WarSclerotic

Netanyahu avoids committing to Locker Report recommendations

By Tom Dolev Jul 27, 2015 Via Jerusalem Online

Netanyahu will not commit to the Locker Report recommendations Photo Credit: Flash 90 / Channel 2 News

(While Netanyahu urges the US Congress to get tough on Iran to the point of military action, pressure is building back home to cut military spending. – LS)

For the first time since its publication, the Israeli Prime Minister addressed the controversy-sparking report that called for vast reforms in the IDF, claiming that he will study both the Locker Commission’s Report and the IDF’s report before making a decision.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed the Locker Commission Report to examine Israel’s security budget for the first time today and did not commit to adopting the report recommendations. “Yohanan Locker did an excellent job, but the IDF also did an important job,” Netanyahu stated. “I will study both reports and will then reach a decision.”

“Yohanan Locker… worked for a year with excellent people in order to examine how best to deal with the IDF’s security problems from a budgetary standpoint and with regards to internal reforms,” Netanyahu stressed. “Meanwhile, the IDF under the Chief of General Staff and with the guidance of Israel’s Defense Minister did a very important job and prepared a plan of its own for a perennial outline.”

“The challenges in the region have changed,” Netanyahu added. “It is true that armies have disappeared and new armies have risen. That is why we must train them [soldiers] in force structure and development, in weaponry and fighting doctrine, in the IDF’s preparation for a new era when we know we have both budgetary needs and budgetary constraints.”

Last week, Israeli Defense Minister Moshe (Bogie) Ya’alon attacked the Locker report conclusions. “The Locker Report is superficial, highly unbalanced and completely detached from the reality of the State of Israel,” he emphasized. “If the report’s conclusions are implemented, it would be gambling on the safety of the citizens of Israel. It will make it impossible for the IDF and the security system to deal with the threats facing the State of Israel and its citizens.”

Meanwhile, members of the Locker Commission came to the defense of their report and refuted the claims against it. “We have not come to butt heads with the IDF. We must address the report recommendations practically,” claimed commission member Esther Dominisini last week. “This report is a proper balance between the army’s needs, the market’s capabilities and the level of security the State of Israel will require.”

In the Locker Report, the commission recommended increasing the security budget to a record 59 billion shekels for each year in the next five years, lowering the retirement age from the IDF, converting early pensions to bonuses and shortening male soldiers’ obligatory service to two years.

In addition, the commission recommended making several financial reforms in the military that it claims would save the IDF some 10 billion shekels in the next five years. The committee also recommended reducing the number of reserve units, changing pension packages and hiring civilian companies for different projects in the IDF so that its soldiers can focus on essential issues.

Why Right-Wingers Are So Angry That Israel Hasn’t Bombed Iran Yet

By J.J. Goldberg June 12, 2015 Via Forward Dot Com

Image: Jerusalem Post

(Does the fault lie within? – LS)

Amid all the fuss over Treasury Secretary Jack Lew getting heckled at the Jerusalem Post Conference in New York on June 7, you might have missed the day’s biggest bombshell.

I refer to the nasty smackdown that morning between Post columnist Caroline Glick, the poison-pen darling of the pro-Israel far right, and two of the most storied figures in Israeli security, former Mossad director Meir Dagan and former military chief of staff Gabi Ashkenazi.

It happened during a panel discussion on the Iranian nuclear threat. Dagan, Ashkenazi and two other generals who shared the stage all argued that a negotiated agreement is preferable to military action. Then came Glick. Recalling her longtime advocacy of a military strike, she voiced “worry that some of the men on the panel with me have believed we could rely on America.” Then she tore into Dagan and Ashkenazi.

Her charge: The two had caused the current crisis in Israel’s international relations — and cleared Iran’s path to a bomb — by refusing an order in 2010 to prepare the military for an attack.

Glick’s twice-a-week column is one of the Post’s most popular features, beloved on the right for its vitriolic attacks on the likes of President Obama (“ Mainstreaming anti-Semitism ”) and Shimon Peres (“ narcissistic, sociopathic ”). She’s been sniping at Israel’s military leaders for several years, calling them Israel’s “ Achilles’ heel ” and tossing around words like “treason” because of their moderate views on Iran and the Palestinians.

This time, though, she went toe-to-toe with two of the best, and the contest turned out to be a bit lopsided.

Glick: “In 2010, according to a report that came out [in 2012] … we learned that two of the gentlemen on this panel with us were given an order to prepare the military for an imminent strike against Iran’s nuclear installations, and they refused —”

Dagan: “Because it was an illegal order.”

Glick: “What?”

Dagan: “It was an illegal order.”

Glick: “You were the director of Mossad. You were ordered by the Security Cabinet to prepare —”

Dagan: “You don’t know what happened there.”

Glick: “This is certainly a matter of interpretation.”

Dagan: “The prime minister, without the authority of the government —”

Glick: “Had you not brought in your expert legal opinion to determine whether or not the prime minister of Israel and the defense minister of Israel have a right to order Israel to take action in its national defense then we would not be where we are today,” with President Obama preparing to “conclude a nuclear agreement with Tehran that will enable them to acquire the bomb.”

The exchange quickly turned into a shouting match. Glick repeated her charge that the generals’ insubordination had spawned disaster. Dagan countered that Israel is governed by laws and “no one can ignore the legal system, even Netanyahu.” Glick, someone who claims to have learned the lessons of World War II, insisted soldiers aren’t entitled to decide if an order’s legal. As she railed, the audience applauded and cheered her on.

Their debate concerned a secret June 2010 meeting between a small group of security officials and several top government ministers, led by Prime Minister Netanyahu. According to a 2012 documentary that Glick cited as her source, Netanyahu ordered Ashkenazi to mobilize the reserves and put the military on high alert. Ashkenazi and Dagan reportedly told Netanyahu the order was illegal because mobilizing the reserves would set off a chain reaction leading to war, and only the eight-member Security Cabinet is authorized to initiate military action.

Netanyahu reportedly conceded and convened the Security Cabinet, which then asked Dagan, Ashkenazi and several others for their views on military action. The generals argued against it. The cabinet duly voted the action down, infuriating Netanyahu and then-defense minister Ehud Barak. Within a year Ashkenazi, Dagan and their ally, Shin Bet director Yuval Diskin, were all out of a job.

Glick, after citing the documentary and other coverage of the event, seemed flustered when Ashkenazi recalled that the cabinet actually rejected Netanyahu’s call-up order.

In any case, Ashkenazi said, his cadre of commanders “disappeared at the beginning of 2011. All of us. Then there were different people. And they didn’t act either. It’s an insult to say that we stopped the government from acting.”

Glick: “This is not how it played out in the media. And you didn’t deny it.”

Ashkenazi: “Are you saying that everything in the media is correct?”

Glick: “But you didn’t deny it.”

Ashkenazi: “It was speculation, so I didn’t say anything.”

Until now. That’s one of the extraordinary aspects of the June 7 exchange in New York. Many have discussed the 2010 confrontation between Netanyahu and the generals, but this appears to be the first time that Dagan and Ashkenazi have given their version.

Or part of it. As Dagan and Ashkenazi both noted, they didn’t just tell Netanyahu his order was illegal. They also gave him and the cabinet their analysis, as required by law, of how an attack could play out — and their reasons for opposing it. But they didn’t tell the New York audience what the reasons were.

I caught up with Dagan later and asked him about those reasons. He said he couldn’t repeat his confidential conversations with the prime minister. He did say, though, that among the “nonsense” stories circulating about the incident was that it all happened at that single meeting at Mossad headquarters in June 2010. “It was a series of conversations over months, beginning in 2009,” he said. That is, shortly after Netanyahu took office.

Some years back, Uzi Arad, who was Netanyahu’s national security adviser when the events occurred, told me the crux of the argument. Arad explained that a solo Israeli attack would set Iran’s nuclear project back for a while but then would spur the regime to rebuild with renewed urgency. And with greater international legitimacy, since it could now say it was attacked by a real nuclear power. The only way to prevent Iran rebuilding is an attack by an American-led coalition, which could then establish long-term, intrusive inspections.

Arad pointed to the 1981 Israeli attack on Iraq’s nuclear reactor. Often celebrated, it actually spurred Saddam Hussein to rebuild more urgently than ever, as the U.S.-led Gulf War coalition discovered on entering Iraq in 1991. The Israeli attack had backfired. Strict United Nations inspections prevented another Iraqi nuclear effort. That’s why no weapons of mass destruction were found after 2003.

And that suggests the other extraordinary aspect of the debate. Israel faces real threats. It’s blessed with the world’s best military and intelligence, which have managed to navigate the treacherous currents of the region for nearly 70 years. It’s useful for Israel’s friends to recognize that and try to understand the subtle complexities of her situation. It’s astounding that anyone claiming to represent Israel’s best interests would instead traffic in demagoguery and smearing the watchmen.

Netanyahu lost his Iran bet, but his next gamble may be disastrous

By Yossi Verter Jul. 15, 2015 Via Haaretz

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addresses a joint meeting of the United States Congress in the House chamber at the U.S. Capitol, March 3, 2015. Photo by AFP

(Israel deserves so much more that just rolling the dice and blaming Obama for the outcome. – LS)

After the deal was announced, the prime minister’s appearance was that of a desperate gambler who had lost everything. But now he wants to wreck what’s left of U.S.-Israel relations.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu looks defeated. He was ashen-faced on Tuesday next to the Dutch foreign minister at their joint press conference in Jerusalem; his appearance was that of a desperate gambler who had lost everything. The Iranian nuclear agreement, against which he had vigorously and repeatedly warned, had become a fait accompli. The deal over which he had declared political war on the president of the United States, while breaking all the rules of diplomatic relations between friendly countries, had become a reality, for better or worse.

Even before the details of the agreement were known, and without having any idea what was or wasn’t included, senior Likud officials were firing cannon shells through the electronic media. Talking points that had been sent to them in advance contained three main points: 1. The agreement is bad, terrible, and awful; 2. If not for Netanyahu, the situation would have been much worse, much earlier; 3. The opposition is to blame and ought to be ashamed for not being supportive enough/for being critical now/for not standing tensely quiet at the side of the prime minister, meaning the State of Israel.

Obviously. The opposition is to blame for the centrifuges spinning, the uranium being enriched, and the slaughter during the six consecutive years of Netanyahu’s rule.

Netanyahu deserves credit for stubbornly putting the nuclear issue on the global agenda, significantly contributing to the intensified sanctions on Iran. On the other hand, he lost his brakes when he did not hesitate to hook up with the Republican Party in its campaign against U.S. President Barack Obama. Sometimes it’s hard to know where Sheldon Adelson, the biggest Republican donor, ends and Netanyahu begins.

The prime minister himself hastened Tuesday to call on the opposition to “put petty politics aside and unite for the State of Israel’s national interests,” as if the Iranian nukes hadn’t served as an effective political weapon for him during every recent election campaign.

Netanyahu’s spokespeople said he plans to “kill himself” pursuing the last remaining option for scuttling the deal – preventing its ratification by the U.S. House of Representatives – by persuading Democratic congressmen to defect to the Republican camp and vote against their president. The destruction and devastation he avoided inflicting on the nuclear facilities scattered throughout Iran, he now wants to wreck on what’s left of U.S.-Israel relations. Here we again see his compulsive gambler syndrome: After losing his pants, he’s now putting his underwear on the roulette wheel in a move that experts on American politics say hasn’t much of a chance.

In this context, the call by Likud ministers for “internal cohesion that’s been lacking until now” sounds pathetic. Why exactly is Netanyahu demanding that Labor’s Isaac Herzog, Yesh Atid’s Yair Lapid, Meretz’s Zehava Galon and Yisrael Beiteinu’s Avigdor Lieberman join him? So they can share responsibility for the worsening of the fight between Israel and the leader of the free world?

Herzog and Lapid were competing with each other on Tuesdayto show whose patriotism was greater. Lapid drew first with an interview he gave to a foreign television network. But Herzog landed a crushing blow on him by tweeting that he had spoken with the prime minister and would soon be traveling to the United States “to advance a package of security measures to suit the new situation.”

Perhaps Herzog has been named defense minister and nobody told us. Perhaps something else is going on between him and Netanyahu, and under the pretext of the “new situation,” the chairman of Zionist Union plans to bring his party into Netanyahu’s government.