What do you make of
the retired generals who say Benjamin Netanyahu is jeopardizing relations with Washington?
I say a plague on both
your houses.
This group of dovish retired
Israel military and intelligence officers organized under the rubric of Commanders
for Israel's Security has denounced Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for
damaging relations with the United States.
And no doubt he and his
ambassador to Washington Ron Dermer have. Either out of ineptitude or hubris
they've managed to take the spotlight off Iran and shine it brightly (and unflatteringly)
on Netanyahu. And they've managed to give wobbly Jewish liberals yet another excuse to take sides against Israel.
The ex-officers said that
Netanyahu's address to Congress on Tuesday, against Obama administration efforts
to cut a nuclear deal with Iran, would do nothing to slow down Iran's quest for
nuclear weapons.
Well, that's pretty
obvious. A president can enter into an agreement of this kind without the
advise and consent of Congress.
So you stand shoulder-to-shoulder
with IDF armored corps ex-general, Amnon Reshef, founder of Commanders for
Israel's Security?
I just happen to agree
with him on this one point.
By the way, I'm curious about who handles his
public relations and who stands behind the people who are arranging his
publicity.
Anyway, in November, Reshef
told the Yediot Aharanot viewspaper that he was "absolutely"
convinced it was possible to establish a Palestinian state that posed no threat
to Israeli security -- with the support of the Arab countries -- if Netanyahu were willing to be "courageous."
That's a pretty delusional claim.
A pullback practically to the 1949
Armistice Lines? Now? When the countries surrounding us are wracked by
instability? When the Palestinian polity is divided between Hamas and the PLO? Or "worse" and "worser." When every previous Israeli pullout led to a poorer
security outcome than the status quo? When the "moderate" PLO remains committed to the principle that Jews have no legitimate place anywhere in
the region…
Amiram Levin, a
former Mossad officer who was also Netanyahu's commander in an IDF special
forces unit, said that the mullahs in Iran were glad to see a rift develop
between the Obama administration and Jerusalem. "Iran wants Netanyahu's
speech. They understand that it will weaken Israel's bipartisan bond with the
United States."
I certainly don't
disagree. Though since the generals knew their statement would not persuade
Netanyahu to scuttle the Washington trip – aren't they also feeding into Iran's
desires?
"It's hard for
me to speak out against Bibi," Levin said using Netanyahu's nickname.
"I was his commander. I recruited him. I taught him how to navigate and
I'm telling him now: 'Bibi, you've made an error in navigation. The objective ought
to be Tehran, not Washington,'" the Hebrew-language tabloid Ma'ariv
reported.
Look, history shows that
many of those who know Bibi up close and personal, who worked for him, have, on the whole come to despise him.
In the March 17
elections, Bibi is running against Avigdor Lieberman and Naftali Bennett both
of whom were once close aides. He's not known to engender loyalty.
Another ex-general,
Giora Rom said Jerusalem should not be "fighting" President Barack
Obama. "There are more suitable ways to deal with the Iranian agreement
being worked on rather than going to Congress like this," the WPost
reported.
That horse has left the barn.
It's basically too late.
No American
administration-- and certainly not Obama's-- is going to go to war against Iran in order to stop them from
developing an atom bomb. See North Korea as a precedent.
The tragedy of the George
W. Bush administration is that by going to war with Iraq it not only unleashed
the Pandora's Box of sectarian Muslim-on-Muslim bloodletting, de-stabilized the Arab nation-state system, set the stage for the so-called
Arab Spring, but that the Iraq war secured Iran as a regional powerbroker.
Netanyahu should apologize
to Congress for egging Bush on in those days though he was not in office and Ehud Olmert was. The
unintended consequences of the Iraq war have proved to be disastrous all around.
And if Netanyahu really
believed Israel faced an immediate, existential danger – why talk, talk, talk? I don't recall Menachem Begin blustering before ordering the air-force to destroy Saddam Hussein's nuclear reactor. Obviously, every Israeli premier since Rabin (in his second term) will have to answer to history for letting Iran get this far.
Israeli Defense
Minister Moshe Ya'alon defended Netanyahu's decision to go ahead with the speech.
"There is a huge gap between how we see things and how the Americans see
them. We could capitulate and grovel, but this is a historic moment – and if we
don't act correctly, history will judge us badly."
I like Ya'alon but I
doubt his political instincts. I think he meant "how Obama's administration sees them."
Wait. Are you saying, though, that 180 Israeli generals, ex-Mossad and ex-Shin Bet are wrong to be
"dovish" as you so dismissively label them?
As prime minister's
former Israeli generals have been willing to take risks for peace. Yitzhak
Rabin signed the catastrophic 1993 Oslo Accords which brought Yasser Arafat out
of Tunisian exile and established him as head of the Palestinian Authority in
Ramallah. Ariel Sharon uprooted 21 Israeli settlements and pulled IDF forces
out of the Gaza Strip in 2005. [mea culpa, I supported what he did at the
time.] And the feckless Ehud Barak offered to turn over the Golan Heights to
Syria when he was prime minister in 1999.
So much for the prescience of ex-generals.