Israeli Commandos Penetrate Syria, Lebanon; Plant Spy Devices And Murder Civilians

8 july 2016, Tikun Olam-תיקון עולם http://www.richardsilverstein.com (USA)

By Richard Silverstein*

.נוהל “מקרה מוזר”: רצח במסווה של “תאונה”, של אזרחים בלבנון ובסוריה שבמקרה נתקלו בצוותי סיירת מטכ”ל או מגלן בדרכם לשתול מתקני ריגול

This article was originally published by Mint Press News.

For years, Lebanese media and the country’s army have reported lurid details about Israeli spy rings inside the country which assist in reconnaissance and espionage targeting Israel’s arch-enemy, Hezbollah.

Former IDF special forces officer 

and novelist, Natan Odenheimer

The Israeli Defense Forces intelligence apparatus uses sophisticated listening devices planted in southern Lebanon — just one of the many surveillance tools at Israel’s disposal — to eavesdrop on the Lebanese militant group’s communications and track troop movements, among other things.

Rumors have trickled back from the front to Israeli reporters that the forays into Lebanon by the IDF’s elite commando units, Sayeret Matkal and Maglan, weren’t always clean operations. In fact, Israeli forces have encountered Lebanese civilians while planting their equipment more than

Erdogan trahit Gaza en échange de gaz "israélien"

29/06/2016, Tlaxcala http://www.tlaxcala-int.org (Mexico)

Tlaxcala, the international network of translators for linguistic diversity

Richard Silverstein

Translated by  Dominique Muselet

Ces derniers jours, les médias israéliens et internationaux ont annoncé à coup de grand titres ronflants que la Turquie et Israël s’apprêtaient à renouer leurs relations diplomatiques rompues après que les commandos de marine israéliens eurent assassiné 10 citoyens turcs (dont un citoyen US) sur le Mavi Marmara en 2010.

Le froid entre les deux pays avait interrompu le commerce et la coopération militaire israélienne avec l’une des plus grandes et les plus influentes nations musulmanes de la région. Avant le massacre, la Turquie et l’armée d’Israël organisaient des

Líbano: ¿QUIEN ES WISSAM AL HASSAN?

24 octubre 2012, Rebelión http://www.rebelion.org (México)

Bissan Kaazan Bou Chaaya

En el Libano hay 3 cuerpos de servicios secretos: el del Ejercito, el de la Policia y el de Seguridad Nacional. Este último, del cual era presidente Wissam al Hassan, está claramente del lado de la oposicion libanesa actual que es anti Siria. En los últimos años, y después del asesinato del primer ministro Hariri, este hombre ha sido testigo y principal colaborador en las intervenciones de la derecha libanesa y su colaboración en la guerra de 2006 con Israel con tal de terminar definitivamente con la resistencia de Hezbolah e indirectamente con la influencia siria e iraní. Eso fracasó al no ganar Israel la guerra...

A partir de ahí simplemente los planes han cambiado, habia que debilitar al regimen sirio desde dentro apoyando a los grupos de oposición armada e incluso a la misma al Qaeda sin tener en cuenta las consecuencias, tal y como pasó en Egipto y que llevó a un gobierno islamista.

Segundo, no podemos ser tan ingenuos para pensar que Siria, con todo lo que le viene encima, quiere dar esta imagen asesinando a alguien que claramente pertenece a sus opositores. Es la respuesta mas sencilla y que, los que asesinaron a Al Hassan, sabian que iban a dar esta impresion aumentando el enfado de los opositores libaneses y la comunidad internacional que señalaria primero a Hezbollah y a Siria y haria que ambos tuvieran problemas internos aun mas graves, especialmente después de que Hezbollah, y por primera vez en la historia de la lucha Arabe-Israelí, haya conseguido este mes volar un avion espia de alta tecnologia sobre Israel.

Tercero, y para concluir, juntando toda la informacion previa, Wissam Al Hassan, que también habia desmantelado varias redes de espionaje Israeli en un intento de limpiar la imagen de seguridad nacional, y que conocia mucha informacion de la época de 2005 hasta ahora, era la víctima perfecta para matar 3 pájaros de un tiro: callarlo porque ya sabia demasiado, culpar a Siria y a Hezbollah y despistar sus esfuerzos y fortalezer a la oposición libanesa anti siria haciendo parecer que es la victima.

Creo que en este asunto lo mas absurdo es lo mas obvio. ...

JUDITH BUTLER RESPONDS TO ATTACK: ‘I AFFIRM A JUDAISM THAT IS NOT ASSOCIATED WITH STATE VIOLENCE’

August 27, 2012, http://mondoweiss.net (USA)

by Judith Butler

Yesterday the Jerusalem Post published an attack on the awarding of a major international prize to Judith Butler, the philosopher and Berkeley professor of comparative literature, because Butler favors boycotting Israel. Butler wrote this response and, unhopeful that the Post would publish it, sent it to us. --Editors.

The Jerusalem Post recently published an article reporting that some organizations are opposed to my receiving the Adorno Prize, an award given every three years to someone who works in the tradition of critical theory broadly construed. The accusations against me are that I support Hamas and Hezbollah (which is not true) that I support BDS (partially true), and that I am anti-Semitic (patently false). Perhaps I should not be as surprised as I am that those who oppose my receiving the Adorno Prize would seek recourse to such scurrilous and unfounded charges to make their point. I am a scholar who gained an introduction to philosophy through Jewish thought, and I understand myself as defending and continuing a Jewish ethical tradition that includes figures such as Martin Buber and Hannah Arendt. I received a Jewish education in Cleveland, Ohio at The Temple under the tutelage of Rabbi Daniel Silver where I developed strong ethical views on the basis of Jewish philosophical thought. I learned, and came to accept, that we are called upon by others, and by ourselves, to respond to suffering and to call for its alleviation. But to do this, we have to hear the call, find the resources by which to respond, and sometimes suffer the consequences for speaking out as we do. I was taught at every step in my Jewish education that it is not acceptable to stay silent in the face of injustice. Such an injunction is a difficult one, since it does not tell us exactly when and how to speak, or how to speak in a way that does not produce a new injustice, or how to speak in a way that will be heard and registered in the right way. My actual position is not heard by these detractors, and perhaps that should not surprise me, since their tactic is to destroy the conditions of audibility.

I studied philosophy at Yale University and continued to consider the questions of Jewish ethics throughout my education. I remain grateful for those ethical resources, for the formation that I had, and that animates me still. It is untrue, absurd, and painful for anyone to argue that those who formulate a criticism of the State of Israel is anti-Semitic or, if Jewish, self-hating. Such charges seek to demonize the person who is articulating a critical point of view and so disqualify the viewpoint in advance. It is a silencing tactic: this person is unspeakable, and whatever they speak is to be dismissed in advance or twisted in such a way that it negates the validity of the act of speech. The charge refuses to consider the view, debate its validity, consider its forms of evidence, and derive a sound conclusion on the basis of listening to reason. The charge is not only an attack on persons who hold views that some find objectionable, but it is an attack on reasonable exchange, on the very possibility of listening and speaking in a context where one might actually consider what another has to say. When one set of Jews labels another set of Jews “anti-Semitic”, they are trying to monopolize the right to speak in the name of the Jews. So the allegation of anti-Semitism is actually a cover for an intra-Jewish quarrel.

In the United States, I have been alarmed by the number of Jews who, dismayed by Israeli politics, including the occupation, the practices of indefinite detention, the bombing of civilian populations in Gaza, seek to disavow their Jewishness. They make the mistake of thinking that the State of Israel represents Jewishness for our times, and that if one identifies as a Jew, one supports Israel and its actions. And yet, there have always been Jewish traditions that oppose state violence, that affirm multi-cultural co-habitation, and defend principles of equality, and this vital ethical tradition is forgotten or sidelined when any of us accept Israel as the basis of Jewish identification or values. So, on the one hand, Jews who are critical of Israel think perhaps they cannot be Jewish anymore of Israel represents Jewishness; and on the other hand, those who seek to vanquish anyone who criticizes Israel equate Jewishness with Israel as well, leading to the conclusion that the critic must be anti-Semitic or, if Jewish, self-hating. My scholarly and public efforts have been directed toward getting out of this bind. In my view, there are strong Jewish traditions, even early Zionist traditions, that value co-habitation and that offer ways to oppose violence of all kinds, including state violence. It is most important that these traditions be valued and animated for our time – they represent diasporic values, struggles for social justice, and the exceedingly important Jewish value of “repairing the world” (Tikkun).

It is clear to me that the passions that run so high on these issues are those that make speaking and hearing very difficult. A few words are taken out of context, their meaning distorted, and they then come to label or, indeed, brand an individual. This happens to many people when they offer a critical view of Israel – they are branded as anti-Semites or even as Nazi collaborators; these forms of accusation are meant to establish the most enduring and toxic forms of stigmatization and demonization. They target the person by taking the words out of context, inverting their meanings and having them stand for the person; indeed, they nullify the views of that person without regard to the content of those views. For those of us who are descendants of European Jews who were destroyed in the Nazi genocide (my grandmother’s family was destroyed in a small village south of Budapest), it is the most painful insult and injury to be called complicitous with the hatred of Jews or to be called self-hating. And it is all the more difficult to endure the pain of such an allegation when one seeks to affirm what is most valuable in Judaism for thinking about contemporary ethics, including the ethical relation to those who are dispossessed of land and rights of self-determination, to those who seek to keep the memory of their oppression alive, to those who seek to live a life that will be, and must be, worthy of being grieved. I contend that these values all derive from important Jewish sources, which is not to say that they are only derived from those sources. But for me, given the history from which I emerge, it is most important as a Jew to speak out against injustice and to struggle against all forms of racism. This does not make me into a self-hating Jew. It makes me into someone who wishes to affirm a Judaism that is not identified with state violence, and that is identified with a broad-based struggle for social justice.

My remarks on Hamas and Hezbollah have been taken out of context and badly distort my established and continuing views. I have always been in favor of non-violent political action, and this principle has consistently characterized my views. I was asked by a member of an academic audience a few years ago whether I thought Hamas and Hezbollah belonged to “the global left" and I replied with two points. My first point was merely descriptive: those political organizations define themselves as anti-imperialist, and anti-imperialism is one characteristic of the global left, so on that basis one could describe them as part of the global left. My second point was then critical: as with any group on the left, one has to decide whether one is for that group or against that group, and one needs to critically evaluate their stand. I do not accept or endorse all groups on the global left. Indeed, these very remarks followed a talk that I gave that evening which emphasized the importance of public mourning and the political practices of non-violence, a principle that I elaborate and defend in three of my recent books: Precarious Life, Frames of War, and Parting Ways. I have been interviewed on my non-violent views by Guernica and other on-line journals, and those views are easy to find, if one wanted to know where I stand on such issues. I am in fact sometimes mocked by members of the left who support forms of violent resistance who think I fail to understand those practices. It is true: I do not endorse practices of violent resistance and neither do I endorse state violence, cannot, and never have. This view makes me perhaps more naïve than dangerous, but it is my view. So it has always seemed absurd to me that my comments were taken to mean that I support or endorse Hamas and Hezbollah! I have never taken a stand on either organization, just as I have never supported every organization that is arguably part of the global left – I am not unconditionally supportive of all groups that currently constitute the global left. To say that those organizations belong to the left is not to say that they should belong, or that I endorse or support them in any way.

Two further points. I do support the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement in a very specific way. I reject some versions and accept others. For me, BDS means that I oppose investments in companies that make military equipment whose sole purpose is to demolish homes. It means as well that I do not speak at Israeli institutions unless they take a strong stand against the occupation. I do not accept any version of BDS that discriminates against individuals on the basis of their national citizenship, and I maintain strong collaborative relationships with many Israeli scholars. One reason I can endorse BDS and not endorse Hamas and Hezbollah is that BDS is the largest non-violent civic political movement seeking to establish equality and the rights of self-determination for Palestinians. My own view is that the peoples of those lands, Jewish and Palestinian, must find a way to live together on the condition of equality. Like so many others, I long for a truly democratic polity on those lands and I affirm the principles of self-determination and co-habitation for both peoples, indeed, for all peoples. And my wish, as is the wish of an increasing number of Jews and non-Jews, is that the occupation come to an end, that violence of all kinds cease, and that the substantial political rights of all people in that land be secured through a new political structure.

Two last notes: The group that is sponsoring this call is the Scholars for Peace in the Middle East, a misnomer at best, that claims on its website that “Islam” is an “inherently anti-semetic (sic) religion.” It is not, as The Jerusalem Post has reported, a large group of Jewish scholars in Germany, but an international organization with a base in Australia and California. They are a right-wing organization and so part of an intra-Jewish war. Ex-board member Gerald Steinberg is known for attacking human rights organizations in Israel as well as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. Their willingness to include Israeli infractions of human rights apparently makes them also eligible for the label, “anti-Semitic.”

Finally, I am not an instrument of any “NGO”: I am on the advisory board of Jewish Voice for Peace, a member of Kehillah Synagogue in Oakland, California, and an executive member of Faculty for Israeli-Palestinian Peace in the US and The Jenin Theatre in Palestine. My political views have ranged over a large number of topics, and have not been restricted to the Middle East or the State of Israel. Indeed, I have written about violence and injustice in other parts of the world, focusing mainly in wars waged by the United States. I have also written on violence against transgendered people in Turkey, psychiatric violence, torture in Guantanamo, and about police violence against peaceful protestors in the U.S, to name a few. I have also written against anti-Semitism in Germany and against racial discrimination in the United States.

A GUERRA DOS EUA-ISRAEL AO IRÃO: O MITO DE UMA CAMPANHA LIMITADA

8 abril 2012, Resistir.info http://www.resistir.info (Portugal)
http://www.resistir.info/petras/petras_05abr12.html

por James Petras

A crescente ameaça de um ataque militar dos EUA-Israel ao Irão baseia-se em vários factores incluindo: (1) a história militar recente de ambos os países na região; (2) pronunciamentos públicos de líderes políticos estado-unidenses e israelenses; (3) ataques recentes e em curso ao Líbano e à Síria, aliados importantes do Irão; (4) ataques armados e assassínios de cientistas e responsáveis de segurança iranianos por grupos terroristas e/ou afectos sob controle dos EUA ou da Mossad; (5) o fracasso das sanções económicas e da coacção diplomática; (6) escalada de histeria e exigências extremas ao Irão para por fim ao enriquecimento de urânio de uso legal e civil; (7) “exercícios” militares provocatórios nas fronteiras do Irão e jogos de guerra destinados a intimidar e a um ensaio geral para um ataque antecipativo; (8) pressão poderosa de grupos pró guerra tanto em Washington como em Tel Aviv incluindo os principais partidos políticos israelenses e a poderosa AIPAC nos EUA; (9) e finalmente o National Defense Authorization Act de 2012 (um orwelliano decreto de emergência de Obama, de 16/Março/2012).

A propaganda de guerra estado-unidense opera ao longo de dois trilhos: (1) a mensagem dominante enfatiza a proximidade da guerra e a disposição dos EUA de utilizarem força e violência. Esta mensagem é destinada ao Irão e coincide com anúncios israelenses de preparativos de guerra. (2) O segundo trilho tem como objectivo o “público liberal” com um punhado de “académicos reconhecidos” marginais (ou progressistas Departamento de Estado) a subestimarem a ameaça de guerra e argumentarem que decisores políticos razoáveis em Tel Aviv e Washington estão conscientes de que o Irão não possui armas nucleares ou qualquer capacidade para produzi-las agora ou no futuro próximo. A finalidade deste contra-vapor liberal é confundir e minar a maioria da opinião pública, a qual opõe-se claramente a mais preparativos de guerra, e fazer descarrilar o explosivo movimento anti-guerra.

É desnecessário dizer que os pronunciamentos os instigadores de guerra “racionais” utilizam um “duplo discurso” baseado no afastamento displicente de todas as evidências históricas e empíricas em contrário. Quando os EUA e Israel falam de guerra, preparam-se para a guerra e empenham-se e provocações pré guerra – eles pretendem ir à guerra – tal como fizeram contra o Iraque em 2003. Sob as actuais condições políticas e militares internacionais um ataque ao Irão, inicialmente por Israel com apoio dos EUA, é extremamente provável, mesmo quando as condições económicas mundiais deveriam ditar em contrário e mesmo quando as consequências estratégicas negativas provavelmente repercutir-se-ão através do mundo durante as próximas décadas.

Cálculo dos EUA e Israel sobre a capacidade militar do Irão
Os decisores estratégicos americanos e israelenses não concordam sobre as consequências da retaliação do Irão contra um ataque. Pelo seu lado, líderes israelenses minimizam a capacidade militar do Irão de atacar e de prejudicar o estado judeu, o qual é a sua única consideração. Eles contam com a distância, seu escudo anti-mísseis e a protecção de forças aéreas e navais dos EUA no Golfo para cobrir seu ataque sorrateiro. Por outro lado, estrategas militares dos EUA sabem que os iranianos são capazes de infligir baixas substanciais a navios de guerra dos EUA, os quais teriam de atacar instalações costeiras iranianas a fim de apoiar ou proteger os israelenses.

A inteligência israelense é bem conhecida pela sua capacidade para organizar o assassinato de indivíduos por todo o mundo: a Mossada organizou com êxito actos terroristas além-mar contra líderes palestinos, sírios e libaneses. Por outro lado, a inteligência israelense tem um registo muito fraco quanto às suas estimativas de grandes empreendimentos militares e políticos. Eles subestimaram gravemente o apoio popular, a força militar e a capacidade organizacional do Hezbollah durante a guerra de 2006 no Líbano. Da mesma forma, a inteligência israelense entendeu mal a força e a capacidade do movimento democrático popular egípcio quando este se levantou e derrubou o aliado regional estratégico de Tel Aviv, a ditadura Mubarak. Se bem que líderes israelenses “finjam paranóia” – lançando clichés acerca de “ameaças existenciais” – eles são enganados pela sua arrogância narcisista e o seu racismo, subestimando reiteradamente a perícia técnica e o refinamento político dos seus inimigos árabes e da região islâmica. Isto é indubitavelmente verdadeiro no seu descartar displicente da capacidade do Irão para retaliar contra um planeado assalto aéreo israelense.

O governo estado-unidense agora comprometeu-se abertamente a apoiar um assalto israelense ao Irão quando ele for lançado. Mais especificamente, Washington afirma que virá “incondicionalmente” em defesa de Israel se este for “atacado”. Como pode Israel evitar ser “atacado” quando seus aviões estão a despejar bombas e mísseis sobre instalações iranianas, defesas militares e infraestruturas estratégicas? Além disso, dada a colaboração e aos sistemas de inteligência do Pentágono coordenados com as Forças de Defesa de Israel (IDF), seu papel na identificação de objectivos, rotas e aproximações de mísseis, bem como as cadeias de fornecimento de armas integradas e de munições, serão críticos para um ataque das IDF. Não há maneira de os EUA se dissociarem da guerra do estado judeu ao Irão depois de iniciado o ataque.

Os mitos da “guerra limitada”: Geografia

Washington e Tel Aviv afirmam e parecem acreditar que o seu planeado assalto ao Irão será uma “guerra limitada”, tendo como alvo objectivos limitados e perdurando apenas uns poucos dias ou semanas – sem consequências graves.

Dizem-nos que brilhantes generais de Israel identificaram todas as instalações de investigação nuclear críticas, as quais os seus ataques aéreos cirúrgicos eliminarão sem danos colaterais horríveis para a população circundante. Uma vez que o alegado programa de “armas nucleares” fosse destruído, todos os israelenses poderiam retomar as suas vidas em segurança plena sabendo que outra ameaça “existencial” fora eliminada. A noção israelense de uma guerra limitada em “tempo e espaço” é absurda e perigosa – e caracteriza a arrogância, estupidez e racismo dos seus autores.

Para se aproximarem das instalações nucleares do Irão as forças israelenses e estado-unidenses confrontar-se-ão com bases bem equipadas e defendidas, instalações de mísseis, defesas marítimas e fortificações em grande escala dirigidas pelos Guardas Revolucionários e pelas Forças Armadas do Irão. Além disso, os sistemas de defesa de mísseis que protegem as instalações nucleares estão ligados a auto-estradas, aeródromos, portos e apoiadas por infraestrutura de finalidade dupla (civil-militar), as quais incluem refinarias de petróleo e uma enorme rede de gabinetes administrativos. Por “nocaute” os alegados sítios nucleares exigirá a expansão do âmbito geográfico da guerra. A capacidade científica-tecnológica do programa nuclear civil iraniano envolve um vasto conjunto das suas instalações de investigação, incluindo universidades, laboratórios, locais de fabricação e centros de concepção. Destruir o programa nuclear civil do Irão exigiria que Israel (e portanto os EUA) atacassem muito mais do que instalações de investigação ou laboratórios ocultos sob uma montanha remota. Exigiria assaltos múltiplos e generalizados sobre alvos por todo o país, por outras palavras, uma guerra generalizada.

O líder supremo do Irão, ayatollah Ali Khamenei, declarou que o Irão retaliará com uma guerra equivalente. O Irão corresponderá à amplitude e âmbito de com um contra-ataque de resposta. “Nós os atacaremos no mesmo nível quando eles nos atacarem”. Isso significa que o Irão não limitará a sua retaliação a meramente tentar deitar abaixo bombardeiros estado-unidenses e israelenses no seu espaço aéreo ou a lançar mísseis a navios dos EUA nas suas águas mas levará a guerra a alvos equivalente em Israel e em países ocupados pelos EUA no Golfo e em torno dele. A “guerra limitada” de Israel tornar-se-á uma guerra generalizada que se estenderá por todo o Médio Oriente e ainda mais além.

A actual adoração ilusória de Israel acerca do seu elaborado sistema de defesa míssil ficará exposta quando centenas de mísseis de alto poder forem lançados de Teerão, do Sul do Líbano e bem além das Alturas de Golan.

O mito da guerra limitada: Intervalo de tempo
Peritos militares israelenses esperam confiantemente exterminar seus alvos iranianos nuns poucos dias – alguns podem pensar que num simples fim de semana – e talvez sem a perda de nem um único piloto. Eles esperam que o estado judeu venha a celebrar a sua brilhante vitória nas ruas de Tel Aviv e Washington. Estão iludidos pelo seu próprio senso de superioridade. O Irão não combateu uma guerra brutal com uma década de duração contra os invasores iraquianos abastecidos pelos EUA e os seus conselheiros militares ocidentais/israelenses só para entregar-se e submeter-se passivamente a um número limitado de ataques aéreos e com mísseis por parte de Israel. O Irão é uma sociedade jovem, bem educada e mobilizada, a qual pode utilizar milhões de reservistas de todo espectro político, étnico, de género e religioso, galvanizado em apoio a sua nação sob ataque. Numa guerra para defender a pátria todas as diferenças internas desaparecem para enfrentar o ataque não provocado israelenses-estado-unidense que ameaça toda a sua civilização – seus 5000 anos de cultura e tradições, bem como os seus avanços científicos modernos e instituições. A primeira onda de ataques dos EUA-Israel levará a uma retaliação feroz, a qual não será confinada às áreas originais do conflito, nem qualquer acto da agressão israelense acabará quando e se instalações nucleares do Irão forem destruídas e alguns dos seus cientistas, técnicos e trabalhadores qualificados forem mortos. A guerra continuará no tempo e em extensão geográfica.

Múltiplos pontos de conflito
Assim como qualquer ataque dos EUA-Israel ao Irão envolveria alvos múltiplos, os militares iranianos também terão uma pletora de alvos estratégicos facilmente acessíveis. Embora seja difícil prever onde e como o Irão retaliará, uma coisa está clara: O ataque inicial dos EUA-Israel não ficará sem resposta.

Dada a supremacia israelense-estado-unidense a longas e médias distâncias e em poder aéreo, o Irão provavelmente confiará em objectivos de curta distância. Isto incluiria as valiosas instalações militares do EUA e rotas de abastecimento em terrenos adjacentes (Iraque, Kuwait e Afeganistão) e alvos israelenses com mísseis lançados do Sul do Líbano e possivelmente da Síria. Se uns poucos misseis de longo alcance escaparem ao muito gabado “escudo anti-míssil” do estado judeu, centros populacionais israelenses podem pagar um preço pesado pela imprudência e arrogância dos seus líderes.

O contra-ataque iraniano levará a uma escalada das forças EUA-Israel, estendendo e aprofundando a sua guerra aérea e naval a todos o sistema de segurança nacional iraniano – bases militares, portos, sistemas de comunicação, postos de comando e centros administrativos do governo – muitos em cidades densamente povoadas. O Irão reagirá lançando o seu maior activo estratégico: um ataque coordenado no solo envolvendo os Guardas Revolucionários, juntamente com seus aliados entre as tropas xiitas iraquianas, contra forças dos EUA no Iraque. Ele coordenará ataques contra instalações dos EUA no Afeganistão e Paquistão com a crescente resistência armada nacionalista-islâmica.

O conflito inicial, centrado nos chamados objectivos militares estratégicos (instalações de investigação científica), generalizar-se-á rapidamente a alvos económicos ou o que os estrategas militares dos EUA e Israel chamam de alvos “duais civis-militares”. Isto incluiria campos de petróleo, auto-estradas, fábricas, redes de comunicações, estações de televisão, instalações de tratamento de água, reservatórios, centrais eléctricas e gabinetes administrativos, tais como o Ministério da Defesa e a sede da Guarda Republicana. O Irão, confrontada com a destruição iminente de toda a sua economia e infraestrutura (o que se verificou no Iraque vizinho com a invasão não provocada dos EUA em 2003), retaliaria bloqueando o Estreito de Ormuz e enviando mísseis de curto alcance na direcção dos principais campos de petróleo e refinarias dos Estados do Golfo incluindo o Kuwait e a Arábia Saudita, a meros 10 minutos de distância, paralisando o fluxo de petróleo para a Europa, Ásia e os Estados Unidos e mergulhando a economia mundial numa depressão profunda.

Não se deveria esquecer que os iranianos provavelmente estão mais conscientes do que ninguém na região da devastação total sofrida pelos iraquianos após a invasão dos EUA, a qual mergulhou aquela nação no caos total e devastou a sua infraestrutura avançada e o seu aparelho administrativo civil, para não mencionar a sistemática aniquilação da sua elite científica e técnica altamente educada. As ondas de assassínios de cientistas iranianos, académicos e engenheiros promovidas pela Mossad são apenas uma antevisão do que os israelenses têm em mente para cientistas, intelectuais e trabalhadores técnicos altamente qualificados. Os iranianos não deveriam ter ilusões acerca dos americanos e israelenses que procuram lançar o país na sombria era brutal do Afeganistão e Iraque. Eles não terão mais papel num Irão devastado do que têm os seus vizinhos no Iraque pós Saddam.

Segundo o general Mathis, que comanda todas as forças dos EUA no Médio Oriente, Golfo Pérsico e Sudeste da Ásia, “um primeiro ataque israelense provavelmente teria consequências calamitosas em toda a região e para os Estados Unidos ali” (NY Times, 19/3/12). A estimativa de “consequências calamitosas” do general Mathis apenas leva em conta as perdas militares dos EUA, provavelmente centenas de marinheiros em vasos de guerra ao alcance de mísseis de artilheiros iranianos.

Contudo, a mais ilusória e auto-enganosa avaliação do resultado e consequências de um ataque aéreo israelense ao Irão provém de líderes israelenses de topo, académicos e peritos de inteligência, que afirmam [ter] inteligência superior, defesas superiores e visão suprema (e também racista) dentro da “mente iraniana”. É típico o ministro da Defesa israelense, Barak, que se jacta de que qualquer retaliação iraniana na pior das hipóteses infligirá baixas mínimas à população israelense.

A visão “judeu-cêntrica” de reordenamento do equilíbrio de poder na região, a qual prevalece nos principais círculos israelenses, passa por alto a probabilidade de que a guerra não será decidia por ataques aéreos israelenses e defesas anti-míssil. Os mísseis do Irão não podem ser facilmente contidos, especialmente chegarem várias centenas por minuto de três direcções, Irão, Líbano, Síria e possivelmente de submarinos iranianos. Em segundo lugar, o colapso das suas importações de petróleo devastará a economia de Israel, altamente dependente da energia. Em terceiro lugar, os principais aliados de Israel, especialmente os EUA e a UE, serão gravemente tensionados quando forem arrastados para dentro da guerra de Israel e encontrarem-se a defender os estreitos de Ormuz, suas guarnições no Iraque e no Afeganistão e seus campos de petróleo e bases militares no Golfo. Tal conflito poderia incendiar as maiorias xiitas no Bahrain e nas províncias estratégicas ricas em petróleo da Arábia Saudita. A guerra generalizada terá um efeito devastador sobre o preço do petróleo e a economia mundial. Provocará a fúria de consumidores e a ira de trabalhadores por toda a parte quando fecharem fábricas e choques poderosos por todo o frágil sistema financeiro resultarem numa depressão mundial.

O patológico “complexo de superioridade” de Israel resulta em que os seus líderes racistas sistematicamente super-estimam suas próprias capacidades intelectuais, técnicas e militares, ao passo que subestimam o conhecimento, capacidade e coragem dos seus adversários regionais, islâmicos (neste caso iranianos). Eles ignoram a capacidade demonstrada do Irão para sustentar uma guerra defensiva prolongada, complexa e em muitas frentes e em recuperar-se de um assalto inicial e desenvolver armamento moderno adequado para infligir danos severos aos seus atacantes. E o Irão terá o apoio incondicional e activo da população muçulmana do mundo e talvez o apoio diplomático da Rússia e da China, que obviamente verão um ataque ao Irão como um outro ensaio geral para conter o seu poder crescente.

Conclusão
A guerra, especialmente uma guerra israelense-estado-unidense contra o Irão, está indissoluvelmente ligada ao relacionamento assimétrico EUA-Israel, o qual secundariza qualquer análise militar e política crítica nos EUA. Devido à configuração de poder sionista de Israel, a força militar dos EUA pode ser canalizada para o apoio ao impulso de Israel para a dominação regional, aos líderes israelenses e acima de tudo para os seus militares sentirem-se livres para entrarem nas mais ultrajantes aventuras militares e destrutivas, sabendo muito bem que em primeira e última instância podem confiar no apoio dos EUA com o sangue e as riquezas americanas. Mas depois de todo este grotesco servilismo a um país racista e isolado, quem resgatará os Estados Unidos? Quem impedirá o afundamento dos seus navios no Golfo e a morte e mutilação de centenas dos seus marinheiros e milhares dos seus soldados? E onde estarão os israelenses e sionistas dos EUA quando o Iraque for invadido pelas tropas de elite iranianas e seus aliados xiitas e um levantamento generalizado se verificar no Afeganistão?

Os decisores políticos egocêntricos de Israel desprezam o provável colapso do abastecimento de petróleo mundial em consequência da sua planeada guerra contra o Irão. Será que os seus agentes sionistas nos EUA percebem que, em consequência do arrastamento dos EUA para a guerra de Israel, a nação iraniana será forçada a por em chamas os campos de petróleo do Golfo Pérsico?

Quão barato tornou-se “comprar uma guerra” nos EUA? Por uns meros poucos milhões de dólares em contribuições de campanha para políticos corruptos e através da penetração deliberada de agentes “Israel-First”, académicos e políticos na maquinaria de fazer a guerra do governo estado-unidense, e através da covardia moral e auto-censura dos principais críticos, escritores e jornalistas que se recusam a nomear Israel e seus agentes como os decisores chave do nosso país na política do Médio Oriente, nós nos encaminhamos directamente rumo a uma guerra muito além de qualquer conflagração militar regional e rumo ao colapso da economia mundial e do empobrecimento brutal de centenas de milhões de pessoas de Norte a Sul, de Leste a Oeste.

05/Abril/2012

O original encontra-se em http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=30150

US-ISRAEL WAR ON IRAN : THE MYTH OF LIMITED WARFARE

April 5, 2012, Global Research http://www.globalresearch.ca (Canada)

By Prof. James Petras

Introduction
The mounting threat of a US-Israeli military attack against Iran is based on several factors including: (1) the recent military history of both countries in the region, (2) public pronouncements by US and Israeli political leaders, (3) recent and on-going attacks on Lebanon and Syria, prominent allies of Iran, (4) armed attacks and assassinations of Iranian scientists and security officials by proxy and/or terrorist groups under US or Mossad control, (5) the failure of economic sanctions and diplomatic coercion, (6) escalating hysteria and extreme demands for Iran to end legal, civilian use-related uranium enrichment, (7) provocative military ‘exercises’ on Iran’s borders and war games designed for intimidation and a dress rehearsal for a preemptive attack, (8) powerful pro-war pressure groups in both Washington and Tel Aviv including the major Israeli political parties and the powerful AIPAC in the US, (9) and lastly the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (Obama’s Orwellian Emergency Decree, March 16, 2012).

The US propaganda war operates along two tracks: (1) the dominant message emphasizes the proximity of war and the willingness of the US to use force and violence. This message is directed at Iran and coincides with Israeli announcements of war preparations. (2) The second track targets the ‘liberal public’ with a handful of marginal ‘knowledgeable academics’ (or State Department progressives) playing down the war threat and arguing that reasonable policy makers in Tel Aviv and Washington are aware that Iran does not possess nuclear weapons or any capacity to produce them now or in the near future. The purpose of this liberal backpedaling is to confuse and undermine the majority public opinion, which is clearly opposed to more war preparations, and to derail the burgeoning anti-war movement.

Needless to say the pronouncements of the ‘rational’ warmongers use a ‘double discourse’ based on the facile dismissal of all the historical and empirical evidence to the contrary. When the US and Israel talk of war, prepare for war and engage in pre-war provocations – they intend to go to war – just as they did against Iraq in 2003. Under present international political and military conditions an attack on Iran , initially by Israel with US support, is extremely likely, even as world economic conditions should dictate otherwise and even as the negative strategic consequences will most likely reverberate throughout the world for decades to come.

US and Israeli Military Calculations on Iran’s Capability
American and Israeli strategic policy makers do not agree on the consequences of Iran ’s retaliation against an attack. For their part, the Israeli leaders minimize Iran ’s military capacity to attack and damage the Jewish state, which is their only consideration. They count on their distance, their anti-missile shield and protection from US air and naval forces in the Gulf to cover their sneak attack. On the other hand, US military strategists know the Iranians are capable of inflicting substantial casualties on US warships, which would have to attack Iranian coastal installations in order to support or protect the Israelis.

Israel intelligence is best known for its capacity to organize the assassination of individuals around the world: Mossad has organized successful overseas terrorists acts against Palestinian, Syrian, and Lebanese leaders. On the other hand Israeli intelligence has a very poor track record with regard to its estimates of major military and political undertakings. They seriously underestimated the popular support, military strength and organizational capacity of Hezbollah during the 2006 war in Lebanon . Likewise, Israel intelligence misunderstood the strength and capacity of the Egyptian popular democratic movement as it rose up and overthrew Tel Aviv’s strategic regional ally, the Mubarak dictatorship. While Israeli leaders ‘feign paranoia’ – tossing clichés about ‘existential threats’– they are blinded by their narcissistic arrogance and racism, repeatedly underestimating the technical expertise and political sophistication of their Arab and regional Islamic foes. This is undoubtedly true in their facile dismissal of Iran ’s capacity to retaliate against a planned Israeli air assault.

The US government has now overtly committed itself to supporting an Israeli assault on Iran when it is launched. More specifically, Washington claims it will come to Israel ’s defense ‘unconditionally’ if it is “attacked”. How can Israel avoid being ‘attacked’ when its planes are raining bombs and missiles on Iranian installations, military defenses and support systems, not to mention Iranian cities, ports and strategic infrastructure? Moreover, given the Pentagon’s collaboration and coordinated intelligence systems with the Israel Defense Forces, its role in identifying targets, routes and incoming missiles, as well as integrated weapons and ordinance supply chains will be critical to an IDF attack. There is no way that the US can dissociate itself from the Jewish State’s war on Iran , once the attack has begun.

The Myths of ‘Limited War’: Geography
Washington and Tel Aviv claim and appear to believe that their planned assault on Iran will be a “limited war”, targeting limited objectives and lasting a few days or weeks – with no serious consequences.

We are told Israel ’s brilliant generals have identified all the critical nuclear research facilities, which their surgical air strikes will eliminate without horrific collateral damage to the surrounding population. Once the alleged ‘nuclear weapons’ program is destroyed, all Israelis can resume their lives in full security knowing that another ‘existential’ threat has been eliminated. The Israeli notion of a war, limited in ‘time and space’, is absurd and dangerous – and underlines the arrogance, stupidity and racism of its authors.

To approach Iran ’s nuclear facilities Israeli and US forces will confront well-equipped and defended bases, missile installations, maritime defenses and large-scale fortifications directed by the Revolutionary Guards and the Iranian Armed Forces. Moreover, the defense systems protecting the nuclear facilities are linked by civilian highways, airfields, ports, and backed by a dual purpose (civilian-military) infrastructure, which includes oil refineries and a huge network of administrative offices. To ‘knock out’ the alleged nuclear sites will require expanding the geographic scope of the war. The scientific-technological capacity of the Iranian civilian nuclear program involves a wide swath of its research facilities, including universities, laboratories, manufacturing sites, and design centers. To destroy Iran ’s civilian nuclear program would require Israel (and thus the US ) to attack much more than research facilities or laboratories hidden under a remote mountain. It would require multiple, widespread assaults on targets throughout the country, in other words, a generalized war.

Iran ’s Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has stated that Iran will retaliate with a war of equivalence. Iran will match the breadth and scope of any attack with a corresponding counter-attack: ‘We will attack them at the same level as they attack us’. That means Iran will not confine its retaliation to merely trying to shoot down US and Israeli bombers in its airspace or launch missiles at offshore US warships in its waters but will take the war to equivalent targets in Israel and in US-occupied countries in and around the Gulf. Israel ’s ‘limited war’ will become a generalized war extending throughout the Middle East and beyond.

Israel ’s current delusional fetish about its elaborate missile defense system will be exposed as hundreds of high-powered missiles are launched from Teheran, Southern Lebanon and just beyond the Golan Heights .

The Myth of Limited War: Time Frame
Israeli military experts confidently expect to polish off their Iranian targets in a few days – some might think a mere weekend - and perhaps without the loss of even a single pilot. They expect the Jewish state will celebrate its brilliant victory in the streets of Tel Aviv and Washington. They are deluded by their own sense of superiority. Iran did not fight a brutal, decade-long war against the US-supplied Iraqi invaders and its western/Israeli military advisers, to just turn over and passively submit to a limited number of air and missile attacks by Israel . Iran is a young, educated mobilized society, which can draw on millions of reservists from across the political, ethnic, gender, religious spectrum, galvanized in support of their nation under attack. In a war to defend the homeland all internal differences disappear to confront the unprovoked Israeli-US attack threatening their entire civilization – its 5000-year culture and traditions, as well as its modern scientific advances and institutions. The first wave of US-Israeli attacks will lead to ferocious retaliation, which will not be confined to the original areas of conflict, nor will any such act of Israeli aggression end when and if Iran ’s nuclear research facilities are destroyed and some of its scientists, technicians and skilled workers are killed. The war will continue in time and extend geographically.

Multiple Points of Conflict
Just as any US-Israeli attack on Iran will involve multiple targets, the Iranian military will also have a plethora of easily accessible strategic targets. Though it is difficult to predict exactly where and how Iran will retaliate, one thing is clear: The initial US-Israeli strike will not go unanswered.

Given Israeli-US supremacy in long and medium range sea and air power, Iran will probably rely on short-range objectives. These would include the highly valued US military facilities and supply routes in adjoining terrain (Iraq, Kuwait and Afghanistan) and Israeli targets with missiles launched from Southern Lebanon and possibly Syria. If a few Iranian long-range missiles escape the Jewish State’s much vaunted ‘anti-missile dome’, Israeli population centers may pay a heavy price for their leaders’ recklessness and arrogance.

The Iranian counter-strike will lead to an escalation by US-Israeli forces, extending and deepening their air and sea war to the entire Iranian national security system – military bases, ports, communication systems, command posts and government administrative centers – many in densely populated cities. Iran will counter by launching its greatest strategic asset: a coordinated ground attack involving the Revolutionary Guards together with their allies among the Iraqi Shia troops, against US forces in Iraq . It will coordinate attacks against US facilities in Afghanistan and Pakistan with the growing nationalist-Islamic armed resistance.

The initial conflict, centered on so-called military objectives (scientific research facilities), will spread rapidly to economic targets, or what US and Israeli military strategists refer to as “dual civilian-military” targets. This would include oil fields, highways, factories, communications networks, television stations, water treatment facilities, reservoirs, power stations and administrative offices, such as the Defense Ministry and headquarters of the Republican Guard. Iran, faced with imminent destruction of its entire economy and infrastructure (which occurred in neighboring Iraq with the unprovoked US invasion of 2003), would retaliate by blocking the Straits of Hormuz and sending short range missiles in the direction of the principle oil fields and refineries of the Gulf States including Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, a mere 10 minute distance, crippling the flow of oil to Europe, Asia and the United States and plunging the world economy into deep depression.

It should not be forgotten that the Iranians are probably more aware than anyone in the region of the total devastation suffered by Iraqis after the US invasion, which plunged that nation into total chaos and devastated its advanced infrastructure and civilian administrative apparatus, not to mention the systematic obliteration of its highly educated scientific and technical elite. The waves of Mossad-sponsored assassinations of Iranian scientists, academics and engineers are just a foretaste of what the Israelis have in mind for Iran ’s outstanding scientists, intellectuals and highly skilled technical workers. Iranians should have no illusions about the Americans and Israelis who seek to thrust Iran into the brutal dark ages of Afghanistan and Iraq . They will have no more role in a devastated Iran than their counterparts had in post-Saddam Iraq .

According to US General Mathis, who commands all US forces in the Middle East, Persian Gulf and Southwest Asia, ‘an Israeli first strike would be likely to have dire consequences across the region and for the United States there’ (NY Times, 3/19/12). General Mathis “dire cost” estimate only takes account of the US military losses, likely several hundred sailors on warships within missile distance of Iranian gunners.

However the most delusional and self-serving assessment of the outcome and consequences of an Israeli air attack on Iran, emanates from top Israeli leaders, academics and intelligence experts, who claim superior intelligence, superior defenses and supreme (if also racist) insight into the ‘Iranian mind’. Typical is Israeli Defense Minister Barak who boasts that any Iranian retaliation will at worst inflict minimal casualties on the Israeli population.

The ‘Judeo-centric’ view of re-ordering the balance of power in the region, which is prevalent in leading Israeli war circles, overlooks the likelihood that war will not be decided by Israeli air strikes and anti-missile defenses. Iran ’s missiles cannot be easily contained, especially if they arrive several hundred a minute from three directions, Iran , Lebanon , Syria and possibly from Iranian submarines. Secondly, the collapse of its oil imports will devastate Israel ’s highly energy dependent economy. Thirdly, Israel ’s principle allies, especially the US and the EU, will be severely strained as they are dragged into Israel ’s war and find themselves defending the straits of Hormuz, their army garrisons in Iraq and Afghanistan , and their oil fields and military bases in the Gulf. Such a conflict could ignite the Shia majorities in Bahrain and in the strategic oil-rich provinces of Saudi Arabia . The generalized war will have a devastating effect on the price of oil and the world economy. It will provoke the fury of consumers and workers rage everywhere as factories close and powerful shocks throughout the fragile financial system result in a world depression.

Israel ’s pathological ‘superiority complex’ results in its racist leaders consistently overestimating their own intellectual, technical and military capabilities, while underestimating the knowledge, capacity and courage of their regional, Islamic (in this case Iranian) adversaries. They ignore Iran ’s proven capacity to sustain a prolonged, complex multi-front defensive war and to recover from an initial assault and develop appropriate modern weaponry to inflict severe damage on its attackers. And Iran will have the unconditional and active support of the world’s Muslim population, and perhaps the diplomatic backing of Russia and China , who will obviously view an attack on Iran as another dress rehearsal to contain their growing power.

Conclusion
War, especially an Israeli-US war against Iran is indissolubly linked to the asymmetrical US-Israeli relationship, which sidelines and censors any critical US military and political analysis. Because Israel’s Zionist power configuration in the US can now harness US military power in support of Israel’s drive for regional dominance, Israeli leaders and most of their military feel free to engage in the most outrageous military and destructive adventures, knowing full well that in the first and last instance they can rely on the US to support them with American blood and treasure. But after all of this grotesque servitude to a racist ,isolated country, who will rescue the United States ? Who will prevent the sinking of its ships in the Gulf and the death and maiming of hundreds of its sailors and thousands of its soldiers? And where will the Israelis and US Zionists be when Iraq is overrun by elite Iranian troops and their Iraqi Shia allies and a generalized uprising occurs in Afghanistan ?

The self-centered Israeli policy-makers overlook the likely collapse of the world oil supply as a result of their planned war against Iran. Do their Zionist agents in the US realize that as a result of dragging the US into Israel ’s war, that the Iranian nation will be forced to set the Persian Gulf oilfields ablaze?

How cheap has it become to ‘buy a war’ in the US ? For a mere few million dollars in campaign contributions to corrupt politicians, and through the deliberate penetration of Israel-First agents, academics and politicians into the war-making machinery of the US government, and through the moral cowardice and self-censorship of leading critics, writers and journalists who refuse to name Israel and its agents as the key decision makers in our country’s Mid East policy, we head directly toward a war far beyond any regional military conflagration and toward the collapse of the world economy and the brutal impoverishment of hundreds of millions of people North and South, East and West.

100 IRANIAN MISSILES WILL PENETRATE DEFENSES, HITTING ISRAELI TARGETS AFTER FIRST-STRIKE

March 29th, Tikun Olam-תיקון עולם http://www.richardsilverstein.com (USA)

Gareth Porter does some excellent reporting during his current trip to Israel, where he’s meeting Israeli military and intelligence figures concerning a possible Israeli attack on Iran. He focuses on the lack of Israeli psychological preparation or awareness of the danger they face from an Iranian counter-strike after Israel’s pre-emptive attack.

Neve Gordon reported in Al Jazeera English that Israel assassinated the leader of the Gaza PRC a few weeks ago in order to deliberately provoke a Gaza missile barrage. Bibi wanted to test the Iron Dome missile system in the expectation that its success would further reassure Israelis and his doubting cabinet members, who must vote to approve war, that Israel will remain protected from rockets in the event Iran is attacked. I have a Truthout story being publishing tomorrow that will cover more of this ground.

Arrow 3 Missile (IDF)

Porter notes that Iron Dome will not protect Israel from Iranian missiles. The Arrow system is designed to shoot down the medium and long-range projectiles that Iran would launch. An Israeli missile expert notes that in testing, the Arrow has achieved an 80% success rate (the rate would be lower in battlefield conditions). Iran has around 450 missiles capable of hitting Israel. That means that over 100 missiles would get through Israel’s protective shield. Even if we factor that some of the 450 might be destroyed before launching by Israeli aircraft and that some of the missiles will land harmlessly and miss their target, that still leaves a very significant number that will get through. These are not Qassams we’re talking about. These are missiles packed with lethal warheads that will kill many and cause huge amounts of damage.

The missile expert, Uzi Rubin, says that Iran has improved its accuracy to within “meters” of the target. That means virtually all of Israel’s major infrastructure including power generation, air and seaports, political command and control facilities (the Knesset), and military bases (and the Kirya) would be hit. Add to this, the fact that Hamas and Hezbollah rockets would likely be falling as well. Even with the success of Iron Dome, a significant number of these rockets would get through, adding even more damage. Rubin tellingly says:

”I’m asking my military friends how they feel about waging war without electricity.”

I’m wagering that the Iranian response would give Israelis the shock of a lifetime, putting it mildly. Thousands will die, and as Meir Dagan said, Israel will not be the same country physically or psychologically afterward. Nor has Israel ever had to fight a war under such circumstances. It has never really had an adversary (save in 1948 and possibly 1973) who could put up a real fight and even take the fight to Israel itself.
On a related note, the Israeli right-wing media is full of stories complaining about Mark Perry’s terrific Foreign Policy expose of Israel’s shady dealings in Azerbaijan, which have likely led to an agreement to use its airspace and airfield as part of the plan to attack Iran. These media outlets seem to be in high dudgeon (Dan Margalit in Yisrael HaYom says the Americans are “shooting at Israel”) that the Obama administration is using Mark and others to relay its extreme discomfort and displeasure with Israel’s machination both in Azerbaijan and relating to a strike on Iran itself. The Jerusalem Post headline reads:

U.S. Leaks on Iran Meant to Prevent Israeli Strike

The columnist kvetches about Perry’s report:

There was something off-putting about the whole tone of the piece, as if the bad guy in this story were not Iran, for trying to acquire nuclear weapons, but Israel…
These…stories are…fed by sources intent on sending a clear message: Do not attack.

Gee, whadaya know? The U.S. has the chutzpah to worry about Israel throwing a lit match onto the tinderbox that is the current Middle East, and there’s something “off-putting” about that. As if our job and the job of the rest of the world is simply to understand Israel’s motives and interests and then get out of the way.

I find it humorous that Israel’s prime minister and defense minister are entitled to leak like a sieve to Israeli and world media about their war plans and yet the U.S., chas v’chalilah, has a hidden agenda when it does the same. No one, after all is allowed to have hidden agendas except Israeli prime ministers intent on attacking their neighbors.

NETANYAHU IS PREPARING ISRAELI PUBLIC OPINION FOR A WAR ON IRAN

15 March 2012, Haaretz הארץ (Israel)

In response to Netanyahu's AIPAC speech, Haaretz's editor-in-chief says that what looks like a preparation for war, acts like a preparation for war, and quacks like a preparation for war, is a preparation for war.

By Aluf Benn

Since his return from Washington, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has mainly been preoccupied with one thing: Preparing public opinion for war against Iran.

Netanyahu is attempting to convince the Israeli public that the Iranian threat is a tangible and existential one, and that there is only one effective way to stop it and prevent a "second Holocaust": An Israeli military attack on Iran's nuclear infrastructure, which is buried deep underground.

In his speech before the Knesset on Wednesday, Netanyahu urged his colleagues to reject claims that Israel is too weak to go it alone in a war against a regional power such as Iran and therefore needs to rely on the United States, which has much greater military capabilities, to do the job and remove the threat.

According to polls published last week, this is the position of most of the Israeli public, which supports a U.S. strike on Iran, but is wary of sending the IDF to the task without the backing of the friendly superpower.

Netanyahu presented three examples in which his predecessors broke the American directive and made crucial decisions regarding the future of Israel: the declaration of independence in 1948, starting the Six Day War in 1967 and the bombing of the nuclear reactor in Iraq in 1981.

The lesson was clear: Just as David Ben-Gurion, Levi Eshkol and Menachem Begin said "no" to the White House, Netanyahu also needs not be alarmed by President Obama's opposition to an attack on Iran. Netanyahu believes that, as in the previous incidents, the U.S. may grumble at first, but will then quickly adopt the Israeli position and provide Israel with support and backing in the international community.

If Netanyahu had submitted his speech as a term paper to his father the history professor, he would have received a very poor grade. In 1948, the U.S. State Department, headed by George Marshall, opposed the declaration of independence and supported a United Nations trusteeship for Palestine. But President Truman had other considerations.

Like Obama today, Truman was also a democratic president contending for his reelection, who needed the support of the Jewish voters and donors. Under those circumstances, Truman rejected Marshall's advice, and listened to his political adviser Clark Clifford, who pressured him to recognize the Zionist state. And indeed, Truman sent a telegram with an official recognition of Israel just 11 minutes after Ben-Gurion finished reading the Scroll of Independence. The U.S. opposition to the recognition of Israel was halted at the desk of the president, who repelled the explanations by the Secretary of State and the "Arabists" in his office.

In 1967, the official U.S. position called on Israel to hold back and refrain from going to war, but a different message was passing through the secret channels: go "bomb Nasser," reported Levi Eshkol's envoys to Washington, Meir Amit and Avraham Harman. This message tipped the scales in favor of going to war. In 1981, Begin did not bother asking the Americans their opinion before attacking Iraq, but lulled them to sleep and launched a surprise attack.

In these past incidents, Israel acted against the U.S. position formally, but made sure that the Americans will accept the results of the action and support it in retrospect. And indeed, the U.S. recognized Israel in 1948, allowed it to control the territories annexed in 1967, and made do with weak condemnations of the attack on the Iraq nuclear reactor in 1981.

That being the case, then Netanyahu is hinting that in his Washington visit, he received Obama's tacit approval for an Israeli attack against Iran – under the guise of opposition. Obama will speak out against it but act for it, just as the past U.S. administrations speak against the settlements in the territories but allow their expansion. And in this manner Netanyahu summarized the visit: "I presented before my hosts the examples that I just noted before you, and I believe that the first objective that I presented – to fortify the recognition of Israel's right to defend itself – I think that objective has been achieved."

This morning, the editor-in-chief of the Israel Hayom newspaper, Amos Regev, published on his front page an enthusiastic op-ed in support of a war against Iran. Regev writes what Netanyahu cannot say in his speeches: that we cannot rely on Obama – who wasn't even a mechanic in the armored corps - but only on ourselves. "Difficult, daring, but possible," Regev promised. We need not be alarmed by the Iranian response: the arrow would take down the Shahab missiles, and Hezbollah and Hamas would hesitate about entering a war. The damage would be reminiscent of the Iraqi scuds in the 1991 Gulf War - unpleasant, but definitely not too bad. The analysts are weak, but the soldiers and the residents of the Home Front have motivation. So onward, to battle!

To use Netanyahu's "duck allegory", what looks like a preparation for war, acts like a preparation for war, and quacks like a preparation for war, is a preparation for war, and not just a "bluff" or a diversion tactic. Until his trip to Washington, Netanyahu and his supporters in the media refrained from such explicit wording and made do with hints. But since he's been back, Netanyahu has issued an emergency call-up for himself and the Israeli public.

More on this topic
Netanyahu: Gaza violence shows Israel cannot afford to be lax on Iran nuclear threat
Obama: Window for diplomatic solution to Iran nuclear standoff is 'shrinking'

NETANYAHU ET LES PRINTEMPS ARABES

7 décembre 2011, Association France Palestine Solidarité (AFPS) http://www.france-palestine.org (France)

Charles Enderlin - blog

Un pouvoir idéologique a toujours tendance à placer la réalité au service de ses idées. La situation présente, explique-t-il, est éphémère. Car, si le danger n’est pas immédiat, l’avenir est inexorablement porteur de catastrophes.

C’est ainsi que, le 10 juillet 1996. Premier ministre, fraichement élu, Benjamin Netanyahu expliquait dans un discours devant le Congrès à Washington que l’absence de démocratie dans le monde arabe l’empêchait de faire des concessions territoriales : « […] Nous devons appliquer les standards de la démocratie et des droits de l’homme au Proche orient. Je crois que chaque musulman, chaque chrétien et chaque Juifs de la région a droit à cela. Je ne pense pas que nous devons accepter l’idée que le Proche Orient soit le dernier sanctuaire isolé « sans démocratie » pour toujours à l’exception d’Israël. Le Proche-Orient n’a pas encore réalisé ce passage fondamental de l’autocratie vers la démocratie. Cela ne veut pas dire que nous ne pouvons pas avoir la paix dans cette région, une paix avec des régimes non démocratiques. Je crois que nous le pouvons. C’est un fait, nous avons eu de tels accords de paix. Mais, ils peuvent être caractérisés que comme étant une paix défensive, où nous devons conserver des acquis essentiels pour la défense de notre pays et suffisants pour [notre dissuasion].Jusqu’à ce que la démocratisation existe dans la région, la voie correcte pour le monde démocratique, conduit par les Etats-Unis, doit être de renforcer la seule démocratie du Proche Orient, Israël »
Mais pas n’importe quelle démocratie. Les Printemps arabes sont, pour Benjamin Netanyahu, porteurs de tous les dangers. Le 23 novembre dernier, à la Knesset, il a ainsi défini les raisons pour lesquelles Israël ne pouvait pas faire certaines concessions : « Le Moyen Orient n’est pas un endroit pour les naïfs. En février dernier, j’étais debout à ce podium lorsque des millions d’égyptiens descendaient dans les rues du Caire. Des commentateurs et de nombreux membres de l’opposition m’avaient expliqué que nous étions à l’orée d’une nouvelle ère de libéralisme et de progrès qui évacuerait l’ordre ancien. J’avais répondu en espérant que ce serait le cas mais qu’en dépit de tous nos espoirs, il était probable qu’une vague islamiste inonde les pays arabes, une vague antioccidentale, antilibérale, anti-israélienne et, en fin de compte, anti-démocratique. Ils disaient que je voulais alarmer le public, que je ne voyais pas que j’étais du mauvais côté de l’histoire, que je ne voyais pas la direction que prenaient les choses. [Les printemps arabes] bougent, n’avancent pas dans le sens du progrès, mais reculent. […] Je vous demande aujourd’hui, qui n’a pas compris l’histoire ? Je me souviens : nombreux d’entre vous me lançaient des appels- et quels appels !- afin que je saisisse l’occasion et fasse des concessions précipitées. C’est le moment disiez vous ! Ne ratez pas l’occasion ! Mais je ne fonde pas la politique d’Israël sur une illusion. La terre tremble ! Nous ne savons pas qui contrôlera toute terre à laquelle nous renoncerions. Pas demain, pas cette après midi. Nous voyons que la réalité change, elle change partout. Qui ne voit pas cela [fait l’autruche] se cache la tête dans le sable Cela n’empêchait pas [certaines] personnes de venir et de proposer : « Donnez ! Renoncez ! ». J’ai répondu : « Nous voulons parvenir à un accord avec les Palestiniens car nous ne voulons pas d’un état binational, mais nous insistons pour que ce soit sur des fondements stables et surs. […] Je ne suis pas prêt à ignorer la réalité. Je ne suis pas prêt à ignorer les dangers. Je ne suis pas prêt à ignorer l’Histoire. Je ne suis pas prêt à ignorer le présent et à renoncer à une seule de nos exigences de sécurité qui ont augmenté en raison des crises récentes et n’ont pas diminué. Ce n’est pas le moment d’y renoncer et de foncer de l’avant. C’est le moment d’être extrêmement prudent dans la gestion de nos contacts avec les Palestiniens. […]. » Et d’accuser Mahmoud Abbas, le Président palestinien de refuser le dialogue car « le Premier ministre israélien n’est pas prêt d’accepter ses conditions ».

Tom Friedman, l’éditorialiste du New York Times a repris les arguments de Netanyahu. D’abord en rappelant que Netanyahu avait accusé l’administration Obama d’avoir poussé Hosny Moubarak vers la démission au lieu de le soutenir. Faux ! Les dictateurs arabes ont été destitués par leurs peuples. En Égypte, le régime avait organisé les élections les plus truquées de son histoire. L’année dernière il avait fait élire 209 députés du parti au pouvoir sur 211. Quand à la montée de l’Islamisme, elle est due avant tout aux régimes autocratiques qui pendant des décennies n’ont pas permis le développement de partis d’opposition libéraux, séculaires et démocratiques. La seule opposition organisée se trouvait dans les mosquées.

Les succès électoraux des islamiques ne devraient donc pas surprendre. Ils se sont développés sur un terreau fertile. Occupés à s’enrichir, les dictateurs ont systématiquement délaissé leurs classes pauvres, les abandonnant aux intégristes. En Égypte, où l’illettrisme dépasse les 40%, la mosquée, tenue par les Frères musulmans est non seulement un lieu de culte mais aussi un centre d’aide sociale et éducative. C’est là que le petit peuple ressentait un sentiment de dignité.

Bien entendu, la théologie de la Confrérie est anti-occidentale et anti-juive. Voir mon livre : « Le grand aveuglement. Israël et l’irrésistible ascension de l’Islam radical » Confrontés à la réalité à l’approche d’un pouvoir dont ils ont toujours rêvé, les islamistes sauront-ils faire preuve de pragmatisme ? Pour certains d’entre eux, peut-être. Pour d’autres certainement non. L’armée égyptienne qui, aujourd’hui, assume le pouvoir, laissera t’elle le pays devenir un second Pakistan ? Ou une deuxième Libye ? Ce n’est pas sur. Dans tous les cas, cette révolution est loin d’être achevée. Sur son blog de Foreign Policy, Stephen Walt rappelle que ces changements de régime, ne sont jamais rapides mais s’étendent sur des décennies. Parfois plus. Le combat des jeunes révolutionnaires arabes, des blogueurs et des militants des droits de l’homme en est à ses tous débuts. Après avoir renversé les dictatures en place, vont-ils devoir affronter une autocratie islamique ? Probablement.

Reste la question d’Israël dont l’environnement stratégique s’est sérieusement détérioré, avec au nord, le Hezbollah dominant le Liban, au nord, au sud Gaza tenu par le Hamas et la crainte d’une Egypte tombant dans l’escarcelle de l’Islam radical alors que ses relations avec la Turquie sont au plus mal. Un isolement grandissant qui inquiète également Washington. Le secrétaire américain à la défense, Leon Panetta a lancé, vendredi dernier un appel au gouvernement israélien pour qu’il se tourne vers l’Egypte, la Turquie et ses autres partenaires sécuritaires dans la région, rétablisse de bonnes relations avec ces pays et fasse des efforts pour arriver à la paix avec les Palestiniens. La présidence du conseil à Jérusalem s’est empressée de lui répondre en rejetant la responsabilité du gel du processus de paix sur les Palestiniens.

Mahmoud Abbas, le Président de l’autorité autonome refuse toute négociation directe avec Benjamin Netanyahu aussi longtemps que se poursuivront les activités de colonisations en Cisjordanie et à Jérusalem Est. Il insiste pour que les termes de référence des pourparlers soient fondés sur la ligne de 1967. Des conditions que le Premier ministre israélien refuse.

Mais, en fait, les Palestiniens ont soumis des propositions que les Israéliens ont refusé de recevoir. C’était le 14 novembre dernier, à Jérusalem au cours d’une réunion du Quartet (les représentants des Etats-Unis, de l’ONU, de l’Europe et de la Russie). Saeb Erekat a présenté un premier document proposant que la frontière de l’état palestinien soit basée sur la ligne de 1967, avec un échange de territoire portant sur 1,9 % de la Cisjordanie. Un second document décrivait les arrangements de sécurité proposés par l’OLP. Une force internationale serait déployée le longe de la frontière avec Israël et dans la vallée du Jourdain. La Palestine serait démilitarisée et ne conclurait pas d’alliance militaire avec des pays hostiles à Israël. Le lendemain, le 15 novembre, Yitzhak Molho,le représentant israélien a répondu au quartet qu’il ne pouvait pas coopérer avec une telle procédure et que les Palestiniens devaient accepter des négociations directes. En raison de ces fuites, le quartet a rappelé les Palestiniens à l’ordre en leur conseillant de reprendre les négociations directes Cela dit, ce n’est pas la première fois que Molho refuse des propositions palestiniennes. Lors d’une rencontre aux Nations Unies en septembre 2010, Saeb Erekat, le principal négociateur d’Abbas a, en présence d’Hilary Clinton présenté un dossier de plusieurs centaines de pages à Molho. Ce dernier a expliqué qu’il ne pouvait pas les recevoir, car cela produirait une crise gouvernementale en Israël...

En tout cas, sur la scène internationale, l’attitude du gouvernement Netanyahu suscite, de plus en plus de scepticisme quand à sa volonté de parvenir à un accord. Le 22 septembre 2011, Bill Clinton, l’ancien président des Etats-Unis a rejeté la responsabilité de l’impasse sur Israël. « C’est le premier ministre israélien Benjamin Netanyahu, dont le gouvernement a déplacé les bornes (goalposts) lors de sa prise du pouvoir, et dont l’ascension représente la raison majeure de l’absence d’accord de paix israélo-palestinien […] Il y a deux principales raisons à l’absence d’une paix globale : « la réticence de l’administration Netanyahu à accepter les termes de l’accord de Camp David (2000) et un mouvement démographique en Israël qui rend l’opinion publique israélienne moins disposée envers la paix. » […] Le gouvernement Netanyahu a reçu toutes les assurances que les gouvernements israéliens précédents avaient demandées, mais maintenant il ne les acceptera pas pour signer la paix. […] Il s’est éloigné du consensus de paix, rendant un accord sur le statut final plus difficile […] Le roi d’Arabie Saoudite a rassemblé tous les Etats arabes pour dire aux Israéliens : « Si vous parvenez à un accord avec les Palestiniens, nous vous accorderons immédiatement, non seulement la reconnaissance mais aussi, un partenariat politique, économique et sécuritaire. » […]. Voilà comment nous en sommes arrivés là. […] Les vrais cyniques croient que l’appel fréquent du gouvernement Netanyahu pour des négociations sur les frontières et autres signifie qu’il n’a simplement pas l’intention de renoncer à la Cisjordanie. »

Bill Clinton ne va pas au bout de son raisonnement. Benjamin Netanyahu, son gouvernement, sa majorité à la Knesset, le Likoud son parti, ne veulent pas d’un état palestinien dans les limites qui, seules, permettraient un accord avec l’OLP. Cela, pour des raisons idéologiques, car, pour eux, la Cisjordanie est la Judée-Samarie biblique, la Terre d’Israël et Jérusalem la capitale réunifiée et indivisible de l’état juif. La droite nationaliste au pouvoir et ses alliés religieux n’y renonceront pas. Un situation que le caricaturiste du quotidien Haaretz résumait ainsi :

Publié sur le blog de Charles Enderlin, hébergé par Franc