Tonight on “60 Minutes,” Bob Simon will air a piece on Iron Dome, the missile-interception technology Israel used so effectively last fall in its latest assault on Gaza. It certainly appears that the piece, “Israeli defense system changes game in Mideast,” will be Israel-centric, for instance by giving a platform to Ehud Barak, the man who oversaw the last assault on Gaza, which killed nearly 400 children.
Notice also that Hamas leader Ahmed Jabari is assassinated, per the CBS promotion below, in retaliation for rocket attacks; but in fact, Jabari was in the midst of negotiations with Israel, so who can say what Israel’s motive was.
I predict that Bob Simon will not report on the Israeli missiles that were not stopped from hitting Gaza apartment buildings during the conflict of last November. The “game” didn’t change for Palestinians.
This must make up for Simon’s earlier attack on the Israeli settlement program, “Time Running out for Two State Solution?” (that was four years ago; yes, time is always running out, but it never runs out in this game).
From the promotion at CBS (and thanks to Susie Kneedler):
A potentially game-changing missile defense system shot down 85 percent of the rockets fired at Israel from the Gaza Strip during a massive attack last November, says the Israeli Air Force. On Sunday’s 60 Minutes, Bob Simon reports on a system so sophisticated that its missiles can intercept rockets traveling 500 to 1,000 mph, some of which are only in the air for seven to 15 seconds. Simon’s story will be broadcast on Sunday, Feb. 17 at 7:00 p.m. ET/PT.
Last November, Israel assassinated the military leader of Hamas in retaliation for the periodic rocket attacks launched from the Gaza Strip by Hamas and other militant groups. As the Israeli Air Force and Navy attacked Hamas leaders and rocket stockpiles, Hamas fired over 1,500 rockets at Israeli towns and cities. The Israelis say more fire was directed at southern Israel during those eight days in November than in all of Israel’s wars combined….
nor will Bob likely report on how the izraeli kill mission in Gaza last November was instigated in the first place (at a time of calm with no rockets from Gaza) by….none other than….more of the same: izrael murdering innocent Palestinians.
Don’t forget Simon’s more recent report on Palestinian Christians.
In assassinating Ja’bari, Israel’s motive was to adhere to a long-term strategy.
Israel’s long-term strategy is devoid of permanent and just resolution to the conflict. As early as 1967, Israeli leaders made it publicly clear that they had no desire to keep Palestinians on the land.
So today, a look at the occupied West Bank shows that Israel is not interested in living next-door to Palestinians. It wants them out and off the land. Within that scope is the existence of organized and effective Palestinian leadership. Compare and contrast Israel’s treatment of Hamas and Fatah and you will soon notice that there is no difference in Israel’s view of the two.
That is to say that Palestinian leadership serves at the pleasure of Israel. And when that leadership does not abide by Israel’s demands, it is no longer of any use.
In the 1970s and 1980s, Israel went around and assassinated various leaders of Palestinian organizations. It did so in the knowledge that Yaser Arafat was pliable. For example, while Israel was negotiating with Arafat behind closed doors and via an intermediary — Uri Avnery — it sent a team of murderers to Tunis in 1988 to assassinate Khalid al-Wazir, known by his nom de guerre as Abu Jihad.
Israel claims that Abu Jihad had “blood on his hands”. But if he had “blood on his hands”, then so did Yaser Arafat. The difference was that Israel knew that controlling one Palestinian leader was far easier. It certainly did not want a Palestinian panel of military and strategic advisers who would give the Palestinian side any advantage. As an aside, that is the same reason why the U.S. and Britain, imperial powers that they are, prefer to empower and deal with dictators, not democracies.
The same has happened with Hamas.
For example, after Israel murdered Ja’bari, and after it murdered Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, suddenly Khaled Mish’al emerges and announces that he might lead Fatah. And then out of the blue, the Qatari Emir makes an historic visit to Gaza. What’s being cooked behind the scenes is a deal that would render the Palestinians, once again, impotent.
This tactic of anointing and empowering one Sheikh, one Mukhtar, one leader, has long been a colonial and imperial tactic.
Israel used this tactic successfully since 1948. It empowered a local figure as a leader and then commenced to ‘cut deals’ with that leader by granting him incentives and assuring him of his importance. In turn, that leader would turn around and sell Israel thousands of acres of land for a symbolic fee.
So what was the motive behind assassinating Ja’bari?
Think of it as a way of thinning out the proverbial herd. It’s quite likely that Ja’bari had no personal ambitions of becoming a prominent leader. So his Achilles Heel — whatever it may have been — was of no use for Israel.
Speaking with some Israeli military rep — I missed the name — Bob Simon has just said:
And the casualties [without Iron Dome] on either side would have been greater [during Pillar of Cloud].
Still, the Israeli responds in agreement, but with hesitation, knowing it’s a false claim: “Yes.”
Soon before the 2011 bombing of Gaza, one of the main Israeli point men for negotiations, named Baskin I think, reported to Israeli News that neither side wanted a fight. He was lamenting strongly not long afterwards that he was proven wrong by one of them with the assassination of his Gazan negotiating counterpart, al-Jabari and the conflict that followed.