web analytics
July 7, 2015 / 20 Tammuz, 5775
At a Glance
InDepth
Sponsored Post


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

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

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


If you don't see your comment after publishing it, refresh the page.

Our comments section is intended for meaningful responses and debates in a civilized manner. We ask that you respect the fact that we are a religious Jewish website and avoid inappropriate language at all cost.

If you promote any foreign religions, gods or messiahs, lies about Israel, anti-Semitism, or advocate violence (except against terrorists), your permission to comment may be revoked.

One Response to “Do Netanyahu’s Opponents in Iran Debate Have an Agenda?”

  1. Anonymous says:

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

Comments are closed.

Current Top Story
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.
Russia Steps Up in U.S.-led Nuclear Talks with Iran
Latest Indepth Stories
President Obama

Sources say seemingly irreconcilable differences between the 2 main parties, Washington and Tehran.

Seder at the White House. The one without the kippa is President Obama.

Instead of accepting reality, the President is trying to hold on to an illusion.

peace in our time iran

Those who suggest further capitulation to Iran are wrongly harming the interests of the West.

Haneen Zoabi (L) and Basel Ghattas (R), Arab members of Israel's parliament, both participated in flotillas attempting to break Israel's legal naval blockade of the Gaza strip.

Few Arab Israelis found anything positive in the decision of its MKS to join any Gaza flotilla.

US Jews prefer to be like their non-Jewish liberal friends complaining about “settlements” and Bibi

New Israel Fund & its supporters must be countered; Israel’s in the midst of an unprecedented storm

PM Netanyahu this week identified ISIS and Iran as Israel’s primary threat. It is a planetary threat that carries the promise of peace.

Haym Solomon, overlooked hero of the Revolutionary War, was America’s “Funding Father.”

Latvia, July 4, 1941 they forced many Jews in the shul putting it on fire; everyone was burned alive

There’s blood on the reporters’ hands AND New Israel Fund for funding groups feeding lies to the UN

Respect & appreciation for our country is not only a civic value but an essential Jewish one as well

When words lose meaning, the world becomes an Orwellian dystopia; a veritable Tower of Babel

Israel, like the non-radical Islamic world. will be happy see the ISIS beheaded for once.

Kids shouldn’t have “uninstructed” Internet access, better to train them how to use it responsibly

What if years from now, IS were to control substantial territory? What world havoc would that wreak?

Rambam writes the verse’s double term refers to 2 messiahs: first King David; 2nd the final Mashiach

More Articles from Dr. Aaron Lerner
Tunnel shaft

There can only be a finite number of tunnels, but the IDF keeps finding more of them…

Damage to 3 Light Rail stations in Shuafat on July 2 2014 due to Arab riots.

Arab terror vows notwithstanding, Jerusalem Light Rail service has already been restored to northern neighborhoods.

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.

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.

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: