web analytics
May 21, 2013 /12 Sivan, 5773
At a Glance
InDepth
Sponsored Post
jumping Following a Passion for Sports to Israel

In Israel, a new five month scholarship program being offered to young aspiring athletes – one of them could be you.



Do Netanyahu’s Opponents in Iran Debate Have an Agenda?

tell a friend
Israeli cabinet meeting

Photo Credit: Amos Ben Gershom/Flash90

The Israeli media portrays Israeli brass and ex-brass who oppose Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak on the Iran issue as a group whose assessment is based solely on a cold hard analysis of the situation. This with a strong hint that the Netanyahu-Barak team may be driven by considerations and interests that are not directly related to the Iranian challenge.

Unfortunately, there is a reasonable possibility that the Israeli brass and ex-brass themselves have piggy-backed their agenda to the Iranian debate.

First a quick explanation for readers not familiar with the Israeli scene.

There is a group of Israelis who religiously believe that if Israel were to withdraw to the ’67 lines that this would result in utopian peace.

I term it “religiously believe” in the sense that as a religious belief rather than policy conclusion it is embraced by its followers as a “given” rather than something that merits serious study and possible revision in the face of reality.

For many years adherents of this belief have made herculean efforts to try and bring about withdrawal to the ’67 lines. At this stage it is abundantly clear that such a withdrawal will never be carried out via the Israeli democratic process.

With utopian peace only a withdrawal away, these Israeli patriots are not going to let the voting preferences of the unwashed masses get in their way.

Simply put: what cannot be achieved at the ballot box can be achieved by foreign pressure.

Which brings us to the Iranian question.

The Iranian threat is seen as an ideal platform for creating a scenario in which Israel is forced to agree to withdraw to the ’67 lines in exchange for American military action against Iran.

In point of fact, a review of remarks by many of the brass and ex-brass opposing Netanyahu-Barak finds that they explicitly and openly link Israel’s ability to draft America’s support to Israel’s accepting the Arab League-Saudi initiative that called for Israel to withdraw to the ’67 lines and accept resolution of the rights of the refugees.

How can this agenda skew their analysis and policy recommendations?

Israel is apparently today still within a “window of opportunity” in which an operation against Iran does not rely on the direct participation and involvement of American forces. Once this window closes, the only way to possibly address the Iranian threat is with the direct involvement and participation of the United States.

For the withdrawal advocates, delaying action beyond the Israeli “window of opportunity” kills two birds with one stone: the mighty arm of the United States will prevent a nuclear Iran while Israel is essentially blackmailed into implementing the withdrawal program that they fervently believe will herald utopian peace for the Jewish state.

To be clear: their motives are anything but evil.

You can fault them for their hubris and their lack of respect for the democratic process but they genuinely believe that they are acting in Israel’s best interests.

What does all of this mean for “non-believers” following the policy debate?

Just a warning that many of the brass and ex-brass lined up against Netanyahu-Barak have an agenda. An agenda based on a belief that to those not part of the “withdrawal to ’67 lines brings utopian peace” group is considered at best hopelessly naïve.

Originally published at http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=57879

tell a friend

About the Author: Dr. Lerner is the Director of IMRA (Independent Media Review & Analysis).


You might also be interested in:


no comments

You must log in to post a comment.

No Responses to “Do Netanyahu’s Opponents in Iran Debate Have an Agenda?”

  1. Anonymous says:

    DO NOT count on Obama! He is a treacherous bastard.

SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend

Current Top Story
Part of hoard of weapons uncovered by IDF at wanted terrorist's home near Shechem
IDF Does the Work for PA and Uncovers Huge Weapons Hoard
Latest Indepth Stories
The Gospel according to the Palestinian Authority

How far the PA will go to present the lie as the truth and the truth as a lie? Its claim that Jesus was a Palestinian is old hat. But now the “resurrection” also refers to “the Palestinian state.”

Dreamland bully

The progressive consolidation imagines that organization can contain the messier side of man.

Russian Yakhont missile

The Russian Yakhont missiles already delivered to Syria threaten Israel Navy ships carrying out vital missions in the Mediterranean.

Eid al-Adha celebrated in Moscow

Islamism represents the transformation of Islamic faith into a political ideology.

America could be said to be building a united front against Iran, but at what price?

The Japanese do not feel the need to apologize to Muslims for the negative way in which they relate to Islam.

Palestinian youths from Hebron, though, who met with Israelis near Bethlehem to share their problems and insights have been forced to issue a statement distancing themselves from the meeting.

Benghazi isn’t likely to keep Hillary out of the Democratic field in 2016, but after 2008, she is justifiably paranoid.

The contractors received the land at a bargain basement price, moved the prices up to 1.8 million NIS and pocketed one million NIS per apartment.

Many of my fellow college students are quick to voice their acceptance of their LGBT friends, but they turn up their noses and frown slightly when they speak of a Hasid.

The growing revelations that the Obama State Department watered down public statements on the attack in order to cleanse them of any mention of al Qaeda and terrorism is a travesty.

We must confront Islamist groups with what Prime Minister David Cameron referred to as “muscular liberalism.”

Al-Qaradawi’s visit and statements also serve as a reminder that the Israeli-Arab conflict is centered, more than ever, around religion.

Everyone who reads newspapers should know at least one thing. Threats to annihilate Israel have always been unremarkable. Almost never, it seems, have Israel’s existential enemies sought any reason for concealment.

Mark Treyger, a candidate for city council in New York City’s 47th council district, met recently with the editorial board of The Jewish Press at the newspaper’s Boro Park office.

Israel’s government did not want to liberate Jerusalem. Or to be more specific, the Labor and National Religious Party ministers did not want to liberate Jerusalem. “Who needs that whole Vatican?” Defense Minister Moshe Dayan explained at the time.

More Articles from Dr. Aaron Lerner
Israeli cabinet meeting

The Israeli media portrays Israeli brass and ex-brass who oppose Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak on the Iran issue as a group whose assessment is based solely on a cold hard analysis of the situation. Unfortunately, there is a reasonable possibility that the Israeli brass and ex-brass themselves have piggy-backed their agenda to the Iranian debate.

Egyptian border post

For years the Egyptians have been trying to erode the Sinai force restrictions set in the peace treaty they signed with Israel. Force restrictions that were a necessary condition for Israel agreeing to restore the Sinai to Egyptian control. The Egyptians see the force restrictions as impinging on their sovereignty. Israel always considered the force restrictions as critical for the Jewish State’s national security.

Minister Benny Begin and others who oppose the law argue that it will be voided by the Supreme Court and that the law will damage Israel on the international front. If the Supreme Court indeed voids the law this will no doubt bring praise for Israel from the international community – not condemnation. And rest assured the court will rule on the law in lightning speed.

Oslo took Yasser Arafat and his PLO off the dung heap of history, when only radicals in the West were talking about anything beyond a Palestinian autonomy, and lead ultimately to the diplomatic challenge we face today – with the critical message of UNSC 242 – no requirement of full withdrawal – being ignored.

Making gestures should in no way be accompanied by a reconciliatory approach towards objectionable Palestinian behavior and Palestinian pronouncements. Toning down criticism of the PA not only doesn’t serve the interests of Israel – it ultimately does not serve the interests of the Palestinians.

There is certainly much to be learned from the events of 1970 and the nightmare that followed in 1973. Much that is extremely relevant to our own times. Israel paid dearly in 1973 for accepting the Egyptian violation of the 1970 agreement. And the Jewish State may yet again pay dearly if it continues to accept the ongoing security violations of Oslo in the Gaza Strip.

When this farce began, only a limited rural area near the Gaza Strip was being hit. Each time the range was extended there was talk that a red line had been crossed. But it is now clear that these lines in the sand had no meaning. Today over a million Israelis are in range of the weapons already launched from the Gaza Strip.

Planning timelines of days and weeks are very comforting for policy-makers seeking to avoid costly decisions. But the purpose of the exercise is not to indefinitely postpone what is best done today. The decision-makers owe it to their constituents to look beyond the next weeks and even months.

    Latest Poll

    Which is the most beautiful location in Jerusalem?









    View Results

    Loading ... Loading ...

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/analysis/do-netanyahus-opponents-in-iran-debate-have-an-agenda/2012/08/16/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online:

Close