WarSclerotic

Likud sources say elections will be called for September 4 | The Times of Israel.

September 4 is emerging as the most likely date for upcoming Knesset elections, sources in the ruling Likud party confirmed Tuesday morning.

The date is later than Likud and its coalition partner Yisrael Beiteinu had originally wanted, according to media reports which named August 14 as both parties’ preferred date.

Sources in the party said the date was not final and would likely be decided on next week when Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu makes a final decision on whether to call early elections. Elections are currently scheduled for early 2013.

Likud is expected to introduce a bill to dissolve the current Knesset and call for general elections in the coming days or weeks, in a move widely seen as a stratagem to consolidate power. Recent polls have shown Netanyahu, the Likud, and the right-wing coalition maintaining control of the Knesset for another four years if early elections are called.

The September 4 date is before Rosh Hashana and significantly earlier than potential dates floated by many of the political parties, according to a Maariv report on Monday. Although Labor favors the September date, the smaller parties all favor elections in mid-late August or early November.

Kadima, currently the largest party in the Knesset, reportedly preferred a date in October, after the holidays.

Debating Diskin – JPost – Opinion – Editorials.

By JPOST EDITORIAL

04/30/2012 23:46

Diskin’s criticism, essentially a reiteration of a line taken by Dagan after he stepped down, has shaken up the political establishment.

Photo: Sivan Faraj

In recent days, former Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency) director Yuval Diskin has been remarkably and aggressively outspoken. Comparing them to the biblical prophet Zachariah, he declared Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak to be guided by “messianic” impulses. He said the two were lying about the projected effectiveness of an Israeli strike on Iran, arguing instead that such an attack would only speed up Iran’s push for nuclear weapons. Noting “I know what’s going on in this field up close,” Diskin accused the present government of being insincere when claiming to be interested in reaching a peace deal with the Palestinians.

Controversy continued on Sunday at The Jerusalem Post Conference in New York City when former Mossad chief Meir Dagan sparred with Environmental Protection Minister Gilad Erdan over Diskin’s comments.

Understandably, Diskin’s criticism – essentially a reiteration of a line taken publicly by Dagan after he stepped down as head of the Mossad last summer – has shaken up the political establishment.

Two seasoned military commanders and counterterrorism experts with impeccable credentials, privy to Israel’s most guarded secrets, have taken upon themselves to fight the predominant narrative put forward by the government vis-à-vis Iran and the Palestinians.

Both Dagan and Diskin, like any other serious leader interested in having an impact, are political animals. They understand the impact of their words. But it would be disingenuous to blame these two of acting solely in the name of narrow interests considering that during the long years in which they held their respective official positions, Diskin and Dagan remained out of the limelight and devoted themselves exclusively to defending their country.

With their long years of service behind them, the two apparently feel morally impelled to speak out against what they perceive to be existential dangers.

Unfortunately, instead of addressing the substance of Diskin’s and Dagan’s legitimate criticisms, the prime minister and the defense minister have attempted to rebuff them with personal jabs. Diskin is said to be motivated by bitterness for being passed over for the position he wanted, the head of the Mossad. Diskin and Dagan have been attacked by sources close to the prime minister for behaving “irresponsibly.”

BUT PERHAPS the most distasteful and undemocratic response to Diskin’s and Dagan’s outspokenness has been a legislative initiative that, if passed, would severely restrict the open debate and criticism that characterizes Israeli political discourse.

Dubbed the “Dagan Law,” the legislative initiative would prevent former security officials from making public comments on matters related to their field of expertise without authorization from the Defense Ministry. First drafted last year, the bill has garnered new interest in the aftermath of Diskin’s comments. MKs such as Miri Regev (Kadima), who drafted the original bill, and Danny Danon (Likud), among others, are pushing to get the Dagan Law passed. They claim to be out to defend Israel from the potential danger caused by irresponsible comments made by the likes of Dagan and Diskin.

But in actuality, stifling the free exchange of ideas and criticism among those most qualified to express these ideas and criticism is the real danger to Israel’s security.

After all, it was precisely the lack of independent thinking in the military establishment that created a collective misconception and led to Israel’s unpreparedness for the Yom Kippur War. Indeed, what makes robustly democratic, open societies so much stronger than their autocratic counterparts is their ability to exercise self-criticism, learn from mistakes and choose leaders in light of conclusions reached through open debate. If Dagan and Diskin, based on their deep familiarity with our military capabilities and high-level decision-making process, believe that it would be unwise for Israel to single-handedly attack Iran or that not enough is being done to advance peace with the Palestinians, not only should they have the right to say so; they have a moral obligation.

If critics of Dagan and Diskin think the two have given away national secrets, then they should call for them to be tried for espionage in accordance with the law. And if they think Dagan’s and Diskin’s analyses are wrong, then they should explain why. But the attempt to use legislation to silence men with many merits and priceless experience is unfair, undemocratic and dangerous.

Tehran’s calculated approach shows diplomacy can still be effective, former prime minister tells CNN at JPost Conference.

Iran appears to exercise a thoughtful and calculated approach to its nuclear program, which shows that diplomacy can still be effective, former prime minister Ehud Olmert told CNN in a brief video interview published on its website ahead of a more lengthy one due to air in the US Monday night.

His comments come in the aftermath of statements he made Sunday at The Jerusalem Post conference in New York against rushing to launch a military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Barak: Israel cannot afford to b… JPost – Iranian Threat – News.

By JPOST.COM STAFF

05/01/2012 06:22

Defense minister says that he has little confidence that negotiations will convince Iran to give up seeking nukes, implies Diskin and other critics sticking their heads in sand, ignoring reality.

Photo: Ariel Harmoni/Defense Ministry

Defense Minister Ehud Barak said Monday that Israel cannot afford to be duped by Iranian tricks and that he had little confidence that negotiations between Iran and world powers would succeed in convincing Iran to give up trying to produce nuclear weapons, at a meeting of the Foreign Press Association in Jerusalem.

Even though Barak recognized that international sanctions imposed on Iran to date were having an impact on Iran’s behavior, he was not hopeful about the ultimate outcome of talks.

“Today sanctions are stronger than ever. They’ve forced the Iranians to take note, to sit down and to talk,” he told the assembled journalists.

However, despite any tactical progress, Barak said that he was not filled “with confidence. I may sound pessimistic but the state of Israel cannot afford to be duped.”

Iran is in the midst of negotiations with six world powers, known as the P5+1 grouping of diplomats from the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany. The first round of talks with Iran was in Istanbul on April 14. A second round of talks is scheduled for May 23 in Baghdad.

“They say a pessimist is merely an optimist with experience,” he quipped.

Barak also, for the first time, addressed criticism last weekend from former Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency)  head Yuval Diskin.

The defense minister implied that Diskin and other politicians who criticized him were sticking their heads in the sand and ignoring, as he perceives, the cold truth of the danger that Iran poses.

Barak Says All Israeli Options Remain Open on Iran – NYTimes.com

Marco Longari/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

“Israel cannot afford to be duped,” Defense Minister Ehud Barak said Monday while discussing international tensions involving Iran’s nuclear program.

By JODI RUDOREN

JERUSALEM — The Israeli defense minister, Ehud Barak, said Monday night that the international talks on the Iranian nuclear program do “not fill me with confidence,” reiterating his hard-line position about all options — including an independent Israeli attack — remaining on the table, despite mounting criticism from the security establishment here and a growing sense abroad that a diplomatic solution may be possible.

“They say in the Middle East a pessimist is simply an optimist with experience,” Mr. Barak said in a speech to about 100 members of the Foreign Press Association at the King David Hotel. Acknowledging that a military strike was “not simple” and would be “complicated by certain risks,” he said that a “radical Islamic Republic of Iran with nuclear weapons would be far more dangerous both for the region and, indeed, the whole world.”

“Israel cannot afford to be duped,” he added. “The No. 1 responsibility is to ensure that our fate will remain firmly in our own hands.”

Mr. Barak spoke days after his former internal security chief issued a blistering attack of him and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, part of a growing chorus of criticism of their hawkish stance that the defense minister dismissed as “politically motivated” and coming from people who “prefer to bury their heads in the sand.” Though many here, as in Washington, are increasingly confident that Israel will not strike Iran this year, Mr. Barak and Mr. Netanyahu seem reluctant to abandon their hawkish narrative.

And one reason is they believe their tough words are working.

“In a way, it is paying off: they achieved the awakening of the international community and the involvement of the United States,” explained Yossi Melman, whose history of the Israeli intelligence community, “Spies Against Armageddon,” is scheduled for publication in two months. “It’s difficult to sense whether it’s manipulation, or part of it is psychological warfare,” Mr. Melman added. “I think he really genuinely believes in what he says.”

The tough talk makes Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Barak seem increasingly isolated in the international arena, where predictions of war in the near future have all but disappeared amid a focus on the negotiations scheduled to continue in Baghdad this month. American officials believe the looming threat of tighter sanctions July 1 has made the Iranians take the talks more seriously, and that the government has begun to prepare the people for a deal.

In Israel, the dissent that burst into public view in recent days has been simmering here for some time, so it may actually have less of an effect.

A poll conducted last week by Smith Research for The Jerusalem Post showed that fewer than half of Israelis back an independent strike on Iran. But about half disagreed with the harsh critique of Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Barak by Yuval Diskin, who retired last May as head of Shin Bet, Israel’s equivalent of the F.B.I.,  according to a poll conducted by Dahaf Institute.

Other recent surveys show that about three-quarters consider a nuclear Iran an existential threat, and almost as many support a strike with American backing. Mr. Netanyahu’s popularity is strong, with polls showing his Likud Party would pick up seats in the next election, which is now expected in late summer or early fall.

“Israelis like the hawkish rhetoric,” said Mina Zemach, director of the Dahaf Polling Institute. “Netanyahu is very strong now. What the public hopes is that Netanyahu prepares us just in case, if no one will stop Iran, then we have to attack.”

Several political and security experts said that they did not expect to see a change in policy or tone from Mr. Netanyahu or Mr. Barak, but that the move to elections indicates that they do not believe a strike is imminent. And campaign season is likely to push the issue aside in favor of domestic concerns.

“The minute we have a date set for elections, you have to assume that Bibi and Barak are not going to risk their electoral chances by taking some dramatic military initiative which could go wrong,” said Yossi Alpher, a strategic analyst who is an editor of BitterLemons.net, a Web site about the Middle East. “The Palestinian issue and Iran are not the first issues. This is not what preoccupies the public.”

Iran insists that its nuclear program is for civilian purposes, but Israel says that Tehran must be prevented from developing the capacity to build a nuclear weapon.

Despite the move toward early elections, and what many here believe is a commitment Mr. Netanyahu made to President Obama in March not to attack before the American elections, a senior intelligence official said the military option remains very much a live possibility. “It is affecting the regime,” he said of the international pressure. “We don’t think it will bring the regime to change the strategy.”

In his speech, Mr. Barak said that sanctions had “forced the Iranians to take note, sit down and talk,” but that “actions speak louder than words.” He repeated his view that Iran is “approaching what I have termed the immunity zone,” in which the enrichment of uranium to weapons grade could not easily be stopped.

“Just imagine the most unstable elements in the hands of the most unstable regime in one of the most unstable regions of the world,” he warned. “It is well understood in Washington, D.C., as well as in Jerusalem that as long as there is a future existential threat to our people, that all options to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons should stay on the table, and they will.”

Yehuda Ben Meir, one of the directors of the national security and public opinion project at the Institute for National Security Studies at Tel Aviv University, said that there was some discomfort among Israelis with Mr. Netanyahu’s comparing the Iranian threat to the Holocaust, but that “there’s a consensus about the severity of the threat and there’s a consensus that Israel should do whatever it can.”

David Horovitz, a veteran journalist here who runs the new Web site The Times of Israel, said many Israelis view the strident tone as a “successful effort to create the sense in the international community that there needs to be more dramatic action in a nonmilitary sense.”

“I don’t think what’s unfolding is deemed by Netanyahu and Barak to justify, ‘O.K., we can tone down the process,’ ” Mr. Horovitz said of the international pressure. “Quite the reverse.”