Israel's Dangerous Game with Iran

The NYT has a must-read that examines the dangerous game that the US and Israel are playing with Iran, but shines perhaps the brightest spotlight on Israel's resort to one of its most-used tactics, historically: assassination.  In this instance, we're talking about assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists.


As Glenn Greenwald has pointed it, what the Israelis are doing is terrorism.


And as two US experts point out in the NYT piece, the consequences down the line - for both Israel and the US - may be extremely dangerous.

William C. Banks, an expert on national security law at Syracuse University, said he believed that for the United States even to provide specific intelligence to Israel to help kill an Iranian scientist would violate a longstanding executive order banning assassinations. The legal rationale for drone strikes against terrorist suspects — that the United States is at war with Al Qaeda and its allies — would not apply, he said.

“Under international law, aiding and abetting would be the same as pulling the trigger,” Mr. Banks said. He added, “We would be in a precarious position morally, and the entire world is watching, especially China and Russia.”

Gary Sick, a specialist on Iran at Columbia, said he believed that the covert campaign, combined with sanctions, would not persuade Iran to abandon its nuclear work.

“It’s important to turn around and ask how the U.S. would feel if our revenue was being cut off, our scientists were being killed and we were under cyberattack,” Mr. Sick said. “Would we give in, or would we double down? I think we’d fight back, and Iran will, too.”

More perspectives on the danger - and stupidity - of the US+Israel current tactics are here.  And Juan Cole speculates (with some evidence to back it up, to some extent) that the latest assassination might have been a combined production of the Mossad and the anti-Iranian-regime group known as the MEK (Mujahedin e-Khalq), both of which have an established track record of terrorist assassinations.


At least the US has condemned the most recent assassination.  (It remains to be seen if the Israelis will get the message, but in an election season, don't expect Obama or Clinton to call them out on this.)


Doesn't it make sense that, at some point, the Iranians will find a way to retaliate?  The Iranian press is already calling for vengeance against Israel.

More on Ethan Bronner's eulogy of Settler Extremist Hanan Porat

A few days after I'd posted on my disgust over the NYT's Ethan Bronner's fawning eulogy of West Bank extremist settler Hanan Porat comes a spot-on essay from Lizzy Ratner at Mondoweiss.  It deserves posting here in full - with the reminder that as the nation's supposed "newspaper of record," the New York Times has a long way to go in achieving some real balance in its reporting on Israel and Palestine.  And Bronner's ties to Israel are too well documented to rehearse here.

Late Wednesday night, after I finished devouring the Steve Jobs obituary on the New York Times website, my eye happened to catch the headline for another of the day's death reports: "Hanan Porat, Jewish Settlement Leader, Dies at 67." (Actually, my eye didn't so much catch the headline as was forced toward it by the Times's "Recommended for You" list, which has apparently pegged me as member of the all-things-Israel demographic, which is a whole other story ... sort of.)RetweetMy first reaction was disgust followed by a strong desire to register my protest by refusing to read. What was the Times doing running an obituary of a settlement leader, a founder of the extremist movement responsible for gobbling up dunam upon dunam of Palestinian land, for dispossession, violence, apartheid, and an ultra-nationalism so toxic it approaches fascism? If a leader of Hamas died, would the Times eulogize him too? It goes without saying that it would never grant precious death-page real estate to a human rights leader like Michel Warshawski or Raji Sourani.
But then curiosity got the better of me and I clicked on the link which brought me, in a matter of seconds, to a 574-word Ethan-Bronner special capped by a photograph of a young and dashing Porat. Based on Bronner's homage, which is written in a tone that can only really be described as sympathetic-masquerading-as-neutral, here is what I learned:
* Hanan Porat was hot! "[I]n his prime, in the 1970s and ’80s, when the Israeli right began its political ascent, he was a fiery advocate of hard-line Zionism, cutting a handsome figure with a mane of thick dark hair topped by a knitted yarmulke," Bronner writers. And indeed, the man in the photograph, the one riding high above the shoulders of dozens of men, pants tight, plaid shirt loose, arms spread in ecstasy, looks like a 1970s god, a real-life Berger -- so much so that even now I can't help but wonder: could a guy that good looking really be that bad?
* Porat "establish[ed] Jewish communities in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip."  Well, gosh, I like communities, communities are good, doesn't everyone want more communities in this atomized, go-it-alone world? In fact, I was part of a community once, during a semester I spent at an enviro-wilderness high school in Maine. It was cool. We quoted Thoreau and Whitman and kept a communal journal and shared food and clothes and secrets and had really intense, deep friendships.
* Porat "helped turn Israel’s religious settler movement into a powerful force" through the establishment of the aforementioned communities. Hm, a powerful force -- oh I get it, like Adele 0r Hank Greenberg or women!
* Benjamin Netanyahu, who is the only outside source quoted in the article (and gets quoted twice), really liked Porat, and Porat really liked the Land of Israel: "Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Mr. Porat had 'dedicated his life to building up the land of Israel, and to educating generations of students about religious Zionism and loving the land of Israel and the Jewish people.'” Wow, what a warm and generous-sounding guy, so full of love and altruism. A true mensch!
* Porat was a" fervent advocate of Jewish power across the biblical land of Israel." How romantic, the biblical land of Israel. Good thing he wasn't advocating Jewish power across the contemporary land of Palestine.
* Porat helped found Gush Emunim, "which means 'the bloc of the faithful.'” Well, that doesn't sound that bad, does it? Sure, "gush" is an unfortunate word (rhymes with tush and mush and whatnot), but "bloc of the faithful" sounds pretty innocuous.
* Porat helped build a Jewish settlement in the heart of the Palestinian city of Hebron, "where the biblical patriarchs and matriarchs are said to be buried." Cool, sign me up for a tour! I want to see where the patriarchs and matriarchs are planted.
* Porat grew up on kibbutz Kfar Etzion, "which is on land that was later won by Jordan during Israel’s 1948 war of independence. He re-established the community after the 1967 Middle East war, when the land was conquered by Israel." Well, that sounds fair enough. I mean, we're just talking about land, right? First Jordan won the land, then Israel won the land, and since we're just talking about land, what's the big deal?
* The Etzion bloc that Porat helped found "is one of the large West Bank settlement blocs that Israel wants to keep in any deal with a future Palestinian state. One reason many Israelis consider it theirs by right is that it had been settled by Jews before 1948." I guess that means that Jews discovered the area, or at least developed it, and we all know: you discover something, you own it.
* The settlements Porat helped create "remain among the biggest obstacles to creating a Palestinian state." Bummer.
* Porat "is survived by his wife, 11 children and a number of grandchildren." Aw, how sweet, he was a dad and granddad -- and so prolific!
Now here's what I could have learned about Hanan Porat but didn't -- not from theNew York Times and not from the dozens of other mainstream publications that wrote about Porat's death:
* The settlements that Porat  helped found are illegal under international law, and their creation is widely consider a war crime, which would suggest that Hanan Porat himself is a war criminal.
* The settlements that Porat helped found, and the infrastructure of oppression that has been built up all around the settlements to keep them well-watered, bucolic, and "secure," has turned the West Bank into a land of bantustans and Israel into an apartheid state.
* The settlements that Porat and his movement helped found sit on hundreds of thousands of dunams of stolen land and consume as much as (and, at this point, most likely more than) 42 percent of the West Bank. In the process, settlers have forced thousands of Palestinians from their homes.
* The settlements that Porat helped found, and the system of "bypass" roads, apartheid wall, and checkpoints that accompany them, violate Palestinian human rights, including "the right of property, the right to equality, the right to a suitable standard of living, and the right to freedom of movement."
* The settlement that Porat helped found in the heart of the Palestinian city of Hebron is one of the most extreme, radical settlements in existence, a place where the occupation is its most foul, violent, and abusive.
* As Porat fully intended, the settlements are not merely obstacles to the creation of a Palestinian state, they have killed any hope and possibility of a true Palestinian state.
* Gush Emunim, which Porat helped found, was not merely the "bloc of the faithful," it was an extremist, messianic movement that gave birth to a "Zionist fundamentalism" that was aggressive and expansionist at best and violent and terroristic at worst.
* For all his alleged Talmudic brilliance and religious zealotry, Porat was a pretty bad Jew. As Nehemia Shtrasler wrote in a helpful op-ed in Haaretz, "The abuse in the territories [that Porat helped create and support] is also in total contradiction to the moral teachings of Israel's prophets - Amos, Isaiah, and Jeremiah - but Porat and his colleagues knew only the Book of Joshua."
* After Baruch Goldstein murdered 29 Palestinians and wounded more than 100 at a mosque in Hebron, Porat, who helped found the illegal settlement where Goldstein lived, was asked by a reporter to offer his thoughts on the massacre. His response: "Happy Purim."

As Egypt and Yemen Erupt, and Tunisia Reorganizes, Baghdad Explodes . . . and Israel Worries

It is, of course, much too early to claim that a new era has begun among the "Arab moderate" autocracies, but a look at today's happenings suggests that a lot of people in a lot of Foreign Ministries (and the US DoS) are doing a lot of re-thinking.  Protests are continuing into a third day in Egypt, where young people who'd seemingly been content to talk the revolution talk over the internet are now organizing and coming onto the streets.  Thousands are marching on the streets of Sana in Yemen, demanding that the repressive regime of gerontocrat President Saleh step down.  Meanwhile, in Tunisia, violence on the streets has subsided (which likely explains why the major newspapers report little from there today), but the government is engaged in a reshuffling that will likely entail major consequences for the future of democracy there - and the extent to which Islamist parties there will be enbraced or excluded.


But Egypt is getting a huge percentage of the attention, for good reason.  It is the most populous of the Arab countries; it has been (with Iraq) one of the two traditional political and cultural capitals of the Middle East; it has been widely regarded as perhaps the most important of the US's "moderate" Arab allies, for which it has received billions of US $$; and it is one of only two Arab countries (along with Jordan, another "moderate" autocracy) to have concluded a peace treaty with Israel - something to which both Israel and the US have pointed with pride for more than 30 years.


But the great fear now is that that may be in jeopardy.  Though officially at peace, Israel-Egypt relations have been mostly cold.  The treaty Sadat signed 30+ years ago has never been warmly embraced by most of Egypt's people (although it did get the Sinai back for Egypt), in part because it has helped give political cover to the Mubarak regime's collusion with Israel to keep undermine Hamas in Gaza. (Hamas, remember, is a Palestinian affiliate of the Egyptian-founded Muslim Brotherhood, the single most popular organized - and outlawed - opposition group that threatens Mubarak's regime.)  If Mubarak tumbles (which is the oft-expressed wish and intention of the protesters), the treaty with Israel may be put back on the table by a new government.  As the NYT reported a couple of days ago, Israel is worried, but can't do much about it except look on from the sidelines, and hope that Mubarak crushes the protesters and restores (here's that word again) "stability."  The US wants that stability restored at least as much as the Israelis do.  The WaPo today is slapping Obama and Clinton on the back for, in their spin, coming out in favor of the protesters.  But what Hillary wants is more engagement between Mubarak's regime and the pro-democracy forces; the pro-democracy forces want Mubarak and his cronies - and his hyper-repressive security forces - out.  There's a real disconnect there.  As Egyptian democracy advocate Muhammad el-Baradei noted yesterday, Obama-Clinton seem more concerned about "stability" than anything else:

 “ ‘Stability’ is a very pernicious word . . . . Stability at the expense of 30 years of martial law, rigged elections?” He added, “If they come later and say, as they did in Tunis, ‘We respect the will of the Tunisian people,’ it will be a little late in the day.”

And don't look now, but it may be getting very much later in the day for Mr. al-Maliki in Iraq.  Another car bomb went off at a Shiite funeral in Baghdad today, with at least 48 killed and 120+ wounded.  Even more ominously for al-Maliki's fledgling new regime government, the massacre occurred in an area of Baghdad that is a stronghold of popular support for Muqtada al-Sadr, who only days ago - in his triumphal, though abbreviated, return to Iraq - publicly proclaimed what amounted to very conditional support for Maliki.  (He declared, "We're watching.")  As the WaPO report also notes, the area also happens to have recently fallen under the influence of a radical and violent breakaway Shiite group, Asaib al-Haq.  The AP (via NPR) reported:

 Associated Press Television News footage showed broken plastic chairs overturned inside the tent, while broken tea cups and other debris covered the patterned rugs on the floor. A mourner held up a torn, blood-soaked dishdasha, traditional dress worn by Iraqi men. . . .

Young men furious over the lack of security began pelting Iraqi security forces at the scene with stones. Anger was still high three hours later, and Iraqi troops fired in the air to disperse a crowd of residents gathering elsewhere in the neighborhood for a demonstration against the failure to prevent the bombings. Police said some in the crowd fired back as Iraqi helicopters buzzed overhead.

A witness who identified himself as Abu Ahmed al-Saiedi said mourners had been allowed to park near the funeral tent because most people in the neighborhood knew each other.  "I blame the neighborhood security officials for letting this car bomb enter the area without being checked," said al-Saiedi, who was hit in the arm with shrapnel. "When I saw people hurling stones at security men, I said to myself, 'They deserve that.'"