WarSclerotic

Netanyahu and Barak, the democratizers – Israel News | Haaretz Daily Newspaper.

Netanyahu and Barak deserve a medal for their contribution to strengthening Israeli democracy: for the first time, a broad and noisy public debate is taking place over whether to go to war.

By Aluf Benn

Benjamin Netanyahu and Ehud Barak deserve a medal for their contribution to strengthening Israeli democracy. For the first time a broad and noisy public debate is taking place over whether to go to war, with the encouragement and participation of the prime minister and the defense minister. When Israel does attack Iran it will not be a war of deception: The pros and cons have been discussed ad nauseam in the public arena. One can argue about the wisdom of Barak and Netanyahu’s policy, but they did not act covertly. Their aggressive intentions were out in the open for all to see, from Tel Aviv to Tehran.

No such public debate took place before the Sinai Campaign of 1956, the first and second Lebanon wars (1982 and 2006 ) or the bombings of Iraqi and Syrian nuclear facilities in 1981 and 2007, respectively. When Israel launched wars of choice in the past the preparations were kept secret or the decision was taken in haste. The arguments took place behind closed doors, and the disagreements were made public only when the Israel Defense Forces reached the outskirts of Beirut (1982 ) or when the north was pounded by missiles for a number of weeks (2006 ).

Now we are seeing democracy at its best. Netanyahu and Barak are trying to persuade Israelis of the justness and the necessity of a war against Iran. The voices on the other side respond through every avenue of communication: the Knesset, the media, through petitions and protests outside the ministers’ homes. The government organ Israel Hayom applauds the approaching war, while rival daily Yedioth Ahronoth emphasizes the arguments against it, U.S. pressure and deficiencies in Israel’s civil preparedness. Jurists and intellectuals, threatening petitions to the High Court of Justice, seek to dictate to Netanyahu the forum in which the decision to go to war shall be made. Every trivial cabinet debate and momentary political deal is described as preparation for putting together “a majority for Iran.”

This debate is not fed by conjecture alone. The operational plans are classified but the military establishment shares with the public its misgivings and the opposition of the chief of staff, the generals and the leaders of the intelligence community to attacking Iran in the absence of coordination with the United States. The IDF even disclosed its estimates as to the number of civilian casualties that could be expected in an Iranian counterattack and the amount of time by which an Israeli operation would set back Iran’s nuclear program. The military censor stepped back, intervening only to retroactively protect Netanyahu’s reputation, to conceal an event from his past in order to keep him from appearing irresponsible and prone to panicking.

This is the debate that democracy’s proponents, from ancient Athens to today, dream about: a national decision made after a thorough public airing during which interested parties can have their say and attempt to persuade their audience. What more could one ask, especially under the current government, which is usually characterized as ultra-nationalist and anti-democratic.

But the disagreement over a war with Iran also bares the limitations of the public debate and the slightness of its influence on decision makers. Netanyahu and Barak hear their rivals and respond to the criticism by hardening their positions. The louder the voices of those who oppose military action the greater the resolve of the prime minister and the defense minister to strike the Iranians, and the more they paint themselves into a corner. How could they explain a decision against an attack after Netanyahu’s talk of a “second Holocaust” and the well-argued interview given by “the decision maker” to my colleague Ari Shavit?

The preparations for attacking Iran set an important precedent of bringing the Israeli public into the critical decision of going to war, instead of presenting it with a destructive fait accompli. That is the right way to make decisions in a democracy. But “the wisdom of the crowd” does not by definition guarantee the quality of the decisions and it cannot substitute for the leader, who controls the agenda.

Netanyahu enjoys depicting his opponents as wimpy defeatists, traitors or ignorant, harmful “chatterboxes.” That is what his “aides” did to President Shimon Peres when he raised doubts about the wisdom of the anticipated war. That is not just media manipulation, it is a political stratagem: The more the war’s critics are painted as a gang of anarchists, heirs to the “Oslo criminals,” the harder it will be for the security cabinet and the cabinet as a whole to vote against it. No Likud cabinet member wants to be seen as a partner of Amos Oz, or other outspoken leftists like political activist Eldad Yaniv and human rights lawyer Michael Sfard. Thus, paradoxically, the protest strengthens the prime minister’s hand in the portentous cabinet vote.

Mofaz: Is Netanyahu’s lack of faith in Obama reason enough to go to war? | The Times of Israel.

( This man was deputy prime minister two months ago.  If this isn’t disinfo, then Israel is really in trouble. – JW )

Opposition chairman urges patience on Iran, says US president will make key statement within weeks

Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz meets with President Barack Obama at the White House in June (photo credit: White House, Flickr)

Israel will not have a second chance to attack Iran’s nuclear program, so let’s not mess it up, opposition leader Shaul Mofaz said Monday. The former defense minister and army chief said that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak’s gung-ho rush to attack Iran would put Israeli lives at risk as well as severely damage Israel’s ties with its close ally, the United States.

“I reject the claim that if no action is taken by the end of the year there will be no going back,” said Mofaz in an interview to Army Radio. “The Iranian leaders have yet to reach a final decision about weaponizing their uranium and even when they do, it will take a year or two for them to reach the capability. We will know when they do and then the Americans will move ahead.”

Mofaz said that as opposed to an Israeli strike, which would at most delay the production of nuclear weapons, an US-led attack could deliver a final blow to the Iranian plans and even topple the regime.

“Two months ago I sat opposite Obama and the US’s top defense officials and I am convinced that he will do anything to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran,” said Mofaz, adding that he believed the US president would make a public statement to that effect within weeks.

“Is Netanyahu’s lack of faith in Obama reason enough to go to war?” Mofaz asked. “We must give the Americans time to see their sanctions strategy through.”

“There is no question that Israel has to be ready for any eventuality. The key question is how,” said Mofaz “This is no way to go to war. We have lost our ability to intimidate, we have lost the element of surprise and we have lost the support of the public.”

Mofaz reiterated his belief that an Israeli attack would be insufficient to bring about a strategic shift in the regional power balance and would instead spark a regional war and, in the process, antagonize the US.

“If there is no choice, if the US turns its back to us, Israel will make sure that the threat is removed. But we are not there yet,” said Mofaz.

Israeli officials have spoken before of differing with Washington over where “red lines” existed with advances in Iran’s nuclear program.

Barak reportedly believes Iran is only a few months away from crossing the threshold beyond which a military strike on their program will be useless, while the US believes it has more time.

Both Barak and Netanyahu reportedly prefer for the US to lead in any such strike, but say they will go it alone if they have to.

Israeli officials have pointed to a 1981 strike on Iraq’s Osirak nuclear facility, which knocked Baghdad out of the nuclear arms race despite analysts’ views that it would only be marginally effective, as an argument for going it alone.

On Sunday Mofaz demanded that Netanyahu meet with him urgently to present him with all the details regarding his “intention to lead Israel to war.”

In a letter sent to Netanyahu, with copies sent to the defense minister, the chairman of the Knesset’s Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee and the attorney general, Mofaz demanded that he be presented with detailed attack plans and briefed on the positions of defense establishment heads, up-to-date risk assessments, home front preparedness and the official US position on an Israeli strike on Iran.

Ex-IAF Chief: We Should Have Struck Iran in 2005 – Defense/Security – News – Israel National News.

IAF F-16: markings denote ‘kills’

Israel news photo: Flash 90

Israel should have attacked Iran’s nuclear facilities seven years ago, according to former Israel Air Force Chief Maj. Gen. (ret.) Herzl Bodinger.

Bodinger, who commanded the Israel Air Force from January 1992 to July 1996, told Channel 1 over the weekend: “If you ask me, I think we should have bombed the installations in 2005, when there was only one site, and then we wouldn’t be faced with all these questions.”

“I am almost certain that the world won’t be able to prevent Iran’s nuclear militarization through sanctions, and when they have a bomb, we will be in a completely different situation … We are very appreciative of American help and their support, but at the end of the day you stand by yourself, with your own fate. If we attack, missiles will fall here, but they will also fall here if the Americans attack.”

Asked whether he thought Israel could attack Iran on its own, Bodinger said that while Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey said he does not believe Israel will be able to destroy Iran’s nuclear installations, “…I think he isn’t totally in the know about what the Israeli forces are capable of. The Americans don’t know everything about us.”

Meanwhile, former Military Intelligence head Maj. Gen. (res.) Amos Yadlin published an article in The Washington Post on Saturday in which he stated that the rift between Israel and the U.S. on Iran could be bridged by a gesture from U.S. President Barack Obama.

“A gesture directly from Obama could do it. The U.S. president should visit Israel and tell its leadership — and, more important, its people — that preventing a nuclear Iran is a U.S. interest, and if we have to resort to military action, we will. This message, delivered by the president of the United States to the Israeli Knesset, would be far more effective than U.S. officials’ attempts to convey the same sentiment behind closed doors,” opined Yadlin.

Europe starts stockpiling oil as Iran conflict looms | EurActiv.

Peres, Netanyahu, Iran, and Uncle Sam | Jerusalem Post – Blogs.

Ira Sharkansky

“Anybody but Peres” was the slogan in the Knesset when the Members were choosing between presidential candidates Shimon Peres and Moshe Katzav in 2000. Katzav received 63 votes to Peres’ 57. Some MKs who had promised their support to Peres voted for Katzav.

Seven years later, it was clear that “Anybody but Peres” had put a rapist in the Presidential Mansion. The hope was that an older Peres might be less inclined to use the presidency for his own political agenda.

Israel’s presidency was modeled after the British monarchy, with more ceremonial than practical duties. The country’s first president, Chaim Weizmann, complained that the only place he could put his nose was into his handkerchief.

Last week Peres celebrated his 89th birthday, and got headlines for a controversy that has been brewing for some time.

The lead paragraph in a New York Times article

“Shimon Peres, Israel’s president and elder statesman, spoke out Thursday against the prospect of a lone Israeli military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, a message that contradicts the hawkish, go-it-alone line emanating from the offices of Israel’s prime minister and defense minister.”

The essence of his comments

“Now, it is clear to us that we cannot do it alone . . . We can delay . . . It is clear to us that we have to proceed together with America. There are questions about coordination and timing, but as serious as the danger is, this time at least we are not alone.”

It should be no surprise to those following Israel that Peres is on the side of the angels. Friday’s headline on the front page of Israel Hayom quoted individuals close to the Prime Minister saying, “We were lucky that Begin did not listen to Peres in ’81.” Comments from similar sources (perhaps a journalistic convention to allow the Prime Minister to avoid a direct confrontation with the President) said that Peres not only erred in connection with the attack on the Iraqi nuclear facility, but also in his support for the Oslo Accords, and for the withdrawal of Jewish settlements from Gaza. Others said that the Prime Minister was angry and disappointed that Peres had departed from the presidential function and was expressing himself on a controversial matter of policy. An unnamed minister said that Peres’ statements were “Very serious . . . a challenge to political office holders. . . at the end the political authorities will decide, not the president, who should remain representative and not political.”

Peres is not the first of Israel’s presidents to depart from the image of ceremonial figures who shy away from political controversies. Chaim’s nephew Ezer had a stormy presidency (1993-2000), drawing criticism from the right for his initiatives in promoting a peace process with the Palestinians and withdrawal from the Golan. He also stepped over the line about accepting money from individuals with a likely interest in his influence, and resigned the presidency under public pressure.

Peres has been an asset to the politicians as well as an annoyance. He outranks all other Israeli public figures in his international standing. The Prime Minister has employed him as a distinguished emissary, more likely to be welcome than himself in foreign capitals.

Ha’aretz led off its Friday Internet edition quoting a former head of military intelligence who was even more pointed than Peres. As a retired professional, this person might also be said to have wandered improperly onto the political patch. However, this is Israel, which operates by its own flexible rules. Moreover, this former professional has joined a number of his former colleagues in speaking out on this issue.

“It is impossible to rely on Netanyahu and Barak. They are spreading hysteria and panic.”

If Israelis with the authority to decide on such things are serious about attacking Iran, the continued discussion in the most public of venues is not the best way to do it. Debating a fateful decision is one thing, but advertising intentions about a military attack is something else.

On the other hand, if the intention is to spur the United States to action, the demonstration of nervous Jews arguing about a pre-emptive strike against the possibility of a nuclear Holocaust, and accusing one another of panicking in the context of an American presidential election, may be just what the doctor ordered.

It is far from the capacity of simple citizen observers to know what is serious dispute and what is performance at the pinnacle of Israeli politics. It may all be meant to get the Americans into action by suggesting that Israel might pull them in at an inconvenient time if they don’t move with greater resolution.

I brought along my American passport during our recent trip to Scandinavia, against the prospect of an attack, the resulting stoppage of all passenger air traffic into a war zone, and the need to call in some of those refuge offers that we heard during previous crises. Now that we have made it back home, Varda is inquiring about the acquisition of gas masks.

During the crisis with Iraq in the early 1990s there was a national campaign to equip us all with masks and the antidote atropine, along with instructions on how to seal rooms with plastic sheeting, masking tape, and wet towels under the door. The gas didn’t come, perhaps because Israel was said to have warned Iraq that its response would be nuclear. Some years later the government recalled all the mask kits, and has been confused and confusing about replacing them. The mass distribution is expensive, and an official report suggests that they may not be all that effective. A threat of nuclear retaliation might do the same job more efficiently.

IDF stations Iron Dome in Eilat amid Grad thre… JPost – Defense.

Dempsey: Israel, US differ on se… JPost – Iranian Threat – News.

Photo: IDF Spokesperson