. Purely symbolic and certainly a step in the right direction, the declaration deliberately made no mention of eastern Jerusalem, and it was made abundantly clear through repeated statements by administration officials that final status issues and exact borders of Jerusalem have certainly not been determined. Despite Trump’s comments in Davos that he had “taken Jerusalem off the table,” he knows perfectly well that Jerusalem remains firmly on the table.

When asked in Davos whether east Jerusalem can be a capital of a Palestinian state, Trump simply ignored the question. Answering another reporter, he said “Israel will pay for that (Jerusalem). Look, Israel, something’s going to happen. They’ll do something that’s going to be a very good thing. But they want to make peace and I hope the Palestinians want to make peace.”

With Netanyahu seemingly lured into a cradle of security from Trump’s perspective by his pro-Israel statements, his nominal declaration that essentially changes only one fact on the ground, namely the relocation of the US Embassy to western Jerusalem, and Israel’s unquestionable loyalty, Trump has Israel––previously on the defense with Obama––pacified. Now, he’s gearing up to solicit concessions from Israel.

To do that, he must now shift his focus to Ramallah, and desperately try and force Abbas to the negotiation table without publicly assuring him of his belief that he can lean on Netanyahu. Even if such assurances were given privately, it will not suffice to alter Abbas’s position

This is because the Palestinian leader, like his predecessors, never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity, to quote Abbas Eban. Like all Palestinian leaders, he marches to the beat of the Arab street. Returning to the negotiation table at this point would be imprudent since it would be interpreted, albeit incorrectly, as capitulation to Israel and the US and a sure step towards political suicide. 

Trump, therefore, in his bid to strike the “ultimate deal” and force Abbas to sit down and talk, is adopting strategies designed to back him into a corner. During his electoral campaign, Trump repeatedly criticized Obama’s delegation for not threatening to walk away from the table during the Iran nuclear deal negotiations. It was simply a phrase that he repeated as he took aim at the agreement, but it is clearly a guiding principle that now similarly constitutes a cornerstone of his strategy to ameliorate Abbas’s intransigence.

With each overture to Abbas, Trump “ups the ante” and threatens with measures that will eventually culminate in his departure from the entire peace process, which will no doubt be squarely followed by Israel.

First, reports surface that he may withhold millions of dollars from organizations providing aid to Palestinians. Then he announces that money will be withheld, and then he underscores his point at Davos.

“That money’s on the table and not going to them unless they sit down and negotiate peace because I can tell you, Israel does want to make peace and they’re going to have to want to make peace, or we’re going to have nothing to do with it any longer,” Trump said. 

Here is where Netanyahu’s political mastery comes to the fore and where it becomes clear that in this game, it is he who comprehensively grasps “the art of the deal.”

He understands both Trump’s personality and he has had—for years now—Abbas and the Palestinian political climate “sussed.”

Netanyahu is not a rookie and he is perfectly aware why Trump never mentioned east Jerusalem in his December declaration. He knows that in Trump’s eyes, it is still on the table.

But what he also understands, and has been saying for years, is that Mahmoud Abbas, simply does not want a two-state solution, especially not one that would deprive either him of his successor of the ability to finish unsettled business at a later date with the Palestinians’ new sandwiched neighbor, Israel. 

For Netanyahu, this is of course a gamble. Abbas could always disappoint him and prove himself to be a dove after all. However, in Netanyahu’s opinion, this isn’t a realistic possibility and when Abbas does completely fall into the trap laid by his own obstinacy, which is easily exploited by Netanyahu’s political dexterity, the Israeli prime minister will have successfully turned Trump’s attention from working to achieve the ultimate deal, to his bitterness over the affront and disrespect shown by Abbas, now the ultimate loser in the game. 

Palestinian Authority Presidsent Mahmoud Abbas (Photo: Reuters)

For Trump, he has Netanyahu in a quiet corner where he believes he can depend on him when the time is right. He also has Abbas on the ropes where he wants him, and he is counting down before he calls it over.

  

Abbas is attempting to placate the Arab street and portray himself as the leader capable of resisting “Zionist-American” pressure.

Netanyahu, however, is simply taking a seat in his corner and rejoicing as he watches Trump grow increasingly frustrated and insulted by Abbas.

  

If Abbas does keep this up––his shunning of Vice President Mike Pence does not augur well for a sudden change of position––the president will walk, the money will go and Netanyahu will have presented a plan for peace to the White House that he banked on never having to sell to the Israeli Right.

  

This would finally enable Netanyahu to force open the way for a complete revision of the old formula for peace and deliver a coup de grâce against the two-state solution.

  

Many believe, including the current author, that Netanyahu has never wanted a two-state solution. He wants to banish the term from political discourse and he also wants a US administration to abandon the idea, even though he isn’t quite in a position to say it openly. Not yet, at least. 

Nevertheless, he knows that Abbas’s repeated affronts to Trump and refusal to come to the negotiating table may just send him over the edge, nudging the president into making the plunge he—Mr. Netanyahu—has long been waiting for, and dragging with him the concept of the two-state solution to its final demise. 

Following that, Israel and the US will further consolidate relations under the current administration and with the failures of tried and tested doctrines, radically revised ones will have to be drawn up, including the former businessman possibly issuing a carte blanche to Israel for construction in the territories.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Netanyahu the likely winner in peace talks : http://ift.tt/2rKoTqN

Despite budget approval, coalition’s work is paralyzed

On the surface, the approval of the 2019 state budget only several days into 2018, should mark a long-term calm in the coalition. But reality, and the past, prove otherwise.

On a day-to-day basis, despite the outward appearance of satisfaction in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's coalition after the government approved the budget and after Finance Minister Moshe Kahlon declared that he won’t quit the government after the police submit their recommendations in the prime minister’s investigations, things are completely paralyzed.

Netanyahu (R) and Kahlon. In the past 30 years or so, governments were never brought down over a budget (Photo: Alex Kolomoisky)

The Ministerial Committee for legislation is barely functioning for the second week in a row, and the coalition is experiencing difficulties in Knesset votes. Everything is difficult, and the first person to admit that is new Coalition Chairman David Amsalem, who received a very difficult inheritance from Knesset Member David Bitan after the latter got into trouble with the law.

From a historical aspect as well, the fact that the budget was approved does not necessarily point to a future state of calm. Unlike what some may believe, the state budget is hardly an indication of the government’s stability. In the past 30 years or so, governments haven’t been brought down over a budget. The previous government, in case you’ve forgotten, came to its end after approving a budget, which even made it through its first reading at the Knesset.

The person who pushed for the approval of the 2019 budget wasn’t Netanyahu; it was Kahlon. The Kulanu leader’s political instincts led him to pass the budget quickly in a bid to convey political stability ahead of the police recommendations on Netanyahu, because Netanyahu is the only person more concerned about these recommendations than Kahlon.

Coalition Chairman David Amsalem. Hard work ahead (Photo: Yoav Dudkevitch))

But the coalition isn’t the only place with a fictitious calm. A quiet debate has been held in the Labor Party recently, below the surface, over the possibility of replacing Avi Gabby if he keeps declining in the polls. There are some people in the Labor Party who, quite unsurprisingly, are tensely waiting for an opportunity for another political round.

Gabbay’s problem and the erosion it had caused, Labor sources say, has to do with a lack of strategy. As the public agenda concerning the Shabbat laws and corruption has played into the hands of Yesh Atid leader Yair Lapid, Gabbay remains with no card to play.

The ultra-Orthodox parties’ celebrations over the marvelous achievements they have brought their public bolster Lapid’s “base.”

Furthermore, Lapid’s party was joined last week by a former deputy shin Bet chief, Ram Ben Barak, in the middle of a crisis with a former Shin Bet director, MK Yaakov Peri.

Gabbay (R) and Lapid. Haredi achievements have bolstered the Yesh Atid leader’s ‘base’ (Photo: Yoav Dudkevitch)

The fact that Lapid is growing stronger at Gabbay’s expense is bad news for Netanyahu too, as the prime minister would rather see the votes being split between his two rivals in a more balanced manner.

But in this whole political imbroglio, one good thing did happen last week—at least as far as our politicians are concerned. Wouldn’t you like to sit down with all your colleagues once a year and decide together to raise your salary by NIS 5,000? Well, this is exactly how things are done in a certain workplace. It’s called the Knesset.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Despite budget approval, coalition’s work is paralyzed : http://ift.tt/2nhvkwy

The Israeli heroes who thwarted attempts on Arafat’s life

The continuous attempts to kill Yasser Arafat are an affair that deserve a book of its own and stems from a double Israeli perception: First of all, that Israel must do everything, absolutely everything, to avoid long wars; to delay the next war and go to war “only when the sword is upon the neck,” as late Mossad Director Meir Dagan said. Instead of wars, there is a need for focused, covert operations deep within enemy territory.

Second, because the course of history can be changed by assassinating leaders. Meir Dagan told me so explicitly: “I thought that liquidating him would have changed the course of history. Arafat was not only a Palestinian leader, but a kind of founding father of the Palestinian nation. Killing him would unleash a large part of the internal conflicts inside the PLO and significantly hinder its capability to make any strategic decisions from then on.”

Arafat, 1987 (Photo: AP)

But beyond killing Arafat, there was the issue of hurting innocent people around him. And that is, in my opinion, the most important point in this entire story. When Yehoshua Sagi, head of the Military Intelligence Directorate, heard in early 1982 that Israel was going to kill Arafat and all his assistants in a huge explosion, which might affect innocent people, he went to Deputy Defense Minister Mordechai Tzipori, Ariel Sharon’s rival, and convinced him to go to Prime Minister Menachem Begin, his former boss from the Irgun underground organization, and persuade him to call off the operation.

During the war, Lieutenant-Colonel Uzi Dayan took command of the Salt Fish task force, which went to besieged Beirut to trace Arafat and provide the Air Force with his locations for the purpose of a bombing. Uzi Dayan was just as hesitant: “Arafat was saved by two things—His interminable good luck and me. I thought Arafat was a legitimate target but not one which justifies every mean. If I saw it involved the killing of many civilians, even if we knew Arafat was there, I didn’t agree to let them go ahead with the bombing. Raful (Rafael Eitan, the chief of staff) used to blow up with anger. He’d call me up and say: ‘I understand you have information on such and such a place. Why aren’t the planes in the air?!’ I replied that it was impossible because there were a lot of people around. Raful said: ‘Forget about it. I’ll take responsibility for it.’ I wasn’t prepared to allow it. Raful would not teach me the ethics of war.

“At a later stage, the chief of staff reminded me that I didn’t have the authority to decide whether or not to drop a bomb. All I had to do was to report when the target was ripe from an intelligence point of view. So from that point on, each time we knew that bombing would lead to massive civilian casualties, we reported that the target wasn’t ripe from an intelligence angle.”

Sharon, weeks before his passing

After the war, when Sharon, who was so eager to kill Arafat “the dog,” instructed the Air Force to shoot down planes carrying the Palestinian leader, a group of IAF officers decided it simply wouldn’t happen.

“I went to see Eitan,” says Aviem Sella. “I told him: ‘Chief of staff, we do not intend to carry this out. It simply will not happen. I understand that the minister of defense is dominant here. No one dares to stand up to him, and therefore we will make it technically impossible.’ Raful looked at me and never said anything. I took his silence as consent.”

Each time a plane carrying Arafat was detected, Sella initiated a series of actions that made the operation impossible. At the same time, Sharon got into trouble with the commission of inquiry appointed to investigate the Christian massacre of Palestinians in the Sabra neighborhood and Shatila refugee camp in Lebanon, and he got distracted from the operation, “which faded away until it was completely called off.”

The bottom line is that this is a story of ethics of combat and maintaining battle morals. Raful and Sharon’s (and Begin’s too, according to Sharon’s military secretary, Oded Shamir) strong desire—and that’s an understatement—to kill Arafat at all costs was countered by junior and senior officers who stood up and—either through words or through action—prevented operations that had the potential of putting innocent lives at risk. David Ivry, Uzi Dayan, Aviem Sella, Amos Gilboa and others are the heroes of this affair.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

The Israeli heroes who thwarted attempts on Arafat’s life : http://ift.tt/2nggRRG

Iranian drama: Khamenei taking on Revolutionary Guards?

The Iranian defense minister, General Amir Hatami, said in an interview that Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei had agreed that the army and Revolutionary Guards must start privatizing their businesses and assets.

This statement, worded in dry bureaucratic language, contains a major drama. This drama is only in its initial stages, and the real tests for its implementation are difficult and still far away, but this statement in itself points to a possible deep change in the Iranian leadership’s most senior ranks.

The Iranian Revolutionary Guards. Took the conservatives' side (Photo: EPA)

The Islamic Republic of Iran believes in duplications. Each important institution or role has two versions, two people or two bodies performing it. There is a “supreme leader” and there is a “president”; there is the house of parliament—elected in the polls—and there is a higher house, which is actually in charge. The duplications are an expression of a world view that sees the best solution for political problems as one based on mediation. When two sides clash, which is what happens by definition in cases of duplication, a third side will come along and mediate a solution based on a compromise. Such a solution will always be better than a zero-sum game, in which one side stands to gain everything and the other side stands to lose everything.

Supreme leader Ali Khamenei (Photo: Reuters)

This approach stems from the logic of a religious community, the logic which guided the Islamic Republic’s founders. In such a community, there are always radicals and moderates, and the relations between them can’t end with an absolute victory of one side over the other. Mediation is the most important tool in an Orthodox communal society, which can only tolerate a change that is organic, slow and ongoing.

The Iranian Revolutionary Guards, which were established shortly after the Islamic Republic in 1980, were supposed to be part of this balance. The professional Iranian army was supposed to represent the “pure” interests of routine security. The Revolutionary Guards, meanwhile, were in charge of keeping the revolution—and the revolutionary leadership—alive. The Revolutionary Guards’ senior command is appointed by and directly connected to senior politicians in Iran.

Reality was different. After a decade of struggles, the Islamic Republic of Iran turned to entrenchment and expansion. Once the need to win an existential war no longer united the different voices, tensions were created between those who sought to continue the battle and resistance and those who wanted to lower the fortified walls.

(Photo: EPA)

The Revolutionary Guards, a body which was created to defend the “Islamic revolution,” found it easy to identify with the conservative and reclusive side. The Revolutionary Guards took a stand in the dispute. They were no longer a national body, but a self-serving body.

 

The Revolutionary Guards’ side, the conservative side, gained huge operational power. One of the things the conservatives took over were the country’s financial activity centers.

The Iranian economy is complicated and complex. It lacks transparency and is largely made up of partly private funds controlled by senior religious clerics and their associates. The Revolutionary Guards joined the party through their conservative patrons and quickly became the country’s strongest financial organization. They run the country’s largest construction and infrastructure companies and are involved in a wide variety of governmental corporations, factories and foundations. In addition, the Revolutionary Guards operate large parts of Iran’s “black” economy—from smuggling to inflated contracts for the execution of public work.

The Revolutionary Guards’ strength served as an ongoing indication that the religious logic guiding the Islamic Republic’s founders was growing weaker. The corruption and aggression bothered many citizens, who wished to change the Iranian regime from the inside without bringing it down. Iranian President Hassan Rouhani was elected in 2013 on the platform of a determined internal struggle for improvement and moderation.

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani with the Revolutionary Guards commanders (Photo: EPA)

The economic reforms proposed by Rouhani were aimed at restoring transparency and supervision to the Iranian economy and eliminating the black economy that was promoted and symbolized by the Revolutionary Guards. Rouhani has been fighting the Guards’ financial power with all his might, but up until now the supreme leader avoided speaking publicly in favor of reducing the Guards’ power. The defense minister’s comment on a privatization of the Guards’ assets and businesses reflects a possible deep and significant change.

Anti-Regime protest. The corruption and aggression bothered many citizens, who wished to change the Iranian regime from the inside (Photo: AFP)

Such a privatization will provide the Iranian middle class with financial power and political influence, giving it the option to purchase businesses and assets. The middle class clearly supports President Rouhani and his moderate orthodoxy. The protests that rocked Iran in recent weeks were against the corruption of the “regime,” but were mainly directed at the Revolutionary Guards and the religious clerics who support them. The leader’s willingness to consider changing the current situation and reducing the Guards’ power indicates he is beginning to understand that the internal battle in Iran has been decided. The Islamic Republic will have no right to exist if it ignores the middle class’ desires and aspirations, and especially the desire for welfare, development and a focus on internally improving the situation in Iran.

Dr. Ori Goldberg, an expert on political theology in the Shiite world, teaches at the Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya and serves as a research fellow at the Forum for Regional Thinking.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Iranian drama: Khamenei taking on Revolutionary Guards? : http://ift.tt/2BuGrqu

Netanyahu has become the new Peres

A popular Israeli leader is greeted with hugs at the World Economic Forum in Davos, as he runs from one meeting to another with the world’s important leaders and stars in cocktail parties with the rich and famous. Sounds familiar? Of course.

This time, however, it isn’t former President Shimon Peres, who was a frequent guest of the international forum, but rather the person who replaced him as the Israeli sensation there: Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Netanyahu with German Chancellor Angela Merkel. The problem is the message he is bringing to these meetings (Photo: Amos Ben Gershom/GPO)

A moment before leaving for Davos, Netanyahu boasted that he was going to meet with more than 10 world leaders. Granted, he has a lot to be proud of: Not everyone gets to meet the German chancellor, the French president and—of course—the American president. The problem is the message he is carrying with him there. Because ironically, and even absurdly, the man who slammed Peres for years for being out of touch with reality seems to be suffering now from the exact same disease.

The purpose of his participation in the forum is clear: “I will advance the standing of Israel which has already taken shape as a global technological power,” Netanyahu promised (alongside his plan to try, once again, to change the nuclear agreement). To take advantage of the Israeli startup nation’s technological reputation to tighten diplomatic ties, just like he did in his recent (successful) visits to India and China. He believes that marketing Israeli knowledge in the war on terror and innovation could yield diplomatic achievements and divert attention from the stalemate with the Palestinians, or even get the world to forget about it.

Netanyahu with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau (Photo: Amos Ben Gershom, GPO)

But by doing so, Netanyahu is demonstrating the same naiveté of which he often accuses his left-wing rivals. Because just like Peres spoke about “a new Middle East” while the old Middle East was on fire—and Netanyahu didn’t hesitate to tease him about it in the last elections—the prime minister is talking about economic opportunities while the entire world is insisting on solving political problems.

As the painful condemnation of US President Donald Trump’s Jerusalem announcement at the UN General Assembly proved, there is hardly any influential country willing to recognize the Israeli sovereignty in Judea and Samaria. And with all due respect to world powers like Honduras, Togo and Micronesia, which supported us, Narendra Modi’s hugs and handshakes with Vladimir Putin didn’t help: At the moment of truth, India, Russia and China voted against Israel.

The late President Peres at the World Economic Forum in Davos in 2014 (Photo: Reuters)

And what about the United States? Well, don’t let the vice president’s fair hair and white smile blind you: Mike Pence is the old America. Surveys measuring the American public opinion on Israel in recent years have revealed two consistent findings, yet people here only like to talk about one of them.

The first finding is that more Americans support Israel than the Palestinians. That’s nice. The problem is with the second finding. A breakdown of that support reveals a troubling phenomenon: Under the age of 50, the support drops; under the age of 30, it plummets. This is something every Israeli should lose sleep over. Because even if Trump keeps tolerating Israel’s control of the Palestinians, his successors likely won’t.

Just like the “territories for peace” policy didn’t yield the result Israel wanted as part of the Oslo Agreements, Netanyahu's policy to advance “territories for business”—in other words, to try to legitimize the occupation in exchange for commerce with Israel—will lead to failure. As far as the international community is concerned, the economic channel isn’t an alternative to the diplomatic channel. And no matter how high he climbs up the Alps, Netanyahu won’t be able to escape this reality.

Dr. Yoav Fromer teaches politics and history at Tel Aviv University.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Netanyahu has become the new Peres : http://ift.tt/2ngFxIL