According to a Ben Caspit column in Ma’ariv (Hebrew), for the past two years there has been a growing power struggle involving the Israeli leadership team of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his defense minister, Ehud Barak, against many officials past and present who are in the highest echelons of the defense establishment. That struggle is apparently quickly becoming a real challenge to the Netanyahu government.
The battle focuses upon the Netanyahu/Barak desire to launch a military attack against Iran, which the dissidents regard as reckless and irresponsible. In addition, there appears to be more general dissatisfaction with the Bibi and Barak duo, both of whom are known as extremely difficult personalities.
Ex-Mossad head, Meir Dagan, has recently been the most publicly vocal opponent of the current Israeli leadership and its push for military action against Teheran. However, his discontent is just the tip of the iceberg. It has been reported that many power players support Dagan’s views, including the recently retired head of the military, Gabi Askenazi and his present replacement, Benny Gantz.
The level of vituperative discourse and personal attacks which characterizes the current debate have been highly unusual even for the freewheeling and sometimes bizarre Israeli political scene. “There is something not right about him,” is how Dagan described Netanyahu, according to a high level official quoted in Ma’ariv.
Surprisingly, Ben Caspit claims that the dissidents blame Barak and see Netanyahu as a weakling under the spell of his defense minister. What a shocker!!! Did anyone see Netanyahu’s performance in Washington recently? He didn’t look weak to me.
In the following excerpt from Ben Caspit’s report he describes the bitterness of the words and feelings of the dissidents.
Their (Dagan and the other dissidents) shared fear is Barak. In Netanyahu they see a naïve captive, a weakling and a lightweight mind that has become a rubber stamp for the Defense Minister. The words that Dagan uses, that others use, in regard to the present danger that comes from the double leadership, Barak and Netanyahu; they are the most bitter and sharp words that are in the dictionary. Most of them are not suitable for print [translation mine].
Who knows what to make of all this? Dagan has always been known as an Arab hater who is a Jewish Rambo. Maybe he has a soft spot for Persians. I am just kidding. Dagan has headed all manner of covert operations against Iran which include assassinating scientists, computer viruses which attack Iranian nuclear facilities, sabotage and promoting regime change. Still none of these misadventures have caused a regional war which a military attack probably would.
All of the dissidents, of course, have always supported the occupation and have contributed greatly to its horrors. Also, Dagan’s recent embrace of the Saudi Initiative smells bad to me. And plans for attacking Iran have been on the Israeli agenda in a very public way for at least 15 years. In the summer of 2008, the U.S. red- lighted the Olmert government, which was intent on military action against Iranian nuclear installations. Why didn’t Dagan or the others speak out then?
Still, in reading the reports in the Israeli press today, I am convinced that there is a serious campaign to remove Barak and Netanyahu from power. It is coming from the defense establishment, which has a lot of power in Israel. The leaders seem to have sympathizers in the press.
My question is: would a government led by the dissidents be any better? My answer is that for the Palestinians, no. However, if it could prevent the regional war which an Israeli or American military action against Iran would produce, then my answer is definitely yes.
Well of course. The capacity for a politician to actually exercise valid and non-self-destructive statesmanship is inversely proportional to the magnitude by which said politician is in the right wing. As a general rule.
De Gaulle was a right-winger who was also a great statesman.
France was under occupation by Germany when De Gaulle rose to power. Unsurprisingly, a right wing militant makes a great rebel leader in no-holds-barred warfare. The France that followed liberation was a colonialist oppressor right up through the Vietnam War. Credit where credit is due, but De Gaulle was not a nice man if you weren’t white.
“Dagan has always been known as an Arab hater who is a Jewish Rambo. ” Read this somewhere else.
“All of the dissidents, of course, have always supported the occupation and have contributed greatly to its horrors. ”
They might see the writing on the wall. Better make a deal as the wall of silence comes down, Americans become more aware of the facts on the ground. Awareness , the BDS movement etc are growing. Mearsheimers statement make the most sense to me. If Israel does not make a real deal the apartheid state will become ever more apparent. Carter also alluded to this in his book “Palestine Peace: Not Apartheid”
Dagan and the others who have contributed to the occupations “horrors” may get it. The occupation has delegitimized Israel.
The sooner they make a deal, the better for them the deal can be. (I’m thinking of constitutional guarantees for both nationalities in a binational state, maybe two legislative houses, one for each nationality, that sort of thing.)
De Klerk tried to negotiate constitutional guarantees of this sort for the whites in South Africa, but the whites had waited too long to negotiate, and Mandela was infuriated when he learned that De Klerk’s government was secretly backing the massive interethnic violence by Zulus and the like in the last couple of years of white rule.
IG others. Could these mostly fellas see the writing on the wall. That Israel through the occupation is doing fall more harm to themselves and that the very existence of Israel could be on the line. The wall of silence is coming down, the BDS movement is growing, there is no turning back. They can not put the lid back on. They may becoming realist and see real danger for the future of Israel.
Hi Kathleen,
It seems to me that this is an old fashioned power struggle whose causes may not be totally clear. Maybe it is about attacking Iran. I do not think it is about the occupation, unless you take Avi’s long view (see below).
I do not think there are any heroes, here. I hope I am wrong and you are correct, though.
I am not implying that these people who took part in the “horrors” inflicted upon the Palestinian people have all of a sudden become individuals of conscience, or compassion. I don’t think they sound like “heroes”. Or of having any respect for international law or UN resolutions all of a suddent.
Just thinking they may have realized Israel can not keep getting away with the occupation, crimes, confiscation of more Palestinian lands due to growing awareness and the BDS movement. That Israel has painted themselves into a corner. Think Mearsheimer describes the situation best.
Mearsheimer: There will be no two-state solution, only a greater Israel, and Palestinians will need the int’l community in the coming fight against apartheid
link to mondoweiss.net
RE: “There is something not right about him,” is how Dagan described Netanyahu…
AT NETFLIX: Vincere, 2009, NR, 124 minutes
Ida Dalser (Giovanna Mezzogiorno) falls for young Benito Mussolini (Filippo Timi) in Milan and sells everything she has to help the future dictator fund his newspaper, Popolo d’Italia. But when World War I separates the newly wedded couple, Mussolini marries another woman. Ida demands to retain her rights as Mussolini’s wife and the mother of his son, but the Fascists have other plans for the dictator’s dark secret in this gripping biopic.
Director: Marco Bellocchio
Language: Italian (ENGLISH SUBTITLES)
Availability: Streaming and DVD
NETFLIX – link to movies.netflix.com
P.S. In no way do I mean to suggest that Netanyhu reminds me of that other famous blockhead, Il Duce. In no way, I tells ya!
‘“There is something not right about him,”
No secret what it is. Netanyahu was raised on revenge and hate by his father, now he has power and is filthy drunk with hubris.
A pure disaster waiting to happen.
Ira, very interesting points. I have to agree with you at one level — what Bibi has been doing over the past few months seems totally self destructive. But why would Barak join him today? He was PM 10 years back; if he wanted world war then it was in his power to make it happen.
I am very skeptical about what Dagan, Bibi or Barak are claiming to believe today. I think what all this hysterical reporting is about is that Israel is a “MAD DOG” as Moshe Dayan informed the world 40 years back. It is a simple warning to the rest of the world — do not defy us because we have enough nuclear weapons to end life on this planet as we know it.
I disagree — 600 hundred nuclear bombs may kill a few hundreds of millions of people, but it will not end human life. And that is a fact. Even if the Zionists want you to think otherwise.
If this happens. ToivoS, Israel is finished . Kaput.
You can not honestly sit and think the rest of the world would put up with this. This is sadism at its max. Israel will have lost every sympathy, every argument, should this happen. Permanent anti-semitism. Forever and ever. Take it to the bank. And no one will care otherwise.
And in that case the U.S. will bear a lot of the blame.
I’m not sure about this, but I don’t think a country with undeclared nuclear weapons like Israel can do a first strike. Wouldn’t that mean that that country would be destroyed immediately by all other nuclear powers? That, at any rate, is my understanding (no expert). So Israel could only launch a first strike on Iran with nukes if the US provided cover. Now I understand Obama’s message to Israel/Netanyahu: “Every country has the right to defend itself – BY ITSELF – against ANY threat” to mean that Bibi would be on his own in executing a strike against the Iranian threat – be it a real or imagined (nuclear) threat. Maybe that’s too optimistic, though. But he is still the CiC.
So Israel can use nukes only as the Samson option – as assured self -destruction, taking one or more countries down, but hardly destroy the whole planet. No rational Israeli government would think about it: “dumbest idea I ever heard” (Dagan)
But Barak and Bibi may well be crazier than Ahmadinejad, certainly crazier than the Mullahs, and then there are the neocon lunatics in the US
A power struggle at the highest levels in the Israeli elite would be wonderful.
Maybe there are pragmatists in the IDF who want to ditch the settlers.
the occupation has delegitimized israel
yet the u. s. of a. continues to support it
and doomsday*?
they make like the threat of doomsday ain’t for real
that osama bin laden, there’s the real threat
why we invaded afghanistan
but without these designated demons?
they stand no chance
thanks to those eighteen magical days in tahrir square
*perpetual war + global warming = doomsday, and time is running out
Ira,
What you propose is commendable, but yours is a partial view on the current situation.
Let’s establish two basic facts:
(1) Plan A – Israel launches a massive military attack on Iran, destroying its nuclear facilities, its power stations, telecommunications infrastructure and major military bases.
(2) Plan B – Israel continues on its current path, instigates terrorism inside Iran, foments violence and unrest and continues to assassinate key figures.
Plan A has a greater potential to benefit the Palestinian people, certainly their long term prospects. If Plan A comes to pass, Israel will drag the US into a regional war. That war has the potential to resolve many of the current conflicts. More below.
If Plan B comes to pass, then Israel will continue to hold an advantage over Iran. Under these conditions Israel is able to undermine Iran’s internal stability while incurring virtually no blowback from Iran for that would be a declaration of war.
This situation forces Iran to seek out new avenues to retaliate by proxy. And one of the ways it can challenge Israel by proxy, is through the Palestinian people or through Hizbollah.
After the 1979 peace treaty with Egypt, Israel was able to focus inward and invest the vast majority of its resources at oppressing and occupying Palestinians in the occupied territories and in Israel.
Similarly, Plan B, provides Israel with fewer fronts on which to fight. That leaves the Palestinians vulnerable to more Israeli oppression. So far, Israel has put the Palestinians in a pressure cooker. There is a limit to what any human being can endure. That prepares the groundwork for Iran to insert itself into the Israeli-Palestinian impasse by using Palestinians to attack Israel by proxy, and to earn their support by providing them with weapons and funding.
Therefore, Plan A is actually preferable as it is bound to change the power balance in the Middle East. That is to say that an empire in decline and an already isolated Israel, will find it hard to deal with people power, revolutions and unrest in every country in the region on a far greater scale than has been seen so far.
That is why Dagan supports Plan B. It gives Israel a strategic advantage.
P.S. – Should you choose to use any of these points, I would appreciate it if you credited me.
Which it won’t do, Avi.
If Plan A comes to pass, Israel will drag the US into a regional war.
Avi I am really skeptical about the scenario that Israel can drag the US into a war by attacking first, admittedly. As I occasionally wonder about Harper at Pat Lang’s blog, who picked up the story. Basilisk put it best.
Trying again: Basilisk’s comment.
Avi,
“If Plan A comes to pass, Israel will drag the US into a regional war. That war has the potential to resolve many of the current conflicts. More below.”
You may be correct, although I personally would not want to predict that a regional war would “solve many problems. ” A regional war would, I believe, be unpredictable, but predictably horrid.
Thanks for your thoughtful comments, which I always read with great interest.
Ira
Avi: “That is why Dagan supports Plan B. It gives Israel a strategic advantage.”
No Avi, Dagan is now advocating Plan C – accepting the Saudi peace initiative. You can question his sincerity, you can question the likelihood of success, but that is what he has publicly advocated.
And why not? To my mind, it is entirely conceivable that a realistic “rational Zionist” would see that the current non-violent Palestinian campaign (both at the diplomatic-level and on the ground) brings closer the time for Israel to choose. And that pursuing the Saudi plan is the best available option to secure the long-term preservation of “the Jewish state”.
To such a person your Plan A would be a lose-lose situation. A very unpredictable short-term outcome and putting back the prospects of regional peace for perhaps another generation. I suspect the real aim of Plan A (and hence its appeal to hardliners) may be to provoke retaliation (such as massive Hezbollah rocket attacks) and to use the resulting mayhem as both excuse and cover for “transfer”. Thus increasingly effetive Palestinian pressure may increase the short-term risk of this happenning.
Nor would your Plan B have any appeal to a “rational Zionist”, as it neither addresses the threat of apartheid to the “Jewish state” nor solves any perceived Iranian nuclear threat – it may delay any Iranian nuclear weapon but also it will motivate its development.
The point of the Saudi peace plan to resolve both the IP borders and relations with all the Middle Eastern states. Iran may be a wild card, but it is seeking diplomatic ties and expanded economic relations with both Turkey and Egypt. So it is not inconceivable that Iran could be a participant in such an agreement, and looking ahead, an economic partner for Israel.
For completeness I should mention Plan D, a democratic single state. One would have thought the inclusive nature of this plan would appeal to the “liberal Zionist”. But whilst the “rational Zionist” is rare visitor at Mondoweiss, there is an indigenous “liberal Zionist” and strangely he avoids the single state at all costs. Though he gives 1967-borders the odd peck, he seems to always come back to the status quo. Though recently even that seems to have been a little hard to digest.
“(1) Plan A – Israel launches a massive military attack on Iran, destroying its nuclear facilities, its power stations, telecommunications infrastructure and major military bases. ”
On the telecommunications infrastructure of Israel and the US possibly being infiltrated by a foreign nation. I always go back to the Fox News reporter Carl Camerons four part report just after 9/11. He reported that their was evidence that an Israeli telecommunication system had allegedly been infiltrated by a foreign nation through some back door into the system. In that report he stated that Israeli communication systems have access to 95% of all US phone communications. That datamining systems etc were vulnerable,
This report was swept under the rug. Amdocs, Comverse Infosys (changed their name) Israeli based communication companies involved. Something serious here. Did Iran get access to US intelligence via this compromised system? What was Israel accessing in the US?
If you have never watched this report. A must
link to informationclearinghouse.info
Watch it again, Kathleen. Israel is the foreign nation (Country A) that penetrated our telecommunications system beyond the following: All call record data in the US goes to Israel. They prepare all cell and landline bills for US carriers. Israel used the vast databases of call record data to penetrate US law enforcement and US intelligence.
Actually the special acknowledges that 95% of all US phone calls go through Israeli based communication company systems. In the report they say that the Israeli based communication system had allegedly been infiltrated.
I have watched and listened numerous times. The Israeli based communication and data mining was a known. The infiltration through an alleged back door through this system was the question.. That is the way I heard the report
ok re read your statement agree. Sounds like Israel used their datamining systems to “penetrate US law and enforcement and US intelligence” But what I also heard Carl Cameron report it is alleged that Israel’s communication system was compromised by the infiltration by another un named nation
Comverse
link to comverse.com
Comverse Infosys changes name to Verint
link to verint.com
Israel office
link to verint.com
Their Board of Directors are an interesting bunch
link to verint.com
This article by Phillip Giraldi repeats much of what Carl Cameron reported
“Two Israeli companies in particular—Amdocs and Comverse Infosys, both of which are headquartered in Israel—do significant business in the United States. Amdocs, which has contracts with the 25 largest telephone companies in the U.S. that together handle 90 percent of all calls made, logs all calls that go out and come in on the system. It does not record the conversations themselves, but the records provide patterns, referred to as “traffic analysis,” that can provide intelligence leads. In 1999, the National Security Agency warned that records of calls made in the United States were winding up in Israel. Amdocs also has an apparent relationship with some of the art students who were arrested in 2001. Several were provided with bond money by an Amdocs executive.
Comverse Infosys provides wiretapping equipment to law enforcement throughout the United States and also has large contracts with the Israeli government, which reimburses up to 50 percent of the company’s research and development costs. Because equipment used to tap phones for law enforcement is integrated into the networks that phone companies operate, it cannot be detected. Phone calls are intercepted, recorded, stored, and transmitted to investigators by Comverse, which claims that it has to be “hands on” with its equipment to maintain the system. Many experts believe that it is relatively easy to create a so-called “back door” that permits the recording to be sent to a second party, unknown to the authorized law-enforcement recipient. And Comverse equipment has never been inspected by FBI or NSA experts to determine whether the information it collects can be leaked, reportedly because senior government managers block such inquiries.
According to a Fox News investigative report, which was later deleted from Fox’s website under pressure from various pro-Israel groups, DEA and FBI sources say that even to suggest that Israel might be spying using Comverse “is considered career suicide.”
A number of criminal investigations using Comverse equipment have apparently come to dead ends when the targets abruptly change their telecommunications methods, suggesting at a minimum that Comverse employees might be leaking sensitive information to Israeli organized crime.
The chickens occasionally come home to roost. In 2002, Israeli espionage might have been directed against the U.S. Congress, which has so assidiously ignored Tel Aviv’s spying. Congressman Bob Ney, currently in prison for corruption, arranged a noncompetitive bid for the Israeli telecommunications company Foxcom Wireless to install equipment to improve cellphone reception in the Capitol and House office buildings. Foxcom, based in Jerusalem, has been linked to imprisoned lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Telecommunications security experts note that equipment that can be used to enhance or improve a signal can also be used to redirect the phone conversation to another location for recording and analysis. The possibility that someone in the Israeli Embassy might be listening to congressmen’s private phone conversations is intriguing to say the least.”
link to amconmag.com
“
Stephen Green has written a fair amount about how US officials with close associations with Israel have been investigated for passing USclassified intelligence onto Israel. But that those investigations have often been shut down (Aipac Espionage investigation/Trial being one of those
Serving Two Flags
Neo-Cons, Israel and the Bush Administration
“Since 9-11, a small group of “neo-conservatives” in the Administration have effectively gutted–they would say reformed–traditional American foreign and security policy. Notable features of the new Bush doctrine include the pre-emptive use of unilateral force, and the undermining of the United Nations and the principle instruments and institutions of international law….all in the cause of fighting terrorism and promoting homeland security.
Some skeptics, noting the neo-cons’ past academic and professional associations, writings and public utterances, have suggested that their underlying agenda is the alignment of U.S. foreign and security policies with those of Ariel Sharon and the Israeli right wing. The administration’s new hard line on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict certainly suggests that, as perhaps does the destruction, with U.S. soldiers and funds, of the military capacity of Iraq, and the current belligerent neo-con campaign against the other two countries which constitute a remaining counterforce to Israeli military hegemony in the region–Iran and Syria.”
link to prospect.org
“According to the FBI agents who contacted Green, as he recounts, the article had come to their attention when one of Green’s sources — a retired national security official they were interviewing — shared it with them.
And so on June 22, Green found himself sitting across an oval-shaped conference table from two FBI agents at an undisclosed northern Virginia venue. The meeting lasted nearly four hours.
“They were extraordinarily well-informed; it was apparent they’ve been at this for awhile,” Green says. “I asked them if there was a current reason for them asking questions about things that go back over 30 years, and they sort of looked at each other and said, ‘Yes, it’s a present issue,’ but wouldn’t say specifically what. Though they did ask very specific questions about one individual in particular.”
Green said the agents asked about several current or former Pentagon officials such as Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Michael Ledeen, and Stephen Bryen.
“The tenor of their questions was such that it defined where these people were in terms of the nature of their focus,” Green says. “They also asked about a couple other Office of Special Plans people, including Harold Rhode. Ironically, about the only name that didn’t come up was Larry Franklin.”
Regardless of the status of the investigation, something seemed a bit fishy. After all, Israel — one of the United States’ closest allies, with deep support in the Bush Administration and especially at the Defense Department — hardly needs a Pentagon-embedded spy to get access to interagency debates about U.S. policy to Iran, as observers have pointed out. And compared with the information on arms shipments that former US Navy analyst Jonathan Pollard passed on to Israel in the 1980s, a draft of a document about U.S. policy toward Iran would hardly seem like the crown jewels. “
Funny how so many parts of the U.S. government failed on 9/11.
Isn´t it time our fearless leader and Nobel Peace Prize receiver goes public with a speach warning Israel about any advanturous attack on Iran?!
We certainly have enough wars going and a new one does not benefit american interests in any shape of form.
Not that a war has any positive benefit to anyone, there are only losers.
Israel and the I lobby do not care about the security of the US. If they did they would get back to that 67 border and stop stirring the shit pot
I hope the dissidents prevent an attack by Israel (and that USA also does not attack!).
As to Palestine, we must wait and watch Palestinians die and hope the European media and politicians do what USA’s media etc refuse to do — point to the pogroms, describe the settler violence, describe the take-over of East Jerusalem, describe Israel’s removal of 30,000 Bedawi, generally “tell it like it is”. It was once asked, “How many divisions has the Pope?” and “How many divisions have the Palestinians?” and the answer in each case is NONE. (And USA has no divisions for this fight.)
My question is: would a government led by the dissidents be any better? The mirror question is: Could it be worse?
There will never be an Israeli leader fond of Palestinians, nor would it really help resolve the issue if there were, it would have the same effect as if some outsider, like the US, were to force a solution on the parties. My impression of Dagan is of an Israeli patriot who is also a realist and a man with a deal of intellectual acumen, a combination that has potential for statesmanship. He has a touch of Ben-Gurion about him. It isn’t easy to explain what I mean by that but I did meet Ben-Gurion in his later life and we talked, not about Arabs because European enthusiasm for all things Israeli was only then beginning to fracture, we were talking about de Gaulle who had just sent him a copy of his latest book. He expressed genuine admiration for de Gaulle, which surprised me. He said that it had ever been de Gaulle’s responsibility to put the interests of France above all others, that he had always done that, and he admired him for it. That was a man who could play hard but still respect an opponent.
The present Israeli leaders veil themselves with images of the holocaust and mythopeic promises to Moses, and one is as likely to succeed in moving them to reason as one could a Scientologist. The further problem is that the sincerity of their fantasies is questionable because the land is inexorably disappearing rather like the oysters while the Walrus and Carpenter talked of shoes and ships and so on.
Anyone looking beyond their nose sees that absent the intervention of a deity, Israel’s situation is heading out of control. Unfortunately, due to the phenomenal arsenal it has acquired, any collapse is likely to be attended by unacceptable collateral damage. Israel badly needs new leadership and this may be why these voices are being heard. One should try to avoid bringing up a lot of murk from Dagan’s past, everyone worth his salt has some; St Augustine had been an enthusiastic sinner (Lord, make me chaste but not yet) and many a poacher has turned gamekeeper.
Cool post and references, Nick.
I would go as far as to say that because “There will never be an Israeli leader fond of Palestinians” (fondness of the other is the very antithesis of zionism), well heck not even a “new leadership” is gonna be capable of saving israel and zionism from the toilet of history.
They came from europe originally not to ingratiate and embrace but to dominate the region. This is the fundamental problem with zionism: it don’t want to hold hands with nobody!
Despite the PR spin, the euro zioz have actually for sixty four years failed at integrating themselves as (alleged) semites into a MAJORITY semitic region. Also they’ve been drunk on DELUSIONS OF GRANDEUR for sixty four years – a psychosis, a state of mind that usually results in dramatic and severe consequences.
Today, looking at the picture as a larger whole, as far as I’m concerned, israel’s already toast, played out in murderous slo-mo.
“Also they’ve been drunk on DELUSIONS OF GRANDEUR for sixty four years – a psychosis, a state of mind that usually results in dramatic and severe consequences.”
The terchnical name for this very serious and possibly fatal condition is the “Ziocaine Syndrome” and like certain other syndromes, (Munchausen’s Syndrome, for instance) you can also get it, like our media does, by proxy.
NickJOCW: Intervention of a “deity”? Perhaps a “deus ex machina”? My favorite (not likely for early intervention, but more likely than the USA changing its spots or its stripes) is EU, doing a BDS action against Israel to force retreat on settlement, wall, siege. And getting that to happen is the best and highest outcome of civil-society BDS (which may have different but similar goals).
Intervention of a “deity”? Perhaps a “deus ex machina”?
pm: I liked the invention of “deity” (apart from the Walrus and Carpenter allusion, of course).
Lately, I encountered an interesting academic discourse that looks into the ways German post Holocaust theologians impersonate the voice of the almighty in their writings, combined with the dissolution of the concrete living being necessarily enmeshment in the Nazi regime to a larger or lesser degree in their autobiographies. The only Jewish victims that surface in these tales are what used to be called the “alibi Jews”, ones one knew or whom one helped, when I grew up.
But yes the vast majority of Germans considered themselves as victims, avoiding the victims among their ideological core enemies, the Nazis odd symbiosis “the Jew” and “the left” and the whole series of other outsiders. Is it an accident that both the left and the Jews to a certain degree challenged the churches supreme authority? An authority based on the fact that these mean claimed to speak in the name of God?
And to remain with the memes our favorite RW threw into the debate, ethnic threats always seem to surface in the guise of some kind of pan-fill_in_your_favorite_enemy apocalyptic scenario. Has anyone ever looked into these patterns? And what about religion’s inherent violent aspects? Both Protestant and Catholic church may have fought the Nazi takeover of the Church to a certain degree, but even the dissenters in this context were highly ambivalent against the persecution of the respective outsiders.
In RW’s opinion this is of course something that will never change. Thus the only thing one has to beware of, is to never get among the respective outsiders. Or alternatively, that they do not get too strong and make the wrong demands, like equal rights for all?
Phillip Giraldi’s newest out on Israeli espionage
link to cnionline.org
Paying Off Israel’s Military Bills
June 8, 2011
Presentation by Phil Giraldi at the Council for National Interest Press Briefing, “Questioning Military Aid to Israel”
“The Israeli government is actively engaged in military and industrial espionage in the United States.” That was the conclusion of a Pentagon administrative judge in 2006. One very good reason why Israel should not receive billions of dollars in military assistance annually is its espionage against the United States. Israel, a Socialist country where government and business work hand in hand, has obtained significant advantage by systematically stealing American technology with both military and civilian applications. US-developed technology is then reverse engineered and used by the Israelis to support their own exports with considerably reduced research and development costs, giving them a huge advantage against foreign competitors. Sometimes, when the technology is military in nature and winds up in the hands of a US adversary, the consequences can be serious. Israel has sold advanced weapons systems to China that incorporated technology developed by American companies—including the Python-3 air-to-air missile and the Delilah cruise missile. There is evidence that Tel Aviv has also stolen Patriot missile avionics to incorporate into its own Arrow system and that it used US technology obtained in its Lavi fighter development program—which was funded by the US taxpayer to the tune of $1.5 billion—to help the Bejing government develop their own J-10 fighter.
The reality of Israeli spying is indisputable. Israel always features prominently in the annual FBI report called “Foreign Economic Collection and Industrial Espionage.” The 2005 report, for example, states: Read More…
It was essentially a coup d’état by the Israeli defense establishment that forced Levi Eshkol in 1967 to form a coalition cabinet that notably included Moshe Dayan in a key post and to acquiesce in the military attack on the Arab states that followed.
So a coup d’état by the Israeli defense establishment in order to start a war was certainly possible.