Doron Zahavi, pixellated (Eli Attias)

Doron Zahavi, who still can be called only “Captain George” in the Israeli media, has gone public with his grievance against the IDF, which employed him to torture kidnapped Arabs who were thought to have intelligence about affairs in Lebanon or Syria, specifically Israeli prisoners of war. Among those he worked his wonders on was Mustafa Dirani, who was thought to have specific knowledge of the whereabouts of Ron Arad. Yossi Gurvitz reports ( in Hebrew) that Zahavi ordered one of his subordinates to undress and rape Dirani. Another Zahavi subordinate, who blew the whistle on the whole military torture complex he ran, says his commander sodomized Dirani with a nightstick.

The brave torturer has the effrontery to claim that the anal lacerations Dirani suffered were due to “constipation,” for which they gave him a laxative that caused him to soil himself.  The victim says he was forced to wear a diaper constantly even when it contained excrement.  And such treatment, as Gurvitz confirms and as I’ve reported here previously is SOP for the Israeli torture apparatus.

There are those who applaud the Israeli Supreme Court for outlawing torture in a landmark ruling.  But unlike the U.S. Supreme Court, the Israeli rulings appear to be only advisory and not declarative.  The security apparatus feels emboldened to act as it wishes, court ruling or no.  That’s why IDF Gen. Yair Naveh ordered Palestinian militants murdered in cold blood though they were unarmed, in direct violation of a Supreme Court ruling.  Note, that the brave justices, when offered an opportunity to review Naveh’s brazen violation of their ruling, refused to do so, in characteristically timid fashion.

Israeli prison guard offering Mustafa Dirani a hearty 'a votre sante' on his release from prison (Life)

Gurvitz notes that, like the CIA tapes of waterboarding of Al Qaeda suspects which were erased, the Dirani interrogation tapes mysteriously disappeared.  They must’ve thought where there’s no smoke there can be no fire.  If the tapes had survived the fire might have burned not just Zahavi and his boss, but a very senior IDF commander, Amos Gilad.  That’s pretty high up the food chain.  Zahavi claims Gilad was watching the interrogations in real-time.

Despite the destruction of key evidence, the IDF didn’t bargain for a disgruntled subordinate stricken by conscience for the horrible things he did there, would spill the beans and expose the whole sordid mess publicly.  That whistleblower himself has been threatened with state prosecution for perpetrating some of the alleged crimes of which he charges Zahavi.  The Israeli motto seems to be: let no good deed go unpunished.

On the strength of this claim and the notoriety that derived from it, Zahavi’s notorious Unit 504 was disbanded (only to re-emerge in recent months in all its former glory), Dirani was freed, and the IDF officer was cashiered. Though he resurfaced as the Israeli police’s chief anti-Arab enforcer for East Jerusalem. He has the title of “liaison” to the Palestinian community. But Jouad Siam knows first hand what that means. Zahavi threatened to destroy the home of the Silwan activist and to destroy the community organization he founded if he refused to inform on his fellow Palestinians.

Dirani is now suing the Israeli government for the abuse he suffered and the Israeli Supreme Court ruled the trial may go forward. Zahavi too is suing the government because it didn’t give him a medal for the dirty work he did on its behalf. He wants a tidy sum in return for keeping his mouth shut. He even says he’d take a job in Alaska (I didn’t know there were any IDF outposts there or any torture victims for him to work on) if they’d at least treated him with the respect he deserved. This reminds me of a Martin Scorsese mafia pic in which the disaffected made-guy goes to the don and whines about being cut out of the spoils and not getting what he has coming to him. Usually the guy is offed in the next reel, though I’m not sure the IDF has gotten to the point where it gets rid of its own rotten apples in that fashion.

Lest you doubt he is a rotten apple, take a peek at this:

“If this goes to court, what I told you today is just the teaser,” he threatens, “Trust me – no one really wants me to climb up to the stand. If I have to stand there and speak of Dirani, you’ll find out I have plenty more to say about how the apparatus acts when it needs to hide all sorts of things […] and everyone is a liar, which is why the country is where it is today, no deterrence, nothing. And in the end? I’m the apparatus’ scapegoat.”

If he doesn’t get the Israel Prize for torture he’s going to sing all day on the stand and tell the world how dirty the IDF and security apparatus is.  Now, this could be the disgruntled ravings of an extortionist who’s bluffing; or this guy has the goods and he’s willing to tell the world just how vile and dirty the entire Israeli security system is.  I’d say the truth is somewhere in between.  My guess is that while he does have plenty of dirt, that he’s more interested in upping the price for his silence than telling all the dirty little secrets.  He’s too much a company man and probably too much a blowhard and coward to really tell it all.  But that’s just a guess.

Gurvitz’s closing paragraph is poignant and compelling:

The Dirani-George case, had it been treated properly, may have become the 300 Line affair of the 504 unit. This did not happen, simply because the public does not wish to know. In 2012 Israel (as in 1994 Israel, as in 1984 Israel) the idea that every person – even Dirani, even George – is a human being, which must not be deprived by reducing him to quivering piece of meat, lying in its own excrement, is still a radical one.

I would only add that the only reason the 300 Line affair was exposed was that a senior IDF commander was accused of a crime he didn’t commit and while the entire government apparatus closed ranks behind the lying scumbag of a Shin Bet chief who perpetrated the coverup, the military officer wouldn’t go quietly.  Also, there were a few brave media outlets which defied censorship and reported the scandal.  In the Zahavi case there are no IDF sacrificial lambs, nor is there a brave media ready to defy the censor and spill the beans.  But Gurvitz’s main claim is correct: the Israeli public doesn’t give a crap about the suffering of an Arab.  Let Dirani rot in hell would be the prevailing wisdom.

I noticed something very peculiar about Yossi’s post when it was republished at 972 Magazine.  The link to my own post which exposed the name of Doron Zahavi, which Yossi graciously included in his own blog post, was gone once it was republished at 972.  It’s fairly easy to figure out why.  The 972 editor who republished made a judgement that merely by linking to my post they might bring the wrath of the Israeli security services on them.

Now, to be clear, it is not illegal (yet) in Israel to link to a foreign source which exposes the identity of an Israeli security officer.  In fact, Zahavi is no longer in the IDF and so isn’t even protected by the traditional proffer of anonymity offered to military and intelligence officers in the media.  But 972 figured self-censorship was the better part of valor.  It’s what I call pre-emptive self-censorship.  Linking to my blog may not be illegal yet, but let’s err on the side of caution and not give the security goons an excuse to go after us.  I understand the dangers faced by the dissenting media inside Israel.  But still, if they don’t have courage, who will?  So I think it was essentially a cowardly act.

Yossi’s act of linking to me was brave such principled blogging is why he’s been interrogated by the police for his blog.  As for 972?  Not so much.

If anyone has a photo of the real Captain George, please let me know.  He deserves to have his name and image up in lights.

Let’s add to this an only tangentially related matter that another 972 writer, Dimi Reider took a nasty potshot at me that was riddled with inaccuracies in his own 972 column.  When I asked Noam Sheizaf for the right of reply in a 972 post he never answered.  So much for progressive solidarity and fairness.

UPDATE: Noam Sheizaf and Dimi Reider have replied to my criticisms above: Sheizaf says the link to my Doron Zahavi post was replaced when it was republished at 972 through an “innocent mistake” that will be corrected.  I made the assumptions I did above based on what I saw on the website.  In response to his question why I didn’t bother to contact him directly before speaking publicly about it, I reminded him of his lack of response to my last message.  We’re all human beings and base our judgments and responses on how others treat us.  Sheizaf apparently feels I’ve gored his and 972′s ox, but doesn’t seem to understand that others may feel their own ox has been gored as well.

There is another possible explanation for the disappearance of that link.  That is that Yossi republished the article with the link and someone else removed it.  Possibly someone motivated by pique at my strong response to Dimi Reider’s post.  If that’s the case, then the motives are even pettier than the reason I ascribed above.

Reider says one of my main criticisms of the innacuracy of his characterization of my claims about the drone strike resulted from a “typo” on his part.

Coming soon to a synagogue or embassy near you...the IRG bogeyman (AFP/Getty)

ABC News today publishes a leaked (from whom?) memo drafted by Israeli intelligence sources warning of terror threats against Israeli government sites in this country and American Jewish communal facilities from the dreaded “Iran menace.”  If you heard this story on the TV news it would sound persuasive, until you began to examine the assumptions behind it.  It begins by declaring the alleged assassination plot against the Saudi ambassador as a given.  This passage quotes a federal official mouthing the Israeli line:

“The thwarted assassination plot of a Saudi official in Washington, D.C., a couple of months ago was an important data point,” added the official, “in that it showed at least parts of the Iranian establishment were aware of the intended event and were not concerned about inevitable collateral damage to U.S. citizens had they carried out an assassination plot on American soil.”

“That was an eye opener, showing that they did not care about any collateral damage,” the federal official said.

Note the vagueness of “parts of the Iranian establishment were aware of the…event.”  This doesn’t even place direct blame for the alleged plot on Iranian leaders themselves.  It only says they were aware of it and didn’t object.  What’s also ironic about this is that I haven’t seen any U.S. expression of concern for those Iranians murdered as “collateral damage” from Mossad and MEK terror attacks inside Iran. Perhaps when we do then we can expect Iranians to care about collateral damage to citizens in this country from acts of terror no one has even been able to prove were planned.

So from a single alleged planned act of terror, Israel and U.S. intelligence operatives have spun a narrative of ongoing threat from the Iranians.  They could strike anywhere at any time.  They’re out there, out to get us: New York City, Los Angeles, Boston, Chicago.  Wherever there are Jews there is danger.  We have to be vigilant.  Because they hate us.  They all hate us.  We have to put the threat of terror in the front of our minds.  We have to become paranoid, as paranoid as the Israeli and U.S. intelligence officials are postulated this nightmare scenario:

Israeli facilities in North America — and around the world — are on high alert, according to an internal security document obtained by ABC News that predicted the threat from Iran against Jewish targets will increase.

“We predict that the threat on our sites around the world will increase … on both our guarded sites and ‘soft’ sites,” stated a letter circulated by the head of security for the Consul General for the Mid-Atlantic States. Guarded sites refers to government facilities like embassies and consulates, while ‘soft sites’ means Jewish synagogues, and schools, as well as community centers like the one hit by a terrorist bombing in Buenos Aires in 1994 that killed 85 people.

The head of Shin Bet, Israel’s internal security service, told an audience at a closed forum in Tel Aviv recently that Iran is trying to hit Israeli targets…

Local and regional law enforcement and intelligence officials in U.S. and Canadian cities, including New York, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, and Toronto have been monitoring the situation closely for several weeks, and have stepped up patrols at Israeli government locations and Jewish cultural and religious institutions. They have issued awareness bulletins reminding officers to stay vigilant.

Federal officials in those cities told ABC News that they have also increased their efforts to watch for any threat stream pointing to an imminent attack on either Israeli facilities, Jewish cultural or religious institutions or other “soft targets.”

So because some mid-level Israeli security operative spins a tale of dread, every American Jew must start looking under his bed for hidden Iranian agents out to get him (or her). If you parse this carefully, there is absolutely no proven threat mentioned, no chatter in the terror networks, no identifiable enemy operatives. Just a load of paranoia from a bunch of spooks telling us the Iranian bogeymen are out there, somewhere, waiting, just waiting. For what?

So you want proof that there’s a threat? Here it is:

“In the past few weeks, there has been an escalation in threats against Israeli and Jewish targets around the world,” one regional document noted. “Open source has reported many demonstrations against Israel are expected to be concentrated on Israeli embassies and consulates. Such demonstrations have occurred internationally as well as domestically. These demonstrations could potentially turn violent at local synagogues, restaurants, the Israeli Embassy and other Israeli sites. … Law enforcement should be vigilant when making periodic checks at all Jewish facilities.

So get this: the “threat” is from protesters at Israeli embassies and consulates.  Why?  How?  Doesn’t say.  Are there Iranian agents who’ve infiltrated these protests?  And what protests?  I haven’t heard of any to speak of.  Are Iranians demonstrating at Israeli embassies over threats against Iran?  Hadn’t heard of that.  But the end result here is Israel is setting the stage for its own attack on Iran leading to such protests by Iranians and others who oppose violence, and these protesters will be seen as potential terrorist saboteurs out to get Israelis or any American Jew they can find.

What the hell will the Israelis do with all the American Jews who will be out there on the picket lines?  Perhaps we’ll be double agents betraying our people and nation by siding with the enemy.  It would suit the absurdist ultranationalist narrative represented by Netanyahu and the Israeli war party.  I’ve got news for them.  They can attempt to insinuate their own fears into American society and use us for their own interests in ginning up hate against Iran.  But I’m not buying it.  I’m not going to be party to the epidemic of war fever they’re trying to inject into the body politic.  I’m going to stay calm and rational.  If they want to cry wolf, let them.  The rest of us will be here to point out the hysteria and unfounded claims of Bibi’s hawkmeisters.

There’s another delightful (in a twisted sort of way) irony in the following:

…The Israeli bulletin warned that Israel’s own passports might be used by terrorists intent on carrying out a plot.

Now isn’t that cute.  Israeli caused a massive international scandal by cloning passports of its own citizens for use by the Dubai assassins who murdered Mahmoud al-Mabouh.  The Mossad violated the sovereignty of its own allies in the process.  Now they have the chutzpah to tell us that they accuse Iran of planning to do the same thing.  As if there’s no justice in that, and the whole world should be shocked, I say shocked that Iran might do to Israelis what Israel itself did to them by putting them in harm’s way.

Here’s the final coup de grâce of this charade:

…We operate according to the information that Iran and Hezbollah are working hard and with great intensity to release a ‘quality’ attack against Israeli/Jewish sites around the world.

Don’t you just love the use of that word “quality?”  It made me want to throw up.  Of course Iran may be “working hard” to attack Israel and its interests.  If enemy leaders and generals threatened your country virtually every day with violent attack, you’d plan the same thing as a response to an attack.  Aside from the purported Saudi assassination plot, Iran has shown no willingness to engage in any act of terror against Israeli or Jewish interests.  And I predict they likely will not do so until and unless Israel attacks.  But I invite Israeli intelligence officials to offer real evidence, instead of rumor-and fear-mongering.

Over the past day or so, a fierce fight has erupted between Turkish prime minister Tayyip Erdogan and New York Jewish author, Paul Auster.  The controversy began when Auster, whose new book was recently published in Turkey, announced to an opposition newspaperthat he refused to visit that country to promote it.  In the process, he blasted Turkey’s Islamist government for jailing authors and journalists:

Paul Auster paying respects to Israeli president Shimon Peres

“I refuse to come to Turkey because of imprisoned journalists and writers. How many are jailed now? Over 100?” Auster said, adding that Turkey was the country he was most worried about.

“Us democrats got rid of the Bushes. We got rid of  Cheney who should have been put on trial for war crimes,” the author said. “What is going on in Turkey?”

Erdogan, who suffers neither fools nor political opponents gladly, lashed out at Auster during a party conference, telling the author that Turkey didn’t need him to lecture it on how to be a democracy:

“Author Paul Auster…said he will not come to Turkey as he finds it anti-democratic because of arrested journalists.  Oh!  We were much in need of you!  [So] What if you come or not?” Erdoğan said during a party meeting yesterday.

Criticizing Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu, leader of the main opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP), and the newspapers for giving credit to Auster’s statements, Erdoğan asked, “Will Turkey lose altitude if you don’t come?”

Recalling that Auster joined a book fair in 2010 in Israel where he described Israel as a “secular, democratic country,” Erdoğan slammed the American writer for being unaware of the fact Israel was a non-secular state and had killed thousands of innocent people in the Gaza Strip. “I am sure Kılıçdaroğlu and Auster will join together for this year’s book fair in Israel,” he added.

Auster replied to Erdogan’s attack with this statement:

Whatever the Prime Minister might think about the state of Israel, the fact is that free speech exists there and no writers or journalists are in jail…All countries are flawed and beset by myriad problems, Mr. Prime Minister, including my United States, including your Turkey, and it is my firm conviction that in order to improve conditions in our countries, in every country, the freedom to speak and publish without censorship or the threat of imprisonment is a sacred right for all men and women.

While I don’t know Auster’s views about Israel, I presume he’s the typical liberal Zionist.  The brief substantive exchange he included about it in his reply indicated a fairly standard lib Zionist approach to the issue of Israel’s so-called democratic values, including press freedom and free speech.  It’s a shame he didn’t do his homework, as if he had he could’ve both bolstered his criticism of Turkey and done justice to the issue of the grave threats facing Israeli democracy.

There is no question that while Turkey as a nation has made great economic and political strides under Erdogan’s Islamist party, that country remains deficient in many areas which are well-known to many.  Kurds are denied basic rights, acknowledgement of the Armenian genocide is a crime, and freedoms that many in the west take for granted are routinely threatened in Turkey.  All of this is undeniably true.  As a friend of mine married to a Turk and living there says: while there is more freedom of speech than there has been in many decades, it is still a crime to “insult Turkishness” or say something “un-Turkish.”  The media is largely bought and paid for by moguls with large business empires who are willing to use their platforms to advance their business interests.  They do this by ingratiating themselves with the powers that be.  In the few instances when a corporate titan has allowed his journalists too much free rein to attack the government, he has paid a very high price in the economic warfare officials wage against him.

On the positive side, the country has made enormous strides in reducing poverty and addressing economic disparities and building wealth.  It has also undertaken a foreign policy offensive which has made it a critical regional player attempting to bring stability to such conflicts as Syria-Israel and Iran.  It will undoubtedly play a key role in ensuring the future stability of Syria if/when the Assad government falls.

But to get into a competition between the so-called freedoms of Israel and the so-called injustices of Turkey is a losing game.  Israel needs to be examined in its own right and not in comparison to any other country.

The list of rules for military censorship; caption: 'Censorship: the freedom to express oneself responsibly' (Ynet)

So let’s return to Paul Auster’s claims about Israel.  He hasn’t even scratched the surface.  Israeli journalists and media are under the gravest of threats from the right-wing government and its thuggish non-governmental allies.  Uri Blau, one of Israel’s leading investigative reporters, who broke the story of IDF targeted assassinations in violation of Supreme Court rulings, faces six years in prison if the government decides to prosecute him.  His crime?  He published top secret documents leaked to him by whistleblower, Anat Kamm.  Jared Malsin, English language editor of the Palestinian independent news agency, Maan, was imprionsed by Israeli authorities for nearly a week, and then deported because they no longer wished to allow him to practice journalism in the West Bank.

Military censorship applies to wide swaths of Israeli journalism and can be invoked regarding stories great and small. Though Israelis have learned to read between the lines to discover when a story has been censored, they still don’t know what information they’ve been denied nor why.

The Israeli prime minister told the editor of the Jerusalem Post that the two greatest enemies Israel faces are the New York Times and Haaretz. That is, Israel’s leading liberal daily is a threat to the existence of the State of Israel. Does it remind you of Nixon’s enemies list? It should. Does that begin to scare you, Mr. Auster? It should.

Israeli journalists from around the country called an emergency meeting two months ago to rally against threats to press freedom. The organizer of this event, Uri Misgav, reporting for Yediot Achronot, recently lost his job. Another reporter who wrote for Maariv, Ruth Sinai, lost her job as well. Her editor, a former associate of Bibi Netanyahu’s told her:

“Post-Zionist journalists will not write for his paper”.

This is Israel’s second-largest circulation paper. Does that scare you? It should.

The director of the Prime Minister’s office, who is himself under investigation for sex harassment, blackmailed TV Channel 10 by demanding that it fire investigative journalist Raviv Drucker in return for the government not taking the station off the air.  Drucker had just aired a damaging story about Bibi Netanyahu’s flaunting of ethics rules while he was an MK.

The Israeli Knesset is considering a new law which would drastically reduce the level of proof needed to convict someone of libel.  It would massively increase awards against those found guilty of defamation.  Complainants wouldn’t even need to establish proof of any economic damage in order to be compensated.  Publishers could also be held liable for defamation for comments published in the Talkback section.

Journalists who report from Israel for Arab language outlets like Al Jazeera face routine embarrassment and harassment at the hands of Israeli security officials.  This has included the stripping of female journalists by security agents before meetings with the prime minister.

Israel’s press is dominated by a single newspaper, Yisrael HaYom, funded by a billionaire for the express purpose of bringing Bibi to power and keeping him there.  Does this sound like a country that enjoys a free press?

I urge Mr. Auster and anyone concered about freedom of the press in Israel to visit the site of Keshev, Israel’s leading NGO in this field. Israel’s leading website providing media criticism and advocacy is Seventh Eye. Though it is only in Hebrew, it is highly recommended.

Regarding free speech, the threats are enormous.  Peace activists are routinely dragged before the Shin Bet for interrogation for the crime of speaking their mind.  The women of New Profile were threatened with prison for advocating draft resistance in opposition to the Occupation.  Ilana Hammerman has similarly been questioned three times and threatened with prosecution for the crime of bringing Palestinian mothers and children into Israel to breathe fresh air at the beach and go to the zoo.  Solidarity activists at Sheikh Jarrah are routinely arrested and assaulted by Israeli police for opposing eviction of Palestinians from their homes.  Peace Now staff have faced bomb and death threats from settler extremists and the Israeli police don’t even prosecute when they know the identities of the perpetrators.

The Israeli justice system allows extensive use of gag orders to protect the interests of the state, the military, and the wealthy.  Gag orders are routinely granted without having to prove any specific jeopardy to the protected party.  Rape victims often may not discuss the crimes committed against them if they’re accusing a powerful man of harming them and he has a good attorney who can secure a gag order (cf. Yoav Even).

Though I know of few threats to writers of the sort that Auster complains about in Turkey, Israeli performers who don’t toe the political line pay the price as major roles dry up on stage and screen.  Haaretz, this week, featured a profile of Mohammed Bakri, perhaps Israel’s most famous Palestinian actor.  After directing the documentary, Jenin Jenin, he was blackballed from many work opportunities in Israel.  The Israeli Film Board banned the film until the Supreme Court lifted it.  He has not acted on an Israeli stage since 2003, a year after the film came out:

The last time Bakri…was seen on an Israeli stage was in 2003, in Shlomi Moskovitz’s “Seven Days,” directed by Dedi Baron at the Habima Theater…More recently Bakri was supposed to have replaced an Arab actor in one play and another theater director did not employ him, fearing reactions like those of Im Tirtzu. That is, Bakri’s prospects for employment in Israel have already been affected without Im Tirtzu’s campaign against him.

A decade ago or so, Chava Alberstein recorded a powerful anti-Occupation work which adapted the traditional Pesach song, Chad Gadya.  Many radio stations boycotted the song, the singer received death threats and she didn’t perform in Israel for many years.  The only places she could perform were abroad, where the controversy was less well-known.

So is Israel is haven for free speech and free press?  Hardly.  In fact, Paul Auster owes it to himself and his readers to study this issue in much greater depth.  He could speak out about these matters the next time he’s in Israel.  In fact, after what he’s said in the midst of this controversy, he has a responsibility to do so.  I’ve suggested to progressive bloggers in New York that they seek a dialogue with Auster and perhaps a public event sponsored by Jewish Voice for Peace or PEN to address the freedom deficit facing Israel.  I think it would be bracing and informative.  What better person to invite to speak on a panel with Auster than Jared Malsin, who spent a week in an Israeli jail cell for the crime of being a good reporter?

David Ignatius published an alarming story in today’s Washington Post, in which he quotes Leon Panetta predicting an Israeli attack on Iran in “April, May or June.”  Buried deeper within the article is an even more chilling passage:

Administration officials caution that Tehran shouldn’t misunderstand: The United States has a 60-year commitment to Israeli security, and if Israel’s population centers were hit, the United States could feel obligated to come to Israel’s defense.

In the context of the article, which portrays an Israeli first strike against Iran, we can only explain this statement as announcing to Iran that if it counter-strikes against Israel that the U.S. will join in the war against it.  That would help explain why the U.S. is amassing a massive amount of firepower in the Gulf including perhaps a record three carrier task forces preparing for God knows what mischief.

I can’t say clearly enough that what the U.S. has signaled in Ignatius’ report is that if Iran is attacked, it may not strike back against its attacker.  If it does, the U.S. will rain down hellfire and damnation on it.  This is frightening beyond measure.  I’ve never known the U.S. to lay down such a principle which virtually assures our joining in a war against Iran.  Israeli policymakers will be delighted to read these words.  Hawks like Bibi, Barak and Bogie Yaalon (from whom, more later) will be sharpening their spears and pruning hooks, not to mention their Jericho IIs and U.S.-supplied bunker busters.

Of course, there’s always a chance that Panetta is bluffing, using psy ops to spook the Iranians into believing they will face two implacable foes in war if they don’t abandon their nuclear ambitions.  If we are bluffing, I’m afraid it won’t work.  Iran’s leaders are hardened, seasoned veterans of a 1979 Revolution and eight year war with Iraq in which they lost 1-million citizens.  They are inured to suffering of the sort we can inflict on them.

All of this means that Iran’s leaders are liable to shrug all this off as the price of doing business in a nuclear-weaponized world.  So what happens when Iran stands tall against such threats and says: “Is that all you’ve got?”  At that point, we’ve got nothing left but war.  And we’ve talked ourselves halfway into war through the belligerency of our rhetoric and threats.

Ignatius regurgitates more Israeli propaganda already disseminated in the New York Times that predicts Iran will mount at best a faint reply to an Israeli “surgical attack” on its nuclear facilities.  At most a few Hezbollah missiles and 500 Israeli deaths (to quote an infamous Barak prediction).  All the while ignoring the hundreds of Iranian missiles that could attack Israel and likely would if Israel attacked.  The idea that Israelis believe they have the right to launch a first strike against Iran, while Iran has either no right or no will to reply is so far-fetched as to be almost delusional given the nature of Iran, its leaders, and its military.

Here’s some more Israeli delusion:

“You stay to the side, and let us do it,” one Israeli official is said to have advised the United States. A “short-war” scenario assumes five days or so of limited Israeli strikes, followed by a U.N.-brokered cease-fire.

I can’t tell if this is certifiably delusional or merely a typically Israeli macho bluff.  But whatever it is it’s incredibly dangerous if any policymakers takes this remotely seriously.

Bronner quotes another typically narcissistic Israeli interpretation of the security threats it faces:

General Kochavi [IDF Aman intelligence chief] also estimated that Israel faced 200,000 missiles and rockets aimed at it from its enemies.

For the life of me, I don’t know where he gets such figures.  Hezbollah may have somewhere in the range of 10,000-20,000.  Gaza militants may have several thousand.  Iran has perhaps in the hundreds of missiles capable of reaching Israel.  That’s it.  Is he including Turkey’s missile capabilities in that number?  Even if so, would Turkey have 150,000 missiles in its inventory?  I doubt it.  In addition, including Turkey in that count means the IDF has now declared the former as a formal military enemy, when I hadn’t heard of any outright hostilities between the two that would justify such an evaluation.

Former IDF chief of staff Moshe Yaalon marches to war against Iran ( Ariel Jerozolimski)

Even more strange is Kochavi’s neglecting to mention the 200-400 Israeli nukes pointing at those same enemies along with a massive missile inventory of Jericho and other missile types capable of sending them anywhere in the Middle East.  Isn’t it convenient whenever Israel wishes the world to shed tears on its behalf, it omits the offensive threat that it poses to its neighbors.

Annually, the Herzliya conference features the creme de la creme of Israel’s political-military-intelligence echelons boasting about Israel’s achievements on the world stage.  It’s Israel’s version of Davos minus any discussion of issues having even a faintly progressive aspect.  That means leaving out social and economic justice, peace, environment, civil rights, etc.

Israeli minister Bogie Yaalon, one of Israel’s leading hawks on the question of Iran war, dropped a bombshell into the political debate by claiming, during his conference presentation, that the Iranian missile base destroyed by a massive explosion several weeks ago was testing a new intercontinental missile prototype with a 6,000 mile range.  For those who are geographically-challenged, that’s long enough to hit the U.S.

Yaalon and his faithful scribe, Ethan “Eytan” Bronner, made sure American readers understood the “threat” this personified:

The Israeli, Moshe Yaalon, a deputy prime minister and minister for strategic affairs, said the blast at a missile base of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps hit a system “getting ready to produce a missile with a range of 10,000 kilometers.”

“That’s the Great Satan,” he said, invoking a name Iran has used for the United States. “It was aimed at America, not at us.”

Mr. Yaalon was trying to make the point that the Iranian nuclear program is a threat not only to Israel but to other nations, creating “a nightmare for the free world.” He said that it was a concern to Arab states as well as to the United States and Israel.

You can say something on Bronner’s behalf: at least he includes this passage, which in effect reveals that some U.S. officials believe Yaalon is a liar (though they use language far more diplomatic than that):

American officials said they believed that Mr. Yaalon’s assertions were at best premature, and at worst badly exaggerated.

Though one Iranian-American expert on Iran’s military programs does deride Yaalon’s claims.  It should be pointed out that this source, USC engineering professor Muhammad Sahimi (Wikipedia article), is by no means a friend of the Iranian regime:

This is total nonsense. Iran has said many, many times that it is not developing, and has no interest in developing an intercontinental missile. This is another bit of lies and propaganda by Yaalon to present Iran as a worldwide threat…

My high-level Israeli source also called Yaalon’s claims “exaggerated” and said they were “probably meant to frighten the American public.”

Sara Netanyahu (Flash 90)

Of all the qualities that are necessary for a good Israeli intelligence chief, there’s one essential one you’d never think of in a million years: don’t cross Sara Netanyahu.  You won’t find that one listed on any job description or set of requirements for the position, but in some sense it may be more important than all the other qualifications a successful candidate must have.

For a number of months, I reported that the next Shin Bet director to replace Yuval Diskin would be Yitzhak Ilan.  Yet somehow he lost out to Yoram Cohen.  I scratched my head and asked, what happened.  Israeli media was full of rumors that the top candidate lost out in the end to a dark horse through some sort of taint or blemish that sunk his candidacy.  The truth is that, in fact, until two hours before the announcement, Ilan was still the favored choice.

Ben Caspit hinted (Hebrew) that the settler movement hated Ilan (his previous intelligence jobs had involved investigating their acts of violence and extremism).  Now, it appears likely that Sara and Eshel pointed out to Bibi that he had two good candidates, but that one angered one of his core constituencies (the settlers).  So why not appoint the other and so retain their support?  From this we can also expect that Cohen will go lightly on settler acts of terror and violence.  Indeed, the fact that no one has been charged, prosecuted or imprisoned for a host of price tag attacks going back months may be ascribed to Cohen knowing on which side his bread is buttered.

In a recent conversation, a knowledgeable Israeli insider told me that Ilan ran afoul of Mrs. Netanyahu, though I never found out why.  The benefit of the Eshel sexual harassment scandal is that it’s blowing the lid off other stories.

Today’s Haaretz provides examples of the ways in which Eshel abused Rivka Kidron on the job.  One of them was to threaten her with surveillance by the Shin Bet:

One employee of the bureau [prime minister's office] who testified in the Civil Service Commission probe said that Eshel told R. he was following her every move on orders from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s wife, Sara. According to this worker’s testimony, Eshel also told R. that she only had her job because of him, and that he was the one who had convinced Sara Netanyahu to okay her employment in the bureau.

Another person who testified to the commission said Eshel had let it drop to R. that he had a role in the appointment of Shin Bet security service head Yoram Cohen, and could therefore get help from the Shin Bet to monitor her activities.

We already know of the extraordinarily close relationship between Sara and Eshel.  In fact, he was her eyes and ears in the PMO.  He did her bidding.  It now becomes obvious that one of the ways in which he did this was to promote the fortunes of the successful finalist, Cohen (who is, like Eshel, an Orthodox Jew).  What does it say about a nation’s intelligence services that to be a successful candidate you have to cultivate the favor of the prime minister’s wife as much as or more than touting your actual professional qualifications?

Returning to the Eshel-Kidron case, it’s known that Sara disapproved of the former.  This gave Eshel yet another point of leverage against the victim.  He could go to her and say that Sara hates you, I’m the only one who stands between you and a pink slip.  This is the mark of a canny sexual predator seeking pressure points to exploit for his own advantage.  It reminds me of a previously exposed high level convicted rapist, Moshe Katsav.  The only difference was that Katsav had numerous victims.  Eshel appears not to have succeeded in his blandishments toward Kidron.

Imprisoned Palestinian engineer, Jafar Daghlas

In a story reminiscent of the kidnapping of Dirar Abusisi, a Palestinian engineer known for his activities in support of Hamas, has been arrested and interrogated for long periods by the Mukhabarat in both the United Arab Emirates and Jordan:

Was Israel behind the overseas arrest of a Palestinian engineer suspected of ties with Hamas? The arrested man thinks it was – but Hamas blames the Palestinian Authority.

Jafar Daghlas, 27, a resident of the West Bank town of Burka who until recently lived in Abu Dhabi, has been questioned by two different Arab security services recently – those of the United Arab Emirates and Jordan. He suspects Israel was trying to get him extradited here

The victim enlisted the support of a professional engineering association in Jordan and Friends of Humanity, a human rights NGO which intervened on his behalf to prevent what he expected would be his extradition to Israel.  It appears too that if he had been extradited and imprisoned in Israel, this would’ve been doing the PA’s bidding as well, since it accuses him of fundraising and arms trafficking on behalf of Hamas.  It’s quite a cozy, comfy relationship all these mukhabaratnikim (there probably isn’t even such a Hebrew word, but I like the sound of it) have with each other.

In the case of Abusisi, the Mossad presumably alerted the Jordanian intelligence services to his travel from Gaza to Jordan.  When he arrived there he was questioned and detained for a number of days, which I believe allowed the Mossad to prepare for his kidnapping in Ukraine, which was the final stop on his travel itinerary.

It’s astonishing, considering the hostile relations much of the Arab world has with Israel, for intelligence agencies of these particular countries to do the Mossad’s bidding.

The Israeli power of delusion is evident in this short film called, The Last Day, which purports to film the last moments of an Israeli family before Iran drops a nuclear bomb on Israel and obliterates it. The film, created by Ronen Barany, is shot in faux-documentary style with lots of shots of Israelis in extremis including suitably shaky, off kilter camera angles proclaiming it a product of ersatz cinema verite.

While the computer enhanced graphics showing massive explosions in the Israeli hillside may shock Israelis used to viewing a relatively tranquil landscape, the boom-boom screams out “computer enhancement.” If this were still photography critics would call it a photoshopped reality. We’ll have to come up with another name for an altered reality via video.

It should go without saying (but I’ll say it nevertheless), that the film is even more interesting for what it leaves out than what it includes. It presumes a backstory which the viewer fills in (hence the power of effective propaganda) of a hegemonic power-mad Iran hell-bent on getting nukes and using them on its bitterest foe, Israel. The poor Israeli shlumps in this movie are of course the collateral damage of Iranian megalomania. They’re innocent victims. No reference to any role Israel itself may’ve played in this conflict. Israel is doing nothing but defending itself from pure evil.

This film is a perfect example of how an entire people can be anesthetized and transported into an altered state of reality that shows them to be innocent lambs led to the slaughter; when in fact they are just as much agents of their own destiny as their enemies are.

The fact that this film is pimped by a RP rep for 5W PR, Ronn Torossian’s agency (who also pimps the Clarion Fund anti-Muslim films along with porn stars and has been charged with extorting millions of dollars from the followers of an Israeli Sephardic wonder rabbi) tells you reams about the film’s subtext.

Above is my latest appearance on Tzinor Layla (starting at around 2:30) in which I discuss the crash of the drone inside Israel two days ago.

I’ve spent the past day or so trying to make sense of the duelling stories of the crash. My Israeli source said that the unmanned aircraft was foreign, likely flown by Hezbollah with Iranian technical assistance from southern Lebanon. Shortly after I posted, the IAF released its version saying its own drone crashed while testing advanced sensors installed on its wing. Supposedly, the wing separated from the drone, and images of a severed wing were displayed in the media. Eyewitnesses were interviewed who claim to have seen the drone on fire before it crashed, though it’s not clear where they were physically located. Though the body of the drone was not pictured, it reportedly crashed into an air base (though the name wasn’t specified). My source claimed the booby trapped drone crashed and exploded at the top secret Sdot Micha missile base. The IAF claimed the drone crashed while making an approach to the Tel Nof base.

IAF claims this wing fell off its most advanced drone causing it to crash (Aviv Rokach)

I have approached journalists in Lebanon and Iran to confirm or rebut the report. In Lebanon, a source close to Hezbollah poured cold water on the story. I am still attempting to find out if Iranian officials wish to comment it.

For those who reject my story, let’s examine the IAF story. They claim that Israel’s most advanced drone, testing highly sophisticated new sensor systems simply lost its wing due to equipment and human error. Either this is a colossal episode of incompetence or the story doesn’t hold water. They showed a wing in an orange orchard and nothing else. I could not see any damage to the wing indicating it had dropped off a drone in flight and crashed. They offered no military or drone experts to verify what was shown in the footage. I would wonder why military and police personnel at the site would allow photography and video filming of some of Israel’s most advanced new technology. Even if they couldn’t prevent such filming they could easily impose military censorship on reporting the story. They didn’t. This is contrary to the absolute secrecy Israel imposes on its military technology.

So continuing with this line of thought, if Israel did lose one of its most advanced drones it is a major setback in this program. As news reports make clear, this drone is one that can reach Iran and would be used for multiple critical aerial tasks during an Israeli air assault on Iran. The fact that it crashed on a test flight only a few miles from its base, when Israel is known to be preparing for a possible strike against Iran, is a major failure. So again, even if you discount my version of events, the IAF has not presented a credible version either. Anyone who seeks to discredit the Hezbollah angle of this story should present a credible alternative. I have heard none from the other side.

The usual suspects on the right and left have criticized the story I reported. None of them very carefully read, understood or reported what I actually wrote. Dimi Reider, who prides himself on being a careful, sober journalist argued erroneously that I claimed the drone flew 1,000 miles from Iran to Israel, when in fact I argued just the opposite, saying it likely could not fly that far and originated in southern Lebanon. Reider also believed I was being “played” by Israeli sources seeking war against Iran. In fact, my source opposes war against Iran. All of which proves that someone who prides himself on precision can be guilty of the same errors of which he accuses me.

Dapha Baram, writing at the world news agency GRN, pointed with pride to the reasons why her news agency could not publish my reports because they fall below its standards of “journalist ethics.” She failed to understand that my decision to report or not report a story has nothing to do with ethics and everything to do with other factors including my physical distance from the story and sources I’m reporting, the vagaries of the Israeli national security state which intimidate the free flow of military information to journalists, and my role as an anti-war activist coinciding with my role as a blogger. In fact, the very reason why Israeli security issues are so thinly reported inside and outside Israel is that the system prevents mainstream journalists from doing this.

None of this means I can knowingly report stories that are false (nor would I ever do so). On the other hand, I am reporting stories that aren’t (and usually can’t be) corroborated by second or third independent sources. That in turn means that the mainstream media is too conservative and cautious to publish my original reporting. This may save them from reporting a story that turns out to be criticized or unsubstantiated; but it also causes them to lose out when I report major stories embarrassing to the Israeli military-intelligence community.  That’s why you’ll never see Reider or GRN breaking the story of Anat Kamm, Dirar Abusisi, Ameer Makhoul, the Eilat terror attacks, or Shamai Leibowitz.

My critics fundamentally misunderstand what I do. My primary job isn’t to be an oracular James Reston or Walter Cronkite and only report what is scientifically, verifiably true and be right 100% of the time. My primary job is to be right as often as I can while staying true to the reasons I write this blog in the first place: to promote transparency in Israeli military-intelligence matters, Israeli democracy, and to oppose military adventurism.  This is a tightrope act, one that is difficult to negotiate since there are so many unknowns, so much concealed information.

The goal of the national security state is to render its affairs as opaque as possible. It is to shut off information to journalists, bloggers and even its own citizens. That’s why it’s sometimes so damn hard to know if you got it right. But if anyone thinks I’m going to be deterred by the fact that every once in a while the I’s aren’t dotted or the T’s aren’t crossed or that even, God forbid, my source may get it wrong (which I do not concede in this instance), they’re sorely mistaken. I’ll accept the brickbats of Dimi Reider, Dapna Baram and others for the sake of the greater good of exposing the dangers a rampant Israel may pose to the region and the world.

Sdot Micha airbase

An exclusive report from a confidential highly-placed Israeli source says that a booby-trapped drone crashed and exploded at the top-secret Israeli airbase Sdot Micha.  Sdot Micha (also profiled here) is the home of the Israeli missile arsenal including its long-range Jerichos capable of striking Iran.  There were civilian and military eyewitnesses to the crash, which happened within the perimeter fence of the facility, which covers a large area just outside Bet Shemesh.

The eyewitnesses and Israel’s wish to avoid pressure to retaliate against the Iranians, necessitated the publication of a media cover story.  The story claims an advanced Israeli drone crashed near the Yesodot moshav, 10 miles from Sdot Micha.  Israel also claims the drone took off from Tel Nof airbase.  Eyewitnesses may be able to produce video documentation of the precise location of the crash unless it is impounded by the IDF.

The cover story reminds me in crucial ways of a similar one put out by the U.S. when it lost control of its advanced drone inside Iran.  It did everything in its power to make the world believe that the drone crashed by accident and we vehemently denied it was brought down by Iranian electronic warfare capability.  The more we denied the more people believed we were protesting too much.

Though crashing a drone inside Israel would appear to have Iran’s fingerprints all over it (they would certainly have greatest motivation), it’s hard to believe that Iran could fly a drone 1,000 miles with such precision.  So blame will inevitably fall upon Hezbollah, a Syrian-Iranian ally, which often procures its most advanced weaponry from Iran.  Hezbollah would’ve launched the drone from southern Lebanon.  But I find it unlikely it could master the technological know-how to bring this off without Iranian engineering assistance.

There were no Israeli casualties and the drone explosion caused no significant damage at the base.  But the very fact that Iran or its allies have escalated the psychological war of nerves in such a fashion will raise the temperature inside Israel once the true story is known.  It will confirm among the hawks like Bibi, Barak and Bogie Yaalon the imperative to attack Iran.  And the average Israeli man in the street will be that much more accepting of war given this new level of threat.  But the “beauty” (if such a phrase is appropriate) of a drone attack is that, like the Mossad assassination of nuclear scientists, it’s hard to figure out precisely who is to blame for the attack.  In that sense, it raises the temperature, but does so in a carefully calibrated way.

The fact that Israel could not detect such a threat and stop it before it did its damage indicates also some gaps in Israel’s defensive systems.  Admittedly, drones are hard to defend against and Iran/Hezbollah may not have many at their disposal.  But they clearly can do significant damage as we’ve seen from U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan.  Imagine a drone equipped with a warhead (the current one appeared only to be booby-trapped, but not equipped with a warhead or missile) taking aim at the Kirya?  That, of course, would be the next stage of development and one Israel might expect in the not too distant future.  Certainly, a far more sophisticated step than merely crashing a drone into an airbase.  But by no means beyond the realm of possibility for Iranian engineers at some point.

I have always argued that there is a price to pay for Israel’s black ops campaign against Iran.  In this case, the price was very low.  But it will not always be so.  There’s always a price to pay.  The only question is when you’ll have to pay and how much.

Accompanying the covert war between Iran and the west is a sideline industry consisting of all manner of spies, exiles, and others with mixed motives regarding this confrontation.  There are supposed Iranian dissidents who’ve escaped, made their way to the west, and been taken into the bosom of the neocon political and media world.  One of these is Amir Abbas Fakhravar.  To hear him tell it, he escaped from an Iranian jail with the help of Richard Perle, who whisked him off to America where he became the darling of the Cheney neocon apparatus.  To hear former jailed Iranian reformers tell it, he was a jailhouse snitch for the regime.

His primary message was promoting regime change, which is why he was so valuable to the hawks seeking to promote war against Iran. While in this country he made common cause with hawks like Michael Ledeen, did interviews with neocon media outlets like the National Review, The Telegraph, and New York Sun, and affiliated with some of the more extreme monarchists among the Iranian exile community. Presidents come and go, and with Barack Obama in power Fakhravar has had to recalibrate his political message.  He still favors regime change, but no longer advocates war (at least not publicly) to achieve this goal.  In an interview with Israeli TV during his first visit to that country, he said that the current round of draconian sanctions were his most favored approach, and not a military strike.

He made sure to tell his Israeli interviewer how much Iranians love Israel, even offered the audience a hearty Shabbat Shalom, and practically blew kisses their way.  You could practically hear all the Israeli Jewish mothers sighing and hoping their daughters might meet such a nice boy to bring home to mamma.  Fakhravar told the newscaster that the current regime governing Iran “is not Iranian.” Undoubtedly, this refers to a weird theory some in the opposition may have attempting to prove the ayatollahs are foreign alien elements imposed on Iran “through invasion.” We’ve seen this tactic of smearing “radical aliens” like Saul Alinksy used in the Republican primary campaign as well. This, unfortunately, is the level of delusion to which some like Fakhravar sink while taking their credulous Israeli viewers along with them.

Who arranged for his Israeli visit?  A slightly mysterious Israeli company, Laurus, founded by former members of the Israeli Prime Minister’s Office specializing in national security.  In other words, these are former Israeli security operatives now freelancing for themselves based on their prior contacts in the security apparatus.  All of which means that there are security interests in Israel eager to exploit Fakhravar for their purposes.  In the past in the U.S. those purposes included promoting regime change.  Today, in Israel those purposes are precisely the opposite, at least as far as his Israeli patrons are concerned.  He’s pimping for sanctions.  So the question is who’s paying his way?  I’d guess that it must be elements within the Mossad who are opposed to an Israeli attack. The other question is are the views he’s peddling to the Israeli media sincere or is he talking entirely differently to those he’s briefing in Israel behind closed doors? Frankly, I wouldn’t trust him as far as I can throw him.

Laura Rozen, back in the days when she was writing challenging reporting for Mother Jones about U.S. policy toward Iran, published an expose about him calling him the “Iranian Chalabi.” All I can say to Israel is caveat emptor. I don’t know what this guy is doing in Israel right now, but whatever it is he’s a fraud and any Israeli, even ones seeking to avert war, are being suckered either knowingly or unknowingly.

Last month, Yossi Melman wrote (this article strangely is no longer directly available on the Haaretz site, but is still accessible through Google cache) in Haaretz that Fakhravar’s December trip to Israel was cancelled because a former IDF officer now living in New York warned security associates he knew in Israel of the Iranian’s dubious past. The next thing I knew he was interviewed on Israeli TV last night.

Tablet Magazine's disgusting graphic infers calling someone an 'Israel Firster' does the work of Hitler (Daniel Hertzberg)

What Spencer Ackerman doesn’t know about the pro-Israel crowd would fill a reservoir the size of Central Park. He’s taken to the neocon funded Tablet (“Tabloid”) Magazine to propound his critique of progressive Jewish rhetoric in the debate over the nature of Israel. And he’s done so using terms that are in themselves both instructive, and insulting. Here’s how he begins his rhetorical primer:

At the risk of sounding like the shtetl police, there’s a right way and a wrong way for American Jews to argue with one another.

He has it precisely right. He does sound like a Zionist cheyder teacher wagging his fingers at his recalcitrant students who balk at reciting their alef-bays. But no, he has it precisely wrong when he attempts to lay out the “right” and “wrong” way for Jews to argue. I would concede that there are certain terms that are not just offensive, but impermissible in such arguments. Scatology, threats of violence, Nazi references–all are treif whether coming from the left or right. And I’ve censored, moderated and banned comments here on both sides of this debate.

But “Israel Firster?” C’mon. Though this isn’t a term I use commonly, I find nothing wrong with it generally. While in strict terms it denotes someone who places Israel’s interests above U.S. interests, that isn’t precisely what the pro-Israel right does in its own mind. While to a reasonable outside observer it does appear that this is what they are doing, in their own minds the interests of Israel and the U.S. are the same. So they don’t feel they’re weighing one above the other. However, in objective terms they are. Because in objective terms two separate nations must have separate interests unless one is a puppet or satellite of the other. So I feel that the notion that Israel and America have the same interests is noxious and deluded. That’s why I don’t have a problem with Israel Firster.

I’ve displayed the disgusting graphic that accompanies Ackerman’s piece which implies that those who use the term “Israel Firster” are doing Hitler’s work. Isn’t this precisely what Ackerman is decrying? The abuse of overwrought Holocaust memes to discredit the real ideas of our enemies? So what’s worse: Israel Firster or invoking the Holocaust where it doesn’t belong? Spencer Ackerman and Tabloid’s editors are hypocrites. Total friggin’ hypocrites.

Further, having a debate about the use of this term is a total waste of time. It’s a distraction. One that the pro-Israel right is happy to have us get bogged down in. So Spencer Ackerman is doing a toivah for Josh Block, Eli Lake and all his friends. To confirm this, you have only to note that a second article on virtually the same subject is published by necon smearmonger, Lee Smith, in Tabloid. Mazel tov, Ackerman, you’re up in lights right next to the ideological equivalent of Josh Block (if not Meir Kahane).

There seems to an explicit or implicit assumption that whether left or right, we’re all Jewish brothers (and sisters, though he seems not to acknowledge any women are part of this debate):

…Our cousins on the Jewish right.

If we’re all cousins, then the implication seems to be that there are tribal rhetorical boundaries that may not be crossed. I don’t relish this call to blood as a governing principle in political debate.

Sure, Josh Block, Eli Lake and the pro-Israel brigade are fellow-Jews, but what do I owe them because of that? Very little. Why? Because if their bellicose views lead to, or defend Israeli wars against Palestinians or even worse, Iranians, they will be getting Israelis killed. Even worse, they will be undermining Israel’s long-term interests and endangering it’s survival. What’s more important? Obeying Spencer Ackerman’s parochial rules forbidding nasty phrases against fellow Jews or ensuring Israel survives through this century?

Make no mistake, this isn’t an inside the Beltway or intramural Republican-Democratic debate about health care reform or TARP. This is life and death. In such circumstances, I don’t have the luxury of conceding the essential goodness of my adversary by virtue of our common ethnic-religious origin.

I don’t have a problem with another criticism levelled by Ackerman against Max Blumenthal for calling Jeff Goldberg a “former Israeli prison guard.” The only change I would’ve made is to call him an “Israeli-American” prison guard. After all, Goldberg not only served in the IDF, he wrote about it proudly, making money off the connection. Why not focus on this aspect of Goldberg’s past when assessing his bona fides to address U.S. interests regarding Israel policy? It is entirely appropriate to examine people’s past associations in determining their current views, as long as we are honest in characterizing what those past associations were (which the right almost never does).

Another thing that bugs the shit out of me about Ackerman’s piece is the finger in the eye he offers Jewish leftists by sprinkling his essay liberally with the term “Jewish state,” as if this was an entirely appropriate lexical substitute for Israel. In this, he’s marking himself not as a Jewish leftist or progressive on the question of Israel, but rather as a liberal Zionist. What the world doesn’t need more of is liberal Zionists. This is not just a discredited and irrelevant brand, it no longer even resonates inside Israeli politics where liberalism died a slow and painful death about the time Shimon Peres prostituted himself by abandoning Labor and joining pal, Ariel Sharon in Kadima.

Israel is not the Jewish state. It is a state that includes Jews and non-Jews. It is a state for its Jewish citizens and a state for its Palestinian citizens (I’m not including West Bank Palestinians in this concept). Not a bi-national state. But a unitary state that includes two ethnic groups who deserve equal rights according to democratic principles (one citizen, one vote). To subsume all Israelis under the term “Jewish state” does a grave disservice to not just Israel’s non-Jewish citizens, but Israeli democracy. Spencer Ackerman either doesn’t believe in a real Israeli democracy or he simply doesn’t understand the implications of his words. That isn’t surprising for a liberal Zionist like himself who writes far more often about other issues than Jewish, Israeli or Zionist politics. On this subject he’s simply out of his depth.

Spencer Ackerman is a full-blooded progressive on domestic and even many foreign policy issues to his many fans. But that doesn’t translate to the I-P conflict. Many a good progressive lapses into liberal Zionist clichés when they switch to the I-P conflict. It’s as if their brain and their principles contract. A certain mental and political circling of the wagons occurs. Instead of thinking in bold, broad strokes about the big issues, they retreat in fear.

To understand the true nature of Ackerman’s allegiances you only have to note that he calls Eli Lake “my good friend.” Eli Lake is an intellectual/political fake. A total shill for Israel and its military-intelligence apparatus. Anyone, whether progressive or otherwise who admires this dude is a dud.

Newt Gingrich and Sheldon Adelson

The Securities and Exchange Commission and Department of Justice have been investigating allegations of ties between Sheldon Adelson’s Macau casino and Chinese organized crime rings and prostitution for the past year. ABC News reports a former Sands Casino executive has charged that the Asian business operation relied on the Chinese triads which organized junkets for “high roller” gamblers and prostitution to service their “other” needs. It reports that on the same day Adelson arrived for a major business meeting at the Chinese enclave 100 prostitutes were arrested within the hotel. The charges are being investigated under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which governs crimes like corporate bribery.

Newt Gingrich, not one to observe the highest standards of ” family values” himself with his three wives and history of philandering, might want to explore whether this represents the highest standards of moral values for a Republican presidential candidate. And if it doesn’t trouble Newt, it might trouble some Republican primary voters. They might want to spend a moment thinking how many acts of prostitution or bribery contributed to the $10-million (the largest private gifts ever-given in U.S. campaign history) Adelson has funneled into Gingrich’s campaign, with the likelihood of tens of millions more should his fair-haired goy proceed farther in the primary process.

To see how Adelson has gamed another political system as a model for what he’ll do here in the States, we have to look no farther than his pimping for Bibi Netanyahu over the past decade or more.  It is far cheaper to buy the Israeli political system than America’s.  All Adelson needed to do was bankroll a new, free newspaper, Yisrael HaYom, to the tune of $40-million annually.  The paper was Bibi’s alter ego.  Just imagine the Washington Times with infinite resources, free, and distributed nationally.  That’s what the Israeli paper’s role is inside Israel.  Bibi himself credits it with creating a permanent rightist majority in Israeli politics.  The result is the worst political and media system money can buy.  Is that what we want here in America?

I don’t begrudge Adelson’s his constitution-given right to influence the electoral process with his contributions (though I do begrudge the absurd ruling of the Supreme Court which turned Presidential elections into Las Vegas casino-style politics). Nor do I begrudge Gingrich the right to accept gifts from donors. After all, “money is the mother’s milk of politics” to quote California’s Big Daddy Jess Unruh. But my problem is with WHO he’s taking the money from and how much he’s taking.

If Supreme Court justices, Congress members, and the U.S. voter don’t all understand the perniciousness of a presidential candidate running a successful candidacy through the support of a single fabulously wealthy, and arguably corrupt individual, then they will get the leader they deserve and the country’s stature in the world will decline even faster than it would under otherwise natural processes.

The Newt-Adelson relationship reminds me more and more of Citizen Kane, in which Charles Foster Kane runs for governor on the strength of his fabulous riches, only to be derailed by exposure of his moral failings. The difference for Newt is that his money man has infinitely deep pockets and Americans have shown themselves willing to overlook Newt’s moral peccadilloes (so far).

I live for nights like tonight.  Newt Gingrich earlier today in an appearance in Florida (home of the space industry) promised that if elected president he’d establish a lunar colony by 2020.  But not just any colony, it will, by God, be AMERICAN.  Did you hear that?  And once it gets 13,000 residents (“13,” as in colonies, get it?), it would be allowed to apply for statehood.  But Newt, I hear some of his Jewish fans say, don’t forget us.  Maybe we can even have a Jewish settlement or even a Jewish state up there.

Finally a people without a moon for a moon without a people!

If you’re a fan of the settler movement, this has to send a frisson of delight through your system.  Imagine: after Gingrich, Adelson, Moskowitz and all their pals get done settling Jewish colonists in the West Bank and expelling the indigenous inhabitants, they can move on to bigger and better things.  Imagine Jewish settlements on the moon.  I’m not sure whether they’ve explored the possibility of indigenous men on the moon who they’d of course have to expel in order to establish ethnically pure colonies of earthlings.  We may also need to update the Tanach in order to expand God’s promise to Abraham of all the land from the Euphrates to the Moon.  That would give this lunar settler movement a strong divine precedent.

I haven’t heard whether Newt and Callista will be among the first colonists but it sure would be swell if they would.  Sheldon and Miriam Adelson may want first dibs on a lunar casino with their own luxury condo overlooking Tranquility Base.

Ehud Barak imagines 'taking out' an Iranian scientist

Ronen Bergman’s front page NY Times Magazine feature story this week is important, but not for the reasons you might think.  It is important not because it offers a constructive approach regarding urgent matters of the day, except possibly in a negative sense.  In it, rather, we hear of all the common delusions and misconceptions of the main Israeli policymakers like Defense Minister Ehud Barak, who will make the decision to bomb Iran.  We hear relatively little (except towards the end) from those within Israel who argue against an attack, and when we do hear from them Bergman allows them to speak mostly second-hand through his paraphrase rather than in their own words.  This has the effect of minimizing the weight of opinion they offer.

When we do hear directly from Dagan, it is towards the end of the piece, well after numerous opposing sources have contradicted the premises of his thinking.  For every one source the Israeli security reporter uses who opposes war, he brings two or three holding opposite views.  Frankly, I’m not surprised at this since Bergman is a fan of a robust projection of Israeli interests, especially projections of military and security might, against its enemies.  What I am surprised and disappointed about is the decision of NY Times editors to allow such a heavily weighted view to be offered to its readers.

But understanding the thinking, wrong as it may be, of the Israeli hawks is important and useful.  It allows us to rebut and combat their logic with those in the public who retain an element of realism about the consequences of war against Iran.

Here are some of the most dubious passages in which the Israelis betray wishful thinking, rather than sober or serious insight.  He quotes Bogie Yaalon, one of Israel’s most aggressive hawks, as claiming that Iran will actually introduce one of its own nuclear devices into the U.S.:

“The Iranian regime will be several times more dangerous if it has a nuclear device in its hands,” he went on. “One that it could bring into the United States. It is not for nothing that it is establishing bases for itself in Latin America and creating links with drug dealers on the U.S.-Mexican border. This is happening in order to smuggle ordnance into the United States for the carrying out of terror attacks. Imagine this regime getting nuclear weapons to the U.S.-Mexico border and managing to smuggle it into Texas, for example. This is not a far-fetched scenario.”

This is so incredibly far-fetched as to separate Yaalon, one of Israel’s most serious security policymakers, from reason.  It makes you wonder how a country can allow someone so deluded, so Strangelovian to have his finger anywhere near the nuclear button.

In this passage, Barak raises the long-discredited discredited claim about Iran’s genocidal intentions against Israel:

 The Iranians are, after all, a nation whose leaders have set themselves a strategic goal of wiping Israel off the map.”

Iran’s leaders have said that the current Israeli regime would disappear from the pages of history, not that it would destroy Israel itself.  ”Disappearing” and “destroying” are two quite different words whose nuances Barak has conveniently confused.

Below Bergman outlines three critical questions Israel needs to answer affirmatively for its attack against Iran to be warranted:

1. Does Israel have the ability to cause severe damage to Iran’s nuclear sites and bring about a major delay in the Iranian nuclear project? And can the military and the Israeli people withstand the inevitable counterattack?

2. Does Israel have overt or tacit support, particularly from America, for carrying out an attack?

3. Have all other possibilities for the containment of Iran’s nuclear threat been exhausted, bringing Israel to the point of last resort? If so, is this the last opportunity for an attack?

For the first time since the Iranian nuclear threat emerged in the mid-1990s, at least some of Israel’s most powerful leaders believe that the response to all of these questions is yes.

In fact, Israel does not have the ability to cause severe damage to Iran’s nuclear capability.  A Time Magazine report about a critical IDF intelligence briefing given to the cabinet earlier this fall said Israel could not destroy Iran’s nuclear plants and that the most likely development is that Iran will achieve the option of creating a nuclear weapon:

“I informed the cabinet we have no ability to hit the Iranian nuclear program in a meaningful way.  If I get the order I will do it, but we don’t have the ability to hit in a meaningful way.”

Though the source is not identified in the Time post, the officer who delivered this pessimistic news was, according to a trusted Israeli source of mine, none other than IDF chief of staff Benny Gantz.

Regarding point 2 above, I see no overt or even tacit U.S. support for an Israeli attack.  In fact, Obama’s State of the Union address mentioned Iran almost in passing and did not contain any of the ringing affirmation of a hawkish position that one would expect if the U.S. was prepared to see Israel attack.  The latest Israeli promise that it would give the U.S. 12 hours advance warning of such an attack may’ve been designed to assuage American concerns and show that Israel is acknowledging them, but it cannot have reassured anyone in Washington.

Below, you’ll find more delusional thinking arguing that Iran’s nuclear scientists are abandoning the program in droves out of fear for their lives (note no tangible proof is offered to bolster the claims):

Meir Dagan…has praised the hits against Iranian scientists…saying that beyond “the removal of important brains” from the project, the killings have brought about what is referred to in the Mossad as white defection — in other words, the Iranian scientists are so frightened that many have requested to be transferred to civilian projects. “There is no doubt,” a former top Mossad official told me…“that being a scientist in a prestigious nuclear project that is generously financed by the state carries with it advantages like status, advancement, research budgets and fat salaries. On the other hand, when a scientist…watches his colleagues being bumped off one after the other, he definitely begins to fear that the day will come when a man on a motorbike knocks on his car window.”

In fact, any scientist for any country who sees his nation intimidated by an enemy killing his colleagues is MORE likely to want to participate in the program.  Not to mention that the leaders of that country will redouble their efforts out of a sense of national pride, to ensure they achieve their scientific and military objectives.  Such covert attacks don’t seriously undermine the program.  In fact, they bring it closer to fruition in the longer term.

Now, let’s confront some of the fuzzy thinking behind Meir Dagan’s justifications for his own covert war project:

“In the mind of the Iranian citizen, a link has been created between his economic difficulties and the nuclear project. Today in Iran, there is a profound internal debate about this matter, which has divided the Iranian leadership.” He beamed when he added, “It pleases me that the timeline of the project has been pushed forward several times since 2003 because of these mysterious disruptions.”

In a separate NY Times story by Ethan Bronner, Bibi Netanayahu betrays the same wishful thinking:

Mr. Netanyahu…believes the Tehran government to be deeply unpopular, indeed despised [by Iranians], and that a careful attack on its nuclear facilities might even be welcomed by Iranian citizens.

Actually, public opinion polls show almost unanimous Iranian support for the nuclear project and that they do not blame their economic woes either on the domestic leadership or the nuclear program.  In fact, they correctly blame the west for bringing these woes upon them.  As for a “profound internal debate,” I’ve seen no evidence of this whatsoever.  Finally, his claim to have delayed the Iranian nuclear program is debatable.  Since 1996, Israelis and western figures have predicted Iran’s imminent nuclear bomb.  A combination of a western Chicken Little “sky is falling” fear-mongering and Iranian opacity has certainly contributed to rolling back the dates by which Iran would acquire nuclear capability.

Here is a prize example of Ehud Barak’s delusional thinking around the assertion of Iran’s aggressive intentions toward its neighbors:

“An Iranian bomb would ensure the survival of the current regime, which otherwise would not make it to its 40th anniversary in light of the admiration that the young generation in Iran has displayed for the West. With a bomb, it would be very hard to budge the administration.” Barak went on: “The moment Iran goes nuclear, other countries in the region will feel compelled to do the same. The Saudi Arabians have told the Americans as much, and one can think of both Turkey and Egypt in this context, not to mention the danger that weapons-grade materials will leak out to terror groups.

“From our point of view,” Barak said, “a nuclear state offers an entirely different kind of protection to its proxies. Imagine if we enter another military confrontation with Hezbollah, which has over 50,000 rockets that threaten the whole area of Israel, including several thousand that can reach Tel Aviv. A nuclear Iran announces that an attack on Hezbollah is tantamount to an attack on Iran. We would not necessarily give up on it, but it would definitely restrict our range of operations.”

At that point Barak leaned forward and said with the utmost solemnity: “And if a nuclear Iran covets and occupies some gulf state, who will liberate it?

The alleged “admiration” in which the Iranian younger generation holds the west has been considerably tempered by precisely the sort of acts of terror which Barak has championed.  That same younger generation will certainly not challenge or topple the regime while it is under such a threat to its existence.

As to whether or how neighboring states would procure nuclear weapons, Barak omits of course the fact that Israel has had such weapons since 1967.  Pakistan has had a “Muslim bomb” for decades and not used it or even threatened to use it against Israel.  Indeed Iran itself has never threatened to attack Israel militarily or with a nuclear weapon, while Israeli leaders regularly advocate violent regime change against the current regime.

As for “protection,” here Barak is right.  Indeed, Israel has 200-400 nuclear weapons for precisely the same reason: to ensure it will not be destroyed.  Yet somehow what is bestowed to Israel is treif when Iran seeks the same.  But where Barak falls down, is in his assumption that Iran would use its weapon in an aggressive manner to threaten others.  Israel has always claimed its weapons exist to guarantee its enemies cannot wipe it out.  Iran’s motivation is precisely the same.  It has never asserted it would use weapons to dominate the region.

Another troubling aspect of this piece is that Bergman omits most of the more troubling issues concerning an Israeli attack.  For example, he doesn’t mention one of Ehud Barak’s more notorious claims about an Iranian counterattack–that it would take at most 500 Israeli lives.  This is a figure that Meir Dagan practically sneered at when he discussed it on Israeli TV with Ilana Dayan.  It is further evidence of the delusions under which the hawks operate.  In 2006, Hezbollah alone caused over 100 Israeli deaths with its rocket barrages.  Even if you anticipate Israel may’ve further perfected its anti-missile defenses, when you add Iran’s far more potent and accurate missile arsenal into the mix, the likelihood of thousands of Israeli deaths is almost guaranteed.  Yet Bergman reassures that the Israeli military has taken this into account and developed measures that will somehow mitigate the danger.  He notes that proponents of war claim that if Iran gets a bomb Israel will still be guaranteed an Iranian attack later rather than sooner and it might just as well face this attack now when it has a chance, supposedly, to knock out the nukes.  This is a perfect example of Israel’s cock-eyed thinking where you anticipate a future hypothetical act as a given while having no definite basis to justify such certainty.  Somehow, this doesn’t exactly reassure.

One element of Israeli military that Bergman offers is fascinating in its own right.  He indicates that the Mossad director at the time of the 1967 War summoned the CIA station chief to his home, where they had a knock down drag out fight about an imminent Israel attack on Egypt (one that would precipitate the coming war).  While the CIA officer warned that the U.S. would actively fight against Israeli aggression, the Mossad chief argued that Israel would attack and indeed should’ve done so sooner.

The Mossad chief went over the CIA officer’s head and flew to Washington where he received a tacit green light from Defense Secretary Robert McNamara to attack.  The rest is history.  One important aspect of this encounter is to confirm the fact that Israel itself started the 1967 War and was in no way forced into that War.  In other words, it was a war of choice and not last resort.  The fact that Israel believed that Egyptian forces were prepared to attack it in no way justifies subsequent Israeli action because the judgment of Egyptian military movement is open to interpretation and most analysts now are not convinced that Egypt intended to attack.

Bergman brings this story because he hopes it will serve as a historical analogy to what could happen in the case of Iran.  He harbors a lingering hope that while the U.S. will do everything in its power to stop Israel from attacking, that when push comes to shove, we will acquiesce once we see that Israel is hell-bent on doing so and there is nothing we can do to stop them.

If this is Israel’s real belief, then we are in for real trouble for several reasons.  First, if Bergman is right and the U.S. does support or even participate in the attack, then both powers will have guaranteed a bloody regional war in which no one will be spared the sort of mayhem that Meir Dagan has warned about.  Second, if Bergman is wrong and the U.S. hangs tough and refuses to support a war, then Israel will go it alone and the damage done to Iran will be limited, will not cause significant damage to its nuclear program, but will cause severe ramifications for regional relations.

Thanks to Paul Mutter for suggesting to the editors of Foreign Policy in Focus that they invite me to submit a piece on Iran.  An Alternative to War With Iran was published earlier today.  It argues that western policy toward Iran has only an appearance of a diplomatic track.  Both the diplomatic and military track must perforce end with failure.  That if Iran is pushed to the brink it will attain nuclear weapons capacity, and there is little that can be done to stop it short of regime change and tens of thousands of boots on the ground.

Containment is the only remaining viable approach, though it too isn’t the optimal one.  But given the current dysfunction in U.S. policy with rabid Republicans braying for Iranian scalps, it appears containment may be the best we can hope for.

CloudFlare: I’m using a security/cache service called CloudFlare which ocassionally may block access to this site for some of you who are legitimate readers.  If you are ever blocked from accessing this site and see a security error message, I apologize in advance, and urge you to e-mail me your IP address and I will add it to the whitelist.

Uri Blau: Press freedom index downgraded Israel because he faces continuing threat of prosecution

Reporters Without Borders has published its annual ranking (full report here) of world nations by their level of press freedom.  Israel, that bastion of western democracy and values in the midst of the “hellhole” that is the Middle East (or in Ehud Barak’s vivid image, the “villa in the jungle”) doesn’t fare too well.  It ranks 92ndh out of the 179 countries evaluated (coded in the category “Noticeable Problems”), behind such exemplars of freedom as Congo, Madagascar and Moldova:

Israel fell six places (from 86th to 92nd ) for two reasons. Firstly, Haaretz reporter Uri Blau is facing a possible seven-year jail sentence for possessing classified documents and his source, Anat Kam, was sentenced to three years in prison on 31 October. Secondly, on 21 November, parliament approved a media bill on first reading that would drastically increase the amount of damages that can be awarded in defamation cases.

In general, although Israel enjoys real media pluralism, it is not in the top 50 countries in the Reporters Without Borders index because the media are subject to prior military censorship.  The Palestinian Territories fell three places because of attacks on journalists during demonstrations by Palestinians calling for an end to the war between Fatah and Hamas, and because of an illegal takeover by Hamas supporters of the journalists’ union in Gaza City…

The U.S. ranked 47th, having fallen 27 places since last year because of police harassment of Occupy Wall Street journalists.

No doubt if those who compiled the report had known Bibi would finally allow Channel 10 to survive, Israel would’ve climbed at least a half rung or so.  Conversely, the symbiotic relationship between Sheldon Adelson’s Yisrael HaYom and Bibi certainly can’t have helped Israel in the ratings.

But hey, look at the bright side.  Israel came out almost on top among the MENA nations.  The only one with more press freedom is Kuwait.  Imagine, a country whose press is controlled by the royal family has more freedom than Israel.  Something to be proud of, eh?

7th Eye covers the story well in Hebrew.

It just goes to show you. It’s always something!

Those were the immortal words of Rosanna Rosannadana on Saturday Night Live decades ago. And they ring true for Israeli politics today. The Israeli headlines are full of a story claiming that Natan Eshel, Bibi’s chief of staff, was suspected of engaging in improper behavior towards a worker in the Prime Minister’s office. He examined SMS and e-mail messages in her cell phone, followed her movements outside work hours and generally intruded into her privacy.

The worker never complained, but three staff members, including Yochanan Locker, Bibi’s current favorite to become air force commander, did go to the civil service and registered a complaint on her behalf. That generated an automatic investigation. There is, at this point no accusation of any sort of sexual activity or impropriety of that sort.

UPDATE: Kol Yisrael is now reporting that Eshel took intimate photographs of Kidron without her knowledge or permission.  Haaretz is reporting that the claims against Eshel so far are “the tip of the iceberg” and that his behavior skirted very close to outright sexual harrassment.

Rivka Kidron (far L.) and Natan Eshel (R.) at Knesset hearing (Emil Salman/Haaretz)

My confidential senior Israeli source claims Eshel was actually acting on behalf of Bibi’s erratic and somewhat unstable wife, Sara. She suspected that husband Bibi was having an affair with the worker, whose real name, Globes reported is Rivka Kidron (the accompanying photo is the only one I know of to feature Kidron and available publicly).  Kidron is the former director of American Friends of Likud, a seasoned operative and political advisor to the PM for diaspora affairs.  This would explain why she accompanies the PM on overseas trips.  Haaretz reports that she got a divorce after she began working for Netanayhu in 2009.  As part of her work assignment, she collaborated closely with Eshel and they developed a close relationship.

Sara tasked Eshel, with whom she’s had an exceedingly close relationship over years, with getting to the bottom of things.  That’s why Eshel was checking up on the woman trying to determine where she was, hoping it wasn’t in the sack with the boss.  Can you imagine being the PM’s top guy and being forced to make a choice between him and the wife?  It puts you in an untenable situation.  And why would he choose the wife over his own boss?

UPDATE II: This Haaretz story takes a somewhat different, and entirely plausible tack.  It says that Sara Netanyahu indeed didn’t like Kidron and didn’t trust her and didn’t want her traveling abroad with the prime minister.  But it goes on to say that Eshel insisted that she accompany the boss on these trips.  The story doesn’t note any hint of a relationship with Bibi, but points much more strongly to an improper relationship between Eshel and Kidron.

In his Haaretz story, Yossi Verter also notes rather surprisingly that neither Bibi nor Sara care much what Eshel did.  The latter is so much the indispensable man for them that they would, if they could, seal those who filed the complaint in a room “and hang them.”  But alas, because of the nature of such matters, once a complaint is made the prime minister’s hands are tied.  He may have no choice eventually but to accept Eshel’s resignation.  Though it would also appear that the careers of those who complained may be short at Bibi’s side.  Interestingly, one of the complainants was Yochanan Locker, Bibi’s chosen candidate for air force commander.  One wonders how this “betrayal” of Eshel may play regarding his chances.

The Globes story claims that Eshel was jealous of a close relationship that Kidron had with another “senior” member in the PMO (if my source is correct then this individual would be Bibi himself).  The invasion of her privacy began after she went on an overseas trip with this unnamed staffer.  The publication also notes a tremendous level of jealousy among staffers over who gets face time with the boss and who gets to tag along on his overseas trips.  It’s entirely possible that part of the jealousy is that of the aggrieved spouse, Sara, who feels burned by the closeness of an attractive female staffer to her husband and the fact that the former gets to travel with him abroad.

Israel and Israeli politics is sometimes one big soap opera. One moment life and death decisions regarding war with Iran. The next the paranoid suspicions of the prime minister’s troubled wife.  Not that we should assume Sara is wrong. Though Bibi hasn’t been known particularly as a womanizer before this, one never underestimates the ability of male Israeli pols for putting their feet in their mouths and other parts of their body in places they don’t belong. There seems to be a sense of entitlement that powerful Israeli men feel regarding women. So we’ll have to wait to determine whether there is any truth to Sara’s fears.

So far, though many Israeli journalists undoubtedly know the outlines of this story, few have done anything other than offer the barest outlines. Perhaps this reporting may embolden them to go farther.

Raviv Drucker, in a TV interview about this report notes that it was Eshel who offered Channel 10 its life if it would agree to fire the uppity Drucker, who’d just aired his Bibitours expose concerning 30 violations of Knesset ethics rules during overseas travel by Bibi and guess who, the imperious Sara.  Just days ago, a compromise was worked out sparing the TV channel certain death.  Another threat to freedom of the press averted, but just barely.

The NYPD has gotten itself wound up in knots over all the lies it’s told about its involvement in the anti-Muslim film, Third Jihad. The film was produced by the Clarion Fund, an offshoot of the pro-settler group, Aish HaTorah.

When Arab police officers complained to a Village Voice columnist a few years back after they sat through a screening of the film, the police department denied any connection to it. The Brennan Center for Justice filed a Freedom of Information request which revealed that the film was in fact shown to 1,300 police officers (a significant percentage of those involved in anti-terror assignments).  Now the police flacks claim that while it may’ve been shown to officers, this wasn’t an officially sanctioned program.

Although Commissioner Kelly appeared in the film, his flacks said the film’s producer’s used stock interview footage and didn’t interview him themselves. When the film’s producer presented evidence of the date and time of e actual interview, the flacks all of a sudden recovered from their amnesia and recalled that not only had their been an interview but the flack had recommended the Commissioner participate. Which of course sets things up nicely so Kelly can now say: what a stupid thing for me to have agreed to do. What was my flack-flunkey thinking?

Getting the drift of how these liars operate? Just like Bernie Kerik before him, I think New York may be starting to get tired of the elastic nature of truth at NYPD headquarters and tired of Kelly’s patron, Mayor Bloomberg. The latter, by the way, is outraged that the film was shown to NYPD officers and doesn’t know who did it, but promises to find out. When he finds out it was Kelly himself, what’s he gonna do? Fire him?

The police claim they don’t know who gave them the film, but that they had nothing to do with it. Rather, it was foisted on them by a conveniently unnamed “Homeland Security contractor.” Though this appears another highly dubious claim, it does focus attention on the web of contractors with pro-Israel anti-terror credentials who are riding the gravy train of lucrative contracts which offer them opportunities to train federal, state and local police and military forces in the ways of anti-jihad.

Among these are Frank Gaffney’s Center for Security Policy and Aubrey Chernick’s NC4. Gaffney’s general counsel at the Center is the infamous Kahanist, David “Beychok” Yerushalmi, who in the past has bragged about the numerous briefings he’s given to police forces, Homeland Security and other agencies.  No doubt, he’s inculcating in them his own high level of anti-Muslim paranoia.  Chernick, one of the wealthiest and most generous funders of Muslim bashing (David Horowitz, Pam Geller, Robert Spencer are major recipients of his largess), owns NC4, which provides anti-terror  and threat awareness training (likely with a dose of “indoctrination”) for its clients.

It’s no accident that Frank Gaffney joined the advisory board of the Clarion Fund in 2010, just before they released their third film, yet another Islamophobic diatribe directed this time against a Muslim country, Iranium. The two organizations are a match made in anti-jihadi heaven. In some sense, the success of the Obsession and Third Jihad films inspired the anti-Sharia movement, which Gaffney and Yerushalmi have milked for funding and political notoriety.

One aspect of the Times coverage that disappointed was its omission of the name of the donor who, in an elaborate obfuscation, donated $17-million to distribute another Clarion film, Obsession, to 28-million voters in swing states during the last election.  He was right-wing pro-Israel Republican Barre Seid, a major donor to David Horowitz and other far-right pro-Israel groups.  Seid tried to disguise the gift by making it through a Koch-affiliated third-party donor-advised fund which allowed him to plausibly (if you’re terribly gullible) deny any connection to Clarion Fund or the film.

The Bonn International Center for Conversion maintains the Global Military Index, which lists the nations of the world according to the level of militarization of their societies.  Coming in first again in 2012 is Israel.

Here are the criteria used to determine a country’s ranking:

With its Global Militarization Index (GMI), BICC is able to objectively depict worldwide militarization for the first time. The GMI compares, for example, a country’s military expenditure with its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and its health expenditure. It contrasts the total number of military and paramilitary forces in a country with the number of physicians. Finally, it studies the number of heavy weapons available to a country’s armed forces. These and other indicators are used to determine a country’s ranking, which in turn makes it possible to measure the respective level of militarization in comparison to other countries.

You’ll notice Iran isn’t even in the top 10 (32nd in 2010).  The U.S. was 30th.

Sheldon Adelson is doubling-down on his fair-haired white boy, Newt Gingrich, with a second $5-million Super PAC gift given through his wife, Miriam.  If God forbid, Newtie wins the nomination I’d bet we can expect gifts in the $50-100 million range from Big Shel.  This gift, and the NY Times article to which I linked, make clear that Newt is largely a creature of Adelson’s money.  Without it, Romney would already be the Republican nominee.  With it, he spent millions tearing down Romney and boosting his own presence and visibility:

The Adelsons’ contributions on Mr. Gingrich’s behalf illustrate how rapidly a new era of unlimited political money is reshaping the rules of presidential politics and empowering individual donors to a degree unseen since before the Watergate scandals.

The wealth of a single couple has now leveled the playing field in two critical primary states for Mr. Gingrich, a candidate who ended September more than $1 million in debt, finished out of the running in Iowa and New Hampshire and, unlike Mr. Romney, has yet to attract the broad network of hard-money donors and bundlers that traditionally propel presidential campaigns.

Remember also, that when Gingrich ran for president in the past he was a lightly-regarded, laughingstock also-ran.  In these days of Supreme Court permitted “free money,” a back-of-the-packer can bring unlimited cash to bear and break through to the mainstream.  This causes a tremendous distortion in the political process.

I have no doubt that Barack Obama will have more than enough cash of his own to offset the Adelson “touch.”  But in other circumstances, otherwise freakish candidates like Gingrich could easily win primaries and even the presidency while have no real grassroots base or large donor pool.  Is this really what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they conceived the American presidency?

In case there is any dissension in the comment thread ranks related to my reference to Newt as a ‘white boy,’ know that I’m referring ironically to the deep ethnic hatreds roiling in Newt’s brain from Muslims to uppity (“food stamp”) Negroes to radical “alien-Alinsky” Jews.  Let’s make clear his clear preference for his white, Christian kind which does make some small allowance for good Not-One-Incher Jews like Reb Adelson.

The Times article notes that John Sununu (of Lebanese Arab descent), issues a direct threat to Adelson, saying that all the Republican financiers backing Romney would take revenge on him the next time he turned to them for backing to build a new casino.  That seems a hollow threat since money men are in the business of making money and if Sheldon can make them money he’ll have no problem finding financial backing.

But it is interesting to note the level of dismay Adelson is provoking in the circle of the Republican elite.  This is exactly where Adelson likes to be.  He’s already upset the Israeli political system by offering Bibi virtual financial carte blanche and hundreds of millions worth of free publicity via his Yisrael HaYom newspaper.  First, Adelson ensured a virtual permanent Likudist majority in Israeli politics.  Now he seeks to install a permanent ultranationalist pro-Israel U.S. government in the form of Newt Gingrich.

Let’s spin this fantasy out a bit farther.  Let’s say Newt gets the nomination along with another, say $100 mil from Adelson to spend against Obama.  Do you think the latter will make Bibi pay a price for this?  Not on your life.  Which is precisely what lies at the heart of the current president’s grave weakness when it comes to Israel.  He simply doesn’t have the stomach for hard-nosed politics that other truly great presidents have had and understood.  It’s why Obama can never be a great president and may end his second term being a somewhat mediocre one.