“Hold Me Back,” Shouts Netanyahu
Israeli Tactics, Strategies and Indirect Attacks
New in the Website
“For how long can they go on like this?” I ask myself roughly once a week after reading yet another Hebrew media report on the imminent Iranian attack on the Zionists. A very popular topic in these propagandistic pieces is who in the Israeli administration favors what they call a preemptive attack on Tehran. A few days ago, I commented in Israeli Defense Ministry Acknowledges Defeat on such an article by Nahum Barnea, a very senior Hebrew journalist. He said that the IDF Head of Staff Beni Gantz, Mossad Director Tamir Pardo, Head of Aman (IDF Military Intelligence Corps) Aviv Cochabi and the Head of Shin Beth Yoram Cohen – in other words, Israel’s leading generals - oppose an attack on Iran, while Prime Minister Netanyahu and Minister of Defense Barak favor such an attack. This week wasn’t different. Yesterday, exactly a week after Barnea’s article, on Friday November 4, Yedihot Aharonot - the leading Hebrew newspaper – published an editorial by Ron Ben Yishai, an equally senior journalist. He said: “ Anyone following the intensive drills held by the Air Force in the Mediterranean and in distant regions, ranging from Romania to Sardinia, realizes that Netanyahu’s and Barak’s declarations that Israel will not tolerate nuclear arms in Iranian hands is backed up by practical capabilities developed by the Air Force and by our military industries. Based on the raging public discourse in recent days, we can estimate that a military option is available.”
Reading these articles and what Ben Yishai describes as “raging public discourse” it is difficult not to remember a similar situation in the months preceding the First Gulf War. Back then, the Hebrew media was full with editorials and citations by leading Hebrew leaders claiming that if the US won’t attack Iraq, then Israel will. They kept on hinting it would be better for the US to do the job by itself, because Israel won’t be able to control its reactions in such a war and may cause damage to American interests (an euphemism for oil). “Hold me back, or I’ll attack” Israeli Prime Minister Shamir was silently saying to President Bush.
Nowadays the projected attack on Iran advances through a three-headed hydra. In the US, the Republican candidate Rick Perry said yesterday, November 4, that as president he would support an Israeli air strike on Iran if there is proof Tehran is moving closer to having a nuclear weapon and that as president he would support an Israeli air strike on Iran if there is proof Tehran is moving closer to having a nuclear weapon. It seems he doesn’t understand that he may be forced to perform such an attack by himself, if Israel decides to Wag the Dog. Meanwhile, last Wednesday, the British Guardian said that “Britain's armed forces are stepping up their contingency plans for potential military action against Iran amid mounting concern over Tehran's nuclear program.” Moreover, British defense officials told there that the "the window (of opportunity) is closing and the UK needs to do some sensible forward planning" by the 2012 US presidential elections. Finally, French President Sarkozy joined the party yesterday by saying his country would not stand idly by “if Israel's existence were threatened.” The last is an unusual addition to the UK-US declarations. Formally, France and Israel had collaborated since the signature of the Protocol of Sèvres, which eventually gave Israel its Second Strike capabilities. Yet, the talk in Jerusalem points at a slightly different reality. France was a divided country during WWII. In exchange for Israel and the Jews not mentioning the collaboration between Parts of France with Nazi Germany, Israel demands loyalty from Paris. Israel blackmails and Sarkozy – as his predecessors – obeys. A three-headed hydra is performing Israel’s dirty conspiracies.
Let’s be realistic. Neither Nahum Barnea nor Ron Ben Yishai would have published their inflammatory articles - especially with comments on the detailed opinions of senior members of the Israeli Administration – without previous approval – maybe even a request to publish such a piece – from Netanyahu’s office. Netanyahu has positioned himself in his favorite stand: “Hold me back, or I’ll attack.” If it wasn’t due to his Alzheimer, Shamir would be applauding right now. The fact that next to these articles we find others supporting a Western attack on Iran supports this interpretation.
Benyamin “Bibi” Netanyahu and his brother Yonatan graduated Bahad 1 (Instruction Base 1 – the IDF Officers School) with the highest qualifications ever (at least until I left Israel in 2002). Yet, it isn’t a secret Bibi is not a hero. There is no need to hold him back because he won’t attack Iran. Israel is not strong enough for that. Again, an Israeli prime minister is trying to manipulate Western opinion to sanction another unjustifiable attack on innocents.
Iran is not Iraq. It is much larger, has a huge population and its administrative centers are mainly within a mountainous area. Moreover, Iranians have developed reliable and advanced military technologies. The American defeat in Vietnam will look as a picnic compared to what may happen in Iran. Once Iran would decide to act in self defense against Israel, the chances of the last would be bleak.
In terms of Negotiation Theory, Netanyahu is attempting what is known as a “red-tactic,” a violent move aimed at creating a win-lose situation. The worst thing that can happen to a red-player – as Netanyahu is – is to be disclosed as such. Mr. Netanyahu, do you know what? I won’t hold you back. I hope also the Western Hydra won’t hold you back. Let’s see you – big Entebbe hero – attacking Iran. Go ahead, we won’t stop you. Please, bring a fast end to your violent country and cruel people. We beg you.
My articles on the web are my main income these days; please recognize my efforts in writing them by donating or buying a copy of The Cross of Bethlehem, or Back in Bethlehem.