Iran-Israel-US: Goldberg Journalism "If You Build This War, It Will Come"

I have read the "analysis" that may well dominate US-based chatter today: Jeffrey Goldberg's lengthy projection of high-level Israeli opinion on a aerial attack on Iran.

Here's Goldberg's hook-line:

What is [most] likely...is that one day next spring, the Israeli national-security adviser, Uzi Arad, and the Israeli defense minister, Ehud Barak, will simultaneously telephone their counterparts at the White House and the Pentagon, to inform them that their prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has just ordered roughly one hundred F-15Es, F-16Is, F-16Cs, and other aircraft of the Israeli air force to fly east toward Iran --- possibly by crossing Saudi Arabia, possibly by threading the border between Syria and Turkey, and possibly by traveling directly through Iraq’s airspace, though it is crowded with American aircraft.

Let's call this for what it is. Jeffrey Goldberg is not functioning as an analyst here. He is not even carrying out the fundamental task of a reporter. He is serving as a spokesman for the Israeli Government in its attempt to put psychological pressure on Iran, to block any resumption of talks on uranium enrichment, and possibly to push Washington into acceptance of, if not support for, Israel's military action.

Goldberg's piece has no substance as a critique of the political, diplomatic, and military situation, for it is void of any information of --- as opposed to rhetoric about --- the state of Iran's nuclear programme and its international strategy. It is void of any information about Washington's perspective and approach, including the option --- very much "on the table", to use the cliche invoked for military action --- of discussions with Tehran.

"The Arabs" do appear for a couple of sentences, but only to have their perspectives simplified and twisted into support of an Israeli attack.



Goldberg's sole attention is to pass on and elevate the rhetoric of the Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and his advisors. (The author claims authority from 40+ interviews with Israelis inside and outside the government, but they are merely murmurs amidst the loud declarations of Netanyahu and equally loud projection by Goldberg.)

It may well be that Israel has decided on military action by next spring, but we don't know that and neither does Goldberg. All we really know --- and I hope, for the sake of some integrity, so does he --- is that the Israeli leadership want him to think that.

And they want him to write that --- in an "intellectual" US periodical, where the New York-Washington political corridor will pick this us as received wisdom, rather than a slick propaganda operation.

I don't write this note as a rejection of the military option. However, if a writer is going to advocate that option, it should be done so openly and honestly, not disguised as "reportage". It should be done so on the basis of information from a range of sources, locations, and perspectives, not as a conduit for the manoeuvres of one actor in the political drama.

If Goldberg's piece receives undeserved attention as a considered definition of the state of the Iran-Israel-US relationship, then I will post a detailed dissection of its artifices and distortions.

But not now. Because for me, if one is concerned with news and, indeed, issues of justice and humanity, there are matters far more important --- yes, more important than boys-and-toys posturing on aerial warfare --- to attend to today, tomorrow, and the day after that.

Gaza Latest (11 August): Barak v. the PM, Turkey's Response to Netanyahu, Israel's "No" to the UN and More

Barak v. Netanyahu: On Monday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met the Turkel Committee, investigating the bloodshed following the incident on 31 May. However, Netanyahu refused to give answers and suggested talking behind closed doors on several occasions. When he was asked who conducted talks with Turkish officials, whether there were alternatives to the military option or the situation could have been resolved with Cairo's assistance, and about the claims that Israel had broken international law, Netanyahu showed the committee the door.

The next day, Defense Minister Ehud Barak appeared in front of the committee. Barak's testimony not only contradicted Netanyahu but said he was taking full responsibility for Israel's deadly raid, pointing out "operational mistakes" if not "failures": "The decision making process at the political level was not the reason for the reality that emerged at the end of the operation."

Barak said that an intelligence assessment and a range of potential outcomes, including the possibility of 'extreme scenarios' were discussed in the inner Cabinet, known as the 'Forum of Seven'. In contrast, Netanyahu had said discussions before the raid focused largely on the likely impact on public relations and the chance of violent confrontation had been mentioned only in passing.

Haaretz reports that Barak --- unlike Netanyahu --- answered all the committee's questions, albeit with some political tactics of his own:

Barak bombarded the panel with names, dates and facts before launching an evasive maneuver in the form of a pompous oration on the dangers of global terror and a nuclear Iran, helpfully informing the committee that Israel was not North America, or indeed Western Europe.

Turkey's Response to Netanyahu: After Netanyahu said Turkey had ignored repeated warnings and appeals "at the highest level" to halt the flotilla, Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu responded on Tuesday:

No one else can take the blame for killing civilians in international waters. Israel has killed civilians, and should take the responsibility for having done so.Turkey has no responsibility in the attack on the flotilla.

Israel's "No" to the UN: The international probe led by former New Zealand Prime Minister Geoffrey Palmer might have caused a problem for Israel even if this “complementary” commission has no scope beyond "investigating" internal reports on the deadly incident on 31 May.

The problem lies in UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's answer when he had agreed to keep Israel's military forces off limits in the inquiry. He said that "there was no such agreement behind the scenes."

In response, Haaretz reports, from a government source, that Israel will not allow the UN to question Israeli soldiers. Though the commission has no right to issue sanctions but just can give suggestions, Israel's position is firm.

One can only speculate that an investigation finding an Israeli soldier's conduct "inaccurate" could lead to further political consequences in the international arena, especially when arrest warrants for former Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and some senior military officials have been discussed in Europe?

Pressure to Dismantle the UNHRC's Probe?: Since the UN Human Rights Committee started its work on Tuesday, it has been reported that "key international players" are trying to persuade the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva to dismantle the flotilla probe. The justification is simple: If the Council does not stop as another UN-sponsored probe is in progress, it reinforces the HRC's image as one-sided and arbitrary.

Any guess whom these "key international players" might be?

Lebanon-Israel Update: UN Support for West Jerusalem; Washington's Dilemma over Beirut

On Wednesday, a Lebanese source told the Lebanese newspaper An-Nahar that the Lebanese Army was first to open fire in Tuesday's clash with Israel Defense Forces. However, the source also stated that it was their right "to defend Lebanon's sovereignty", implying that Israeli soldiers were on the Lebanese side of the borderline.

Israel, in an official letter of complaint to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, asserted that IDF soldiers did not cross the border. An official with the United Nations peacekeeping force, UNIFIL, later said that the Israeli units were in their territory, and Milos Strugar, UNIFIL's senior political advisor, added that UN deals "with complaints on provocations of Lebanese soldiers against IDF units on a daily basis".

Meanwhile, the US Government finds itself caught between its ally Israel and the need to bolster Saad Hariri's "moderate" government and a Lebanese army which is to be distinguished from Hezbollah militants.

Middle East Inside Line: Israel’s Lebanon Message, Hezbollah’s Response, Livni Challenges Netanyahu

On Tuesday,Washinigton's "we don't want to see this happen again" response was criticised by West Jerusalem as "neutral". The next day, State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said that the firing by Lebanese armed forces on Israeli troops was "totally unjustified and unwarranted" while calling on both sides to show restraint and urging the United Nations to oversee a calming of the crisis:

We appreciate the work of the United Nations both in the meeting today and creating the cease-fire yesterday. We're going to be working intensively to see that tensions along this border are eased.

However, the Obama Administration might have some friction from Congress over military aid to Lebanon. For 2010, the US approved $100 million in assistance to the Lebanese military, as well as $109 million in economic aid and $20 million in anti-narcotics funds. The amount of aid for 2011 is approximately the same.

Talking to The Jerusalem Post, Florida Representative Ron Klei said "the continued support of the Lebanese Army" will "come up in conversations in the Congress". Klei added:

If in fact it’s factually shown that this was a Lebanese government authorized action, I think a lot of members would be very concerned about continuing to provide military support to Lebanon. I certainly would be.

However, even Klei admitted that hostility to Lebanon might be overtaken by the need to maintain a pro-American government in Beirut: 

It doesn’t mean there’s going to be a certain reduction, because unfortunately for that region it’s the lesser of two evils. We’d much rather work with the army than Hezbollah.

Middle East Inside Line: Israel's Lebanon Message, Hezbollah's Response, Livni Challenges Netanyahu

Israel's Message, Hezbollah's Response: In an official statement on Tuesday evening, Israeli Minister of Defense Ehud Barak said:

The IDF [Israel Defense Forces] will continue to act firmly and determinedly to protect the residents of Israel and the sovereign borders of Israel. Israel strives for peace and has proven this in 2000 when its forces withdrew to the international border. However, Israel will not tolerate in any way an attack on her soldiers or civilians within her sovereign territory.
In a televised speech on Tuesday night, Hizbullah chief Hassan Nasrallah described the Lebanese army as "heroic'"and continued:

This time we stood and watched...but next we will not.

Israel's aggression on Lebanon has never stopped. We will not stand idle...we will cut any hand that attack our army.

Gaza Latest: Why Israel Is Welcoming the UN Enquiry
MENA House: Rockets on Jordan and Israel; Lebanon-Israel Clash — UPDATES

Syrian President Bashar Assad told his Lebanese counterpart Michel Suleiman that Syria would stand behind Lebanon and provide any necessary support, the Syrian state news agency SANA reported. Assad said that the IDF fire "proves once again that Israel is constantly working to destabilize security in Lebanon and the region".

Israeli Opposition Furious over Netanyahu's Cooperation with UN: On Tuesday, Israel's opposition leader Tzipi Livni criticised the Netanyahu Government for accepting a UN inquiry into the raid on the Freedom Flotilla on 31 May. She said:, "The IDF has a chief of staff, not a secretary general. I am opposed to a UN inquiry that will involve the IDF, its soldiers and its commanders."

Tension on Turkish-Israeli Front: On July 25, Israel's Defense Minister Ehud Barak claimed that Turkey's newly appointed head of intelligence, Hakan Fidan, could leak secret information shared between the two countries.

Fidan was previously a foreign policy adviser to Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and served as Turkey's representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency. He was also present at the nuclear swap deal signed among Turkey, Brazil and Iran.

In response, Israel's envoy Gabby Levy was summoned in Ankara. "We expressed our discomfort and dissatisfaction with Barak's statement," a Turkish foreign ministry official, who declined to be named, told Reuters.

Hamas Praises Hezbollah: Following the friction between Israel and Lebanon which left at least three dead behind, Hamas praised Hezbollah in its confrontation to Israeli forces.

"We pay tribute to the Lebanese national army, which has the full right to counter the repeated Zionist violations of its land and sovereignty," the Hamas statement said.

Erdogan's Name Given to Hamas Leader's Grandson: The 47-year-old Ismail Haniyeh has 11 children and 15 grandchildren. The 15th one was named as Erdogan, in the sense of honouring Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

Israel-Palestine: A Secret Deal to Start Direct Talks?

On Friday, talking to Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon asked for an extension of the settlement freeze and its application in east Jerusalem. Barak responded with a statement that went far beyond the request:

We are hoping to to start direct negotiations with the Palestinians soon, in order to move forward with an agreement which will be based on two nations for two peoples. The negotiations will not be simple, and courageous decisions will be required on our part and the Palestinians. I hope everyone understands that both sides will need to make difficult decisions to establish historic peace in the region. We will need the help of the UN to go forward with the negotiations.

Middle East Inside Line: Rockets Hit Eilat, Iran Responds to “US War Plan”, US $ for Israel Missile Defence

On Saturday, Palestinian Authority chief negotiator Saeb Erekat denied reports in the Arab media  that the Obama aministration had threatened sanctions against the PA --- perhaps even the severing of ties --- if PA leader Mahmoud Abbas did not agree to enter direct talks with Israel. Then he talked about a peace proposal, even "more generous" than the one offered to former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. Erekat said:

I presented Senator George Mitchell with a series of official document. We gave him maps and papers that clearly state our positions on all the final-status issues: borders, Jerusalem, refugees, water and security. Thus far we have not received any answer from the Israeli side.

(Note: Erekat has stated that the PA offered Olmert a swap that would let Israel annex 1.9% of the West Bank in exchange for return to Palestine of Israeli settlements covering 1% of the territory.)

On Sunday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that he had not received any Palestinian peace programme but he announced that direct negotiations with the Palestinians will begin by the middle of August.

What does all this mean? How can the Israeli Prime Minister be so confident to announce the advent of direct talks while rejecting any proposal from the Palestinians? Has Netanyahu made a concession both on the status of East Jerusalem, including the Temple Mount, in response to a Palestinian concession on the percentage of West Bank land to be swapped?

Indeed, has Netanyahu given consent to gestures such as the transfer of some towns to the West Bank, transfer of some areas to the PA authority, the release of Palestinian prisoners, and the extension of the settlement freeze in the West Bank along with a freeze in East Jerusalem?