A retired Israeli major general just published an extraordinary opinion piece endorsing the Iran nuclear deal — and if the Jerusalem correspondents for the New York Times and other mainstream media outlets do their job his article could profoundly change the terms of the debate.
Major General Yair Golan was the deputy chief of the general staff of the Israeli army when the Iran deal was first announced, and here’s what he wrote the other day in the Washington Post:
It may come as a surprise to some, but when former president Barack Obama unveiled the terms of the Iran nuclear deal in 2015, key leaders in the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) let out a long-held sigh of relief.
I know. I was there.
The New York Times Jerusalem bureau and other U.S. mainstream reporters in Israel should not have waited to even finish General Golan’s article before jumping into action, contacting their sources inside the Israeli military to ask about his assertions that the original deal was “well-designed” and that it would become a “vital. . . tool. . . in preventing the existential threat of a nuclear Iran.”
Golan went on:
. . . Obama’s Iran deal remains the only proven method for halting Iran’s nuclear capabilities, dismantling its facilities and reducing its stockpiles.
The U.S. reporters in Israel should already be looking more deeply into Golan’s charge that Benjamin Netanyahu disagreed with “the original opinion of most in the Israeli security establishment” and opposed the Obama agreement because he saw it “as a threat to his legitimacy.” Netanyahu, Golan explains, had “long sought to present himself to voters as an uncompromising security hardliner.” Netanyahu is surely even more desperate to maintain his hawkish image as he contests Israel’s fourth election in two years on March 23, with the added incentive that he could end up in prison if he loses.
And U.S. mainstream reporters should find out what Israel’s military insiders think of another of General Golan’s charges, that Donald Trump’s withdrawal from the Iran deal in 2018 “has not made Israel safer.”
Just for the record, during Major General Yair Golan’s active career he was not an obscure figure. Here’s Haaretz’s respected military correspondent, Amos Harel, explaining back in 2013 why Golan was “charismatic and a bit old-fashioned.” And Golan spoke out before, in 2016 while he was still on active duty, saying there were “revolting trends” in Israel that reminded him of Nazi Germany and Europe in the 1930s.
Good. So any day now, we can expect long articles in the New York Times, the Washington Post, and reports on CNN and the PBS News Hour, that look squarely at Major General Golan’s pro-Iran deal views.
Not only did Golan say there were
‘ “revolting trends” in Israel that reminded him of Nazi Germany and Europe in the 1930s. ‘
but according to the Israeli economist Shir Hever (sorry ,don’t have the book in front of me now) Golan said that the purpose of the Wall was not security but to prevent the mingling of Israeli and Palestinian populations – the security issues were solved with intelligence and the point was to prevent Israelis and Palestinians from becoming friends, marrying and so on.
The people of Israel have Netanyahu to blame for many, many things that have gone wrong in that country. He puts himself over the good of the country, and does what is politically beneficially to HIM, and how it looks for HIM.
If Obama had intentions of making a nuclear deal with Iran, to make sure Iran was monitored, and it agreed to many conditions imposed by the US and other nations, Israel our so called “ally” should have supported the US, like our real allies did. Instead Crooked Bibi behaved like the enemy sabotaging Obama’s effort, inviting himself to Congress to give an ugly mean speech, and did everything he could to prevent it. He also took advantage of a weak and mentally deranged man like Trump to go against US policies.
No one can blame Biden if he gives Bibi the cold shoulder treatment. He damn well deserves it.
Bibi is corrupt and a despicable man.
1 of 2
A reminder:
“…in May 2003, a conference of the member states’ foreign ministers [of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation] in Tehran ‘reaffirmed its support for and adoption of, the 2002 Beirut Arab Peace Initiative [** see below] for resolving the issue of Palestine and the Middle-East.’ Indeed, an information leaflet about the peace initiative posted on the Arab League’s official website shows the flags of all countries that endorse the proposal, including those of Libya, Syria — and Iran.” (“Why is Israel so afraid of the Arab Peace Initiative?, by Raphael Ahren, The Times of Israel, 18 June 2013.)
The Beirut Arab Summit Initiative was also “formally accepted by the [then] ‘supreme leader’ of Iran, Ayatollah Khamenei. [Furthermore, Sheikh] Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah has made it clear that Hezbollah would not disrupt such an agreement if it is accepted by Palestinians [and] Hamas has repeatedly indicated its willingness to negotiate in these terms.” (“On the US-Israeli Invasion of Lebanon” by Professor Noam Chomsky, Znet, August 23, 2006)
Notably, the Beirut Arab Summit Initiative was also adopted by the Organization of Islamic States which includes Iran. (Akiva Eldar, “What will happen if Israel ‘defeats’ Obama?” – Ha’aretz, 1 June 2009)
in 2015, Iran signed a long-term agreement regarding its nuclear programme with the U.S., Britain, France, China, Russia and Germany (the P5+1 group.) With the sole exception of the U.S. under Trump who withdrew from the agreement (doubtless at the request of his pay and puppet master, the late war mongering Zionist zealot, billionaire Sheldon Adelson), all of the signatories declared that Iran was adhering completely to the terms of the agreement.
**The Beirut Arab Summit Initiative (28 March 2002) was presented to Israel in April, 2002. Accepted wholeheartedly by the Palestinians, the Arab League proposals call for a formal peace treaty and normalization of relations, including full recognition of Israel as a sovereign state, exchange of ambassadors, trade agreements, tourism, cultural exchanges, etc., if Israel complies with mandatory international law, e.g., U.N. Security Resolution 242, the U.N. Charter and the Fourth Geneva Convention by withdrawing to the borders of 4 June 1967. Israel ignored the Beirut Arab Summit Initiative. (cont’d)
In Golan’s own words, from February:
https://www.timesofisrael.com/arguing-in-favor-of-iran-deal-2-ex-officers-refuse-to-fall-in-behind-netanyahu/
Why do none of the former IDF brass in the political arena or other politicians publicly contradict Netanyahu on the Iran deal?
Golan: I find it sad. There are enough people who know the intel. The current official policy, according to which returning to the nuclear agreement endangers Israel, is a deception toward the Israeli public. When making an agreement with the enemy, some compromise must be reached. Obama did that and reached a not-so-bad deal. The JCPOA is not perfect, because there is no perfect deal.
2 of 2
BTW, fully aware of Israel’s demographic concerns, the Beirut Arab Summit Initiative did not call for the return of all Palestinian refugees of the 1948 conflict to their homes in Israel. Instead, in accordance with policy first enunciated by President Arafat prior to and during Camp David 2000, Article II of Paragraph 2 “calls upon Israel to affirm” that it agrees to pursue the “[a]chievement of a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem to be agreed upon in accordance with UN General Assembly Resolution 194.”