Ms. Livni & The Generals

September 23, 2008

Tzipi and the Generals

Israel is in a tremendous state of instability and uncertainty. Olmert has tendered his resignation, but no one knows whether Livni will be able to form a coalition. If she cannot, then Israel is off to elections early in 2009. The annexationist right, organized in three major parties, the Likud led by Netanyahu, “Our Israel” led by Lieberman and the National Union led by Eitan, smells an electoral victory. The centrists, Kadima and Labor are in a state of disarray while, Meretz, Hadash and the Arab factions, unfortunately, can hardly make a difference. The bureaucracy, or more exactly, the state apparatus, continues to function. It should be appreciated that the military echelon and its “civilian” leadership has more, and not less, leverage in these conditions.

The cabinet, instead of throwing Olmert a farewell party at its last meeting, hosted a virtual oracle, who miraculously told them exactly what they wanted to hear. The oracle appeared in the form of Brig. General Yossie Baidatz, who bears the impressive title of the chief of the research department of Military Intelligence. Baidatz told the Israeli cabinet last Sunday that Iran is “galloping toward the nuclear point of no return” and that our friends in the West are just “weak” and not putting pressure on the [Iranian] regime. (Ha’aretz, September 22, 2009). Note the metaphors. This kind of info session is the Israeli version of the slam-dunk that is designed to free the Israeli government from the last remnants of rational caution.

Moreover, there are local and international developments that give renewed cause for concern. The deterioration of relations between Moscow and Washington on the backdrop of the Georgian issue serves the Bush-Cheney-Palin bloc, which rejects diplomacy, ab intio. In addition, despite conflicting reports, it is now clear that the Pentagon is sending Israel a good part of its weapons wish list.

Tzipi Won’t Fly

Some good friends have expressed a degree of cautious optimism over Livni’s potential. They are right about the fact that in the given constellation, Livni is about the best you can get. But any hopes regarding Livni are, I fear, just another case of the “wish being the father of the thought.” The Livni optimists are misled by her shrewd tactic of saying as little as possible about the issues. She is a “closet” Likudnick and this should not confuse anyone. Likudnicks are always quite ready to play the US diplomatic games, as long as they are all “process” and not real negotiations.

There is no reason to have any hopes for Livni simply because Israel cannot offer anything better. Under the pressures of endemic hatred and hostility to the Palestinians, the Israeli body politic is long on jingoism and short on sane, rational politics. Without a significant shift in international politics, Israel will continue to devote its thoughts, efforts and resources to maintaining its strategic superiority, by force if necessary. There are no serious policy differences here, at this stage, regarding this goal. The idea of a government of national unity is being bandied about as the best way to prepare for a decisive military showdown. But Netanyahu has cause to believe that he, and not Livni, will be able to form it in the not too distant future.

It is clear that Israel would like to attack Iran and will do so the minute it feels that it can get away with it. Here in the country, military logic and logistics are in charge and “normal” politics are in the back seat. The US cannot give Israel a green light, nor is it prepared for any active involvement, but the generals and their allies here argue that Washington will, as the phrase goes, refuse to second-guess Israel.

August 2, 2008 From the desk of Reuven Kaminer

All Is Not Quiet on the Eastern Front

On the face of it, there is no immediate danger of a clash with Iran over its nuclear development project. The US military seems to have convinced the political echelon that the United States is simply unable to handle a third war, at this stage. This tactical input created the political basis for the shift in US policy in the Geneva talks. Still, there are very powerful forces in the US administration who do not like the idea of waiting around until it might be even more difficult to get an attack off the ground. These forces will try to exploit the to-be-expected difficulties in the Geneva talks as evidence to the effect that Teheran is not getting the message. When the attempt to ratchet up economic sanctions will prove ineffective, as it must in the given conditions, the hawks will be able to argue that it is time to proceed, quickly but surely, to the final option on the table. Even with the Geneva gambit, the basic line of the US administration (with Obama in tow) is that armed intervention would be legally and morally justified, because Iran – even without actually building the bomb - is a new “ticking bomb” in the region. The more aggressive the forces pushing for war in Washington, the deeper their coordination with Israel.

Israel Has Plenty of Room to Maneuver and to Manipulate

Nicholas Kristof (NYT, July 24, 2008) got it exactly right when he suggested that Obama was not doing Israel any favor by swallowing his host’s line on the Iranian crisis. Kristof criticized Obama for missing the critical issue: Israel is contemplating doing “something crazy”, which would include using all its resources and connections to drag the US into a full scale confrontation with Iran.

The prevailing, consensual anti-Iranian discourse creates political space for Israeli maneuvering. This discourse suggests that Israel, even if it ostensibly acts alone, can claim justifiably that it is implementing the principles and the logic of US policy. Israel is an expert in the limitless ways to increase tension in the region and many of these include threats to the Iranian interests. If the US really wants to discourage Israeli military initiatives against Iran, it is clearly insufficient for Washington to express mere unease and hesitation regarding an Israeli air strike. The dark threat of a potential Israeli strike will hover over the region until the US clearly announces that if it is not attacked, it would not intervene by military threat or action, even if Israel pushes the region to the boiling point. Given the level of ambivalence in Washington, Israel has sufficient grounds to assume that, even if the US is displeased (or apparently displeased), it would be forced to come to the aid of its faithful ally. The present posture in Washington is such that the US would not stand on the sideline.

Israel’s Agenda

There is no end of signs that the idea of an Israeli strike is being carefully weighed. General Mullen felt it necessary to repeat, just last week, an earlier warning on the danger of such a strike, for the second time this month. Olmert explained to Obama that time is running out since the Russians are going to upgrade the Iranian air defense system by the end of the year Defense Minister Barak and MK Mofaz, who holds a portfolio named Strategic Coordination with the US, held talks in Washington this week. Mofaz is the darling of the oil speculators for his constant flow of declarations that war is inevitable. This Saturday, MK Hanegbi, chair of the powerful Foreign Affairs and Security Knesset Committee, called for the establishment of a national unity government to deal with the Iranian crisis.

In this respect, it is practically a civic duty to carefully read the wild ranting and raving of Israeli historian, Professor Benny Morris. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/opinion/18morris.html?th&emc=th For Morris, it is the old story of good versus evil, and since a showdown is inevitable, better to bomb now and prepare the nukes, right away, for a necessary second strike. The really sad thing is that these Strangelovish illusions, which are based on the insatiable Israeli demand for absolute Israeli military superiority at all costs, are an integral element in Israel’s current security considerations.

Against Demonization of the Other Side

Many of my readers share with me a decided lack of enthusiasm for the policies and the rhetoric of Ahmadinajad and his circle. Without in any way ignoring the harm and the danger of some of the declarations coming out of Teheran, we must also admit that the Israeli propaganda is very adept at converting whosoever is its current adversary into a “new Hitler”. It should be recalled that both Abdul Nasser and Yassir Arafat were cast in the Hitler role, though their real core positions did not justify such a designation. In truth, their basic political platform created ample room for rational political responses which could have defused “inevitable” clashes. Nasrallah figures, with Ahmadinajad, as the current, not to be appeased, enemy. But there are abundant signs that Nasrallah knows how to do business responsibly and there is good reason to believe that the current leadership in Iran could be influenced by serious and thoughtful politics. It would certainly be helpful if the “rational” West offered total regional disarmament of all weapons of mass destruction (including Israel’s stockpile) to the “irrational and inscrutable” Iranian leadership. Perhaps, the Iranian leadership has cause to ask its critics as to why they consider it is perfectly acceptable that Israel and Pakistan are legitimate members of the nuclear club and why Iran must accept an inferior status. Even if the US and its allies are not ready for anything as fair and logical as regional disarmament, other sets of realistic and patient policies based on mutual respect could go a long way to prevent tensions from getting dangerously out of hand.

Barak In Washington

The month started with Mike Mullen’s warnings about the danger from an irresponsible Israeli air strike. But Barak was not in DC yesterday to relieve this anxiety. He made it clear that Israel continued to demand a sense of urgency and opposed any relaxation of tensions. Barack Obama had told friends that his impression from talks in Israel was that it had no faith in the sanctions track. The LA Times (July 30, 2008) summed it up adequately:

“Bush administration officials reassured Israel’s defense minister this week that the United States has not abandoned all possibility of a military attack on Iran, despite widespread Israeli concern that Washington has begun softening its position toward Tehran.”

Washington is clearly apologetic regarding its own policies and refusing to reign in its Israeli ally. An Israeli strike at Iran is very much on the table.

Sarcko the Ist; Prisoners and their fate; Obama and the Left

The Anointment of Sarcko, the First – Release the Prisoners – Support Obama and Build the Left
Sarkozy's Annapolis

A regional or local conflict reaches crisis status when there is enough violence to fear continued death and destruction. As a rule, international power brokers pursue their interests by feeding the conflict, while they explain to the world that anything that can be done "to bring the sides together" is exactly what they are doing. So everybody else should mind their own business.

Ah, but our world of hype and PR demands more and much more. The dominant power is called on nowadays to show the world its efforts for a solution of the conflict – even though these do not exist. One would assume that serious people would not play with a conflict such as ours, and the vast sea of suffering and pain it involves, only on the hype-PR level. However, despite artificially inspired expectations, the promises for peace made in Annapolis turned into lengthy siege and massive malnutrition for Gaza and complete and utter degradation for the Palestinian Authority and the West Bank. And since the prisoner issue is in the news, let us note that Annapolis has left 10,500 Palestinian prisoners rotting in Israeli jails. We are just as realistic as the next person, but the US behavior – big talk and no action - in Palestine has broken every record for cynical hypocrisy.

Sarkozy: Thinking Big with A New Tin Messiah

The technique of making a splash in the media without actually doing anything is now being employed by the French President, Sarkozy, who at the least has a bit more style than the Yankee bumbler in DC. But the success of the technique requires many dull minds masquerading as political analysts. Roger Cohen is one of the dull minded hagiographers who is expert in promoting circuses as serious affairs.


First of all he loves Sarkozy. Second of all, he lists Sarko's immense achievements. (See, International Herald Tribune, July 17, 2008.)

"But this man is a tonic to his country and the most important European leader of his time. In the space of a year, he has transformed France's relations with the United States, Israel, its North African neighbors and NATO....Let's take international matters first. Sarkozy's Mediterranean Union summit — a kind of Club Med Bastille Day bash — had its share of vapid ostentation, but was significant for several reasons…"

The details of these transformations in France's relations with US, etc. are simply missing. No solid facts or significant changes in policy, on the ground, are noted. But sit tight, because Roger has a biggie for you. Do you know who showed up at Club Med?

"It got the Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, and the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad, in the same room, drew the latter out of isolation and signaled a new European awareness of how its identity has become inseparable from societies across the "mother sea" that have sent so many of their Muslim sons and daughters northward."

Olmert and Assad in one room is listed as gigantic achievement number one, though they did not meet or greet one another. Olmert and Sarkozy wanted to stage a handshake and declare success! Now it was not Sarkozy who pulled Assad out of isolation but Syria's success in Lebanon. If there was any new diplomacy, it came from Assad, who used the Turkish (and not the French) connection to signal a qualified degree of independence from Teheran. Sarko just wanted to steal the show.

But the biggest journalistic gobbledygook comes in those sentences which seem to mean something. Sarkozy has fostered it seems, according to Cohen "a new European awareness of how its identity has become inseparable," from the North African countries. More ephemera.

All this happens, says Cohen on the basis of the following miracle: "The Union for the Mediterranean is a near-empty shell but an important impulse for Europe to think big." Cohen, determined that Sarkozy is a world ranking leader by virtue of his thinking big. A near empty shell but an important impulse!?

Cohen, somehow fails to remark on another "gigantic success" of the Sarkozian festivities. There, our inimitable Prime Minister informed the whole world that the Israelis and the Palestinians had never been closer to an agreement. Now, it is common knowledge that the talks are paralyzed and that Abu Mazen and the Palestinian Authority have been totally marginalized by Israeli settlement activity. One of Mazen's leading negotiators, Yassar Ab'd Rabbo, has suggested that the Authority end the negotiations charade.

Definitions

Definitions in the region follow politics very closely. Our soldiers are heroes and theirs are vile murderers. We are motivated by morality and values and they are motivated by hatred and desire for revenge. You can follow the supposedly "free" government run Israeli television and radio for months without encountering a single dissenting voice to these axioms.

If wars are inevitable, prisoners should be treated fairly and repatriated speedily to their homes. But what kind of moral high ground can we hold when we hold more than ten thousand prisoners. Thousands of these are infirm, chronically ill, imprisoned for more than two decades, women and youngsters. Thus, it is very important for the average Israeli to be convinced, day after day, that these are terrorists and criminals though it is quite clear that almost all of them acted out of a sense of duty to redress the wrongs to their national rights and existence. Elementary decency requires massive release of these people. This might conceivably help in clearing some of the poisoned air hovering over all of us. It is worthwhile learning to respect all prisoners and fostering universal concern for their fate.


A Category Mistake

Let me reiterate the principles that could and should guide the response of the consistent left to many of Barak Obama's clearly incorrect, core positions. Obama is not the candidate of the left in the United States. Morally we have every right to demand a candidate from the left and for the left in the race to the White House. But the given relationship of forces is such that the left does not have sufficient clout at this stage to have its own candidate. Barak Obama who is not the candidate of the left will have the overwhelming support of the left in the US.

The nature of US politics is such that it is perfectly acceptable that a large section of the Obama supporters from the left have independent expression and their own frameworks within the Obama camp.
This is an excellent strategy for the rebirth of a strong independent left in the US.

Progress has been made in fortifying the correct impression that a sizable section of Obama's overall support comes from the left. Obama will have to take this fact into account. We will not condemn our friends on the left who feel it absolutely necessary to run a third party campaign. Disputes in the left must be the subject of friendly discussion and debate. But the facts are stubborn. The overwhelming majority of the left is in the Obama camp, and its potential constituency is right there. They can and will be influenced by the dynamic and open presence of a left wing in the Obama camp.